Despite the noise here is what is being discussed.

Person A, a male, sees Person B a female, he has a desire to compliment or approach to introduce themselves. Person B is in a very public place with no safety concerns and is not engaged in any type of private behavior.

Can or should Person A be allowed to make a decision as to whether to approach Person B based on Person A's judgement of the time and place?

OR

Should Person A have to consider a list of appropriate times and places and exclusions as apparently uke and OAFK can provide and for him to act outside of that is wrong even if Person B was very much desiring the contact?


The question being debated is, is this an area where we can assume so absolutely for the woman, that we can create hard and fast rules with no exception. The guys is always wrong if he acts.


I have asked for the hypothetical list of 'many appropriate places' and we won't get that for good reason.
I also point out my position is the only one that respects all women will be different on this topic and thus no men should be trying to impose a universal rule on their behalf.
It is simply impossible for the guy to know or assume her wants. So he she act on his wants, but do so respectfully with awareness of the surroundings and be responsive and respectful of her answer.


In 2+2 land that above by me is considered crazy wrong as there are people here who think that because their view and opinion makes sense to them, they then can assume all women feel the same and want it that way. They just simply cannot contemplate that their opinion is not the one true opinion for all (Carlin meme).

No logical fallacy. This is your inablity to follow an argument.


NO. This is an area of FACT.

An unsolicited advance can be either

A - desired
B - undesired

And as it is impossible for you to discern prior you cannot make a deremintaive assumption about it.

False.

It is not an assumption to understand you cannot know.

You WRONGLY seem to think I am jumping to a determination that she wants the advance and I am not. Rejection of it, is certainly an option.

False. Or better yet, meaningless nitpick.

We all control or not our ability to be respectful. If you are trying to nitpick that someone might not see it that way, that is not really again something we can control.

You can say to your wife, "I am going to engage with the neighbour over this complaint but in a respectful way' and that is fine for you to do and to say and to carry out.

It becomes a meaningless point of nitpick debate if your kid in the same room starts saying you have no power to determine that it is respectful.

What you are speaking to is the element YOU control.

Absolutely false bullshit.

Name the assumptions I make? List them?

You won't because I don't,

I don't presume up front she wants the approach. I don't assume upfront or after she likes it. I know for fact there are variance in women like there are all people and even in the same person an approach received well on a good day might be received poorly on another.

My position is that no person is ever in a position to guess between those factors and should not have to and is doing no wrong in not trying to.

Instead all they can do is act upon their own desire to approach, and do so respectfully.

What is your option?

Based on what you are saying here explain how it is EVER appropriate to approach anyone? Do they always have to signal first they want the approach and if so how can they do that without first knowing you want the approach?

You sit in critique while refusing to offering how this dynamic works in your world.

Because you are lying and bullshitting. Duh.

Its incredible how often Cupee has accused me of making normative arguments, when all I have done is point out how his argument is a poorly constructed one.

Woat arguments and woat integrity.

Quite the combination.

Love the unsolicited humble brag while pretending my goal was to give out unsolicited dating advice and not to address a fallacy that came up in the discussion.

Ok M8 you are great at picking up gals, Gotcha. Metoo. No problems in that area, if you know what i mean. And you know what i mean right, wink, nudge.

And ok to Jcorb, you cut me to the quick re the 'improve my game comment', maybe I'll reflect and look to improve.

Everyone can note this comes from the two guys pretending they just want a good focused discussion.

FLOL.

"pointing out" requires you be correct and honest and you have been neither.

Notice you refuse, as uke does, to once address the questions posed to you that would then demonstrate what your position is?

We all know why.

Oh I see, your "respectful" approach is completely insincere.

Its not based on the assumption a women will find a respectful approach less offensive than a disrespectful one, its not done with some assumption about how the women would wish to be approached.

My bad.

You admit to not pinching bottoms/wolf whistling etc.

You realise both things can be desired/undesired.

Predominantly the latter so we assume the latter.

So again you are modulating your behaviour to women based on assumptions because you cant know the womens mind, but at the same time berating others for doing the same.

Lol.

Its just you cupee.

Absolutely wild.

Since neither uke nor OAFK will ever offer an honest answer as they know it will lead them to agreeing with me let me simplify for anyone else who will attempt to answer.


The issue in this example : Person A, a man, sees Person B in a public and safe place. He wishes to approach and introduce himself or give a random kind compliment. What restrictions do you agree with as appropriate to put on Person A, in terms of that potential approach:


- he should never approach ever. It is wrong to assume your approach is desired and thus you should not do it
- he can approach but only in a select few locations the list of which I will provide below
- since he cannot read Person B's mind and they may or may not want the approach, him trying to guess is pointless. So instead he should feel free to act upon his desire to approach as long as he does so in a way that is respectful and responsive to whatever reply he gets
- other? Explain?


That is the entire debate at hand. uke seems to think it is fine for Person A to approach but only in a designated list of locations he says are appropriate but the catch is he won't share them, so he can reserve the right to criticize regardless. OAFK, is assuming to know Person B mind and always speaks as if the approach is an intrusion which we cannot or do not know and should not presume.

I maintain my position is the most respectful of women as it it the only one we are not assuming for ALL of them a monolith type position and speaking on their behalf. My position assumes all women are unique and therefore we cannot proceed on a universal assumption and demand Person 1 act according to it.

Dude I gave you a completely honest answer. You really are special.

Again its absolutely clear that you are using a ton of assumptions, which I have elucidated, whilst arguing that we cant use assumptions.

You have to be literally delusional and living in a fantasy world of some kind to get here.

Nothing I have said is even close to the quoted, not within a million miles of it.

The strawmanning is incredible.

it is that you feel the need to conflate an introduction "Hi I'm Bob' with a literal physical assault or wolf whistle which has historical context is the proof you have no arguments.

You are engaging in the worst attempts at whataboutism, as you can also suggest people don't just walk up and use racial slurs... herr durr so gotcha, as you are admitting some things can be undesired.


My point is NOT, AGAIN a proclamation that the introduction or compliment is desired or not. That is your strawman.

My position is that Person 1 has no capacity to KNOW if it is and it could either be desired or not.

I then say it is not my job nor yours to then try to dictate how he should act based on his desire since we do not know.

YOu keep coming back with 'what about physical assault', because you have nothing.

Yes, QP. You should use some common ****ing sense to gauge whether your advances might be unwelcome. And if you judge it wouldn’t be welcome, you don’t do it. I don’t know why this is so hard for you to get.


Damn, it’s too bad Person 1 isnt capable of understanding the basics of human interactions. The rest of us should rely on human judgement.

Lies.,

this binary absolutely assumes full and complete knowledge of the woman's position. Undeniable so.




Person A is not in a position to know the 'feelings/wants/needs' to either disregard or act to satisfy. That data is unknown to him and yet you position his action as already taken that in to account.

That is my position Trolly so thanks.

It is uke and OAFK who are putting up the absolutes that would preclude Person A using their discretion and common sense and picking their spots.

That is exactly the only thing I am arguing against.

So you got it right but are directing it at the wrong person.

No, this is completely false.

This binary absolute only shows that you are still making assumptions about the women even though you claim not to be.

You dont know her mind, no one does, yes we get that.

You still modulate your behaviour towards the women when making your approach based on numerous assumptions made clear by your own testimony and posting itt.

Also lol whataboutism, massive swing and miss, that rebuttal is a complete fallacy in this context.

You either make assumptions or you dont, that is the binary, and you very clearly do.

To argue against that is to call black white.

Literally no one is saying not to use common sense, you’re having another spastic meltdown.

And that is just another lie by you.

I do not assume to know her mind and say so each and every time.

My positions entire root is an inability to know her mind and to assume any position for her. That is fact.

What I quote you saying above is an absolute assumption by you that you know her mind. You create a clear binary.

You can continue to lie but you would never take a bet on it as you know you are wrong but this is forumland so you will never admit it. Not even on this singular point.

Again totally above your paygrade, because it is the entire argument.

If you had said, well I make X Y and Z assumptions (which you do) but personally decide its ok to talk to the women in X context, then the argument we have had over the last few pages would never have happened.

However once you falsely argue that you dont make assumptions and the womens mind is unknowable, then there is a problem.

This is because its this very perspective that opens the door to abusive behaviour towards women.

Yes the womens mind is unknowable, which is the exact reason you make assumptions.

WTF.

Every reply by you is a complete wiff response to anything I have actually argued. More Strawmen than crow farm.

I dont argue you assume to know her mind. LOOOOOOOOOOL Wat????????

Do you make the assumption she would prefer a respectful approach over a disrespectful one.

Yes you do.

End of this line of argumentation.

Cuppee makes assumptions by his own testimony which can be read several times ITT.

Factually false. Uke and CV specifically are speaking to absolutes. Person A has no ability in these spots to use their common sense or discretion. They are citing this as a rule.


What will happen though is what always happens. A pretense that 'oh we were never saying that' as a way to admit that my position was always the correct one but to say they never disagreed.


To be clear here is my position that was in dispute by others. Person A being a male and Person B being female.

- Person A having a desire to introduce themselves to Person B or complement them should always use their OWN discretion and common sense if in a safe public place.
- Person A should not be subject to any binary rules as to certain public places being appropriate and others not based on any 3rd party arbitrary rules and again can exercise their own discretion
- Person A should not be subject to any 3rd party assumption about what Person B desires or wants in this regard. Instead he should be responsive to feedback.
- No person should make assumptions for Person B, individually or as a group. It is inappropriate to take away their right to participate in that decision.


That is the entirety of my position and if people agree they could just say so and move on. Instead we see this strawmanning and attempts to recraft things so they can have things to dispute, even if they have to make them up.

What you won't see is someone like OAFK or uke just address my post above and say 'what they specifically disagree with and how they would see it engaged otherwise'.

You are a clown.

Its almost like our entire legal system in regards to what one person does to another is based on 3rd party rules, which if human made, are all ultimately arbitrary.

Not MY argument but yes is your strawman.

I am SPECIFIC with regards to what i say is unknowable. Specific and correct. ANd that is whether she wants to be approached or complimented or not.

it is a fact we cannot know that prior.

Your arguments trying to conflate the rest to try and cling to a point I was never arguing is just that. BS.

I challenge you to only quote what you call my consistency and contrast them directly. Quote me in one instance 'assuming we cannot know the woman's mind' and what you call the inconsistency which was your call to action.

Do not put any of your own words in. Just quote example one and two to contrast them.

So you admit to making assumptions now?

So you take back the whole rant about me being binary and now conceded that is in fact obviously correct, given it is indeed a truism.