Its perfectly fine to point out to you that things we can safely assume most women dont want had the same justification as the thing you are assuming women might want but if they dont its not your problem.

Its not spinning or whatever handwave bullshit you want to attempt, which sadly for you 99% of the people reading this thread can see right through.

Another strawman SHOCK.

Am i pretending people are perfect? Or they may not make mistakes?

Is that in any way inherent or part of my point?

No to all.

What you say here is absolutely irrelevant and not a counter to whom should be making those decisions. That it could cause conflict or problems is inherent to life. Not making decisions can also cause conflict and create problems in some instances.

And yet you won't contrast them a single time as proof.

All air no substance.

Everything you say or do is devoid of a lick of proof. Easy proof. Contrast my position A with my changed position B, if you can find it.

We know you won't. You know how we know??

Cuepee, do you think it is appropriate to catcall women on the streets?

If not, why not? The arguments you are making to OAFK are all really bad, and seem to apply just as well as catcall to whatever it is you term what you do to women on the streets.

LOL.

I want you to use your...

...now let me tell you why you are wrong.


uke, you don't want anyone to use their own discretion. That is the entirety of my position you have been arguing against.

My position is each guy and each will use their own discretion and common sense and engage or not based on that.

You step in and say you have a list of places it is appropriate and places it is not. You literally inferred you could give examples of places that it would be appropriate and that was not one.

I've been asking you to detail these acceptable places and you refuse to do so.

This is an obviously terrible argument. Do you think each guy should use their own discretion and common sense on whether to catcall or grab asses to women talking past them on the street too? Or do you think we should have societal norms that these behaviours are not acceptable?

Stop using we, its basically everyone with a brain v you.

Ok you got me, you can refuse to acknowledge the goal post shift, which will be absolutely apparent to everyone reading this post.

We can all see it Im afraid chum.

Cmon, you have to be honest enough to just admit it, where in your 4 line goal post shift do you make reference to the clauses you have been making about assumptions and knowing the mind of another.

Nowhere.

Are you really going to challenge me to produce quotes with you using those clauses.

GTFO, you would have to be lower than whale **** to do that.

Put aside the question of rebranding or not, them being my views or not, and just answer this. Do you agree with this in quotes below or not...

Lets see if you can bring yourself to agree with the above as even generic statements??

Cuepee, in our last exchange, you swore up and down that you were going to approach some random chick on your evening constitutional and that I could call Uke or the cops for all you cared and may as well sit there helpless in Ireland presumably seething with impotent rage or something while you prowled the streets of Newfie or New Brunswick or wherever you're from.
Anyway I was wondering, did you honour your fervent boast and if so, how did it go? Did she cook you brekkie the next post coitus morning? Or did she taze you or call the Mounties ay?
And was your approach condusive with *checks notes* a guy who pays attention and is responsive and respectful can easily advance things or end them as required?

Dude Ive expressed my opinion about them twice already.

WTF.

If you want to talk terrible arguments and get a serious answer you first answer me this or like Trolly I will just ignore this nonsense.


You, uke, are in a courtyard on campus and see someone you feel you should introduce yourself to (your reasons are your own. Maybe you think them a writer you've read (but the specific reason does not really matter) and you are thinking about walking over to do so.

Is that wrong?

What impact should you feel that certain people violate others by physically assaulting them by grabbing their ass or being verbally accosting them should play in you using your common sense discretion to politely approach?

If you truly want me to play all your whataboutism's then you answer that first.

Oh we are back to your homour again I see.

Remember notice please as you really are not good at this.

Yes you say stuff like this "... peoples discretion is so universally near perfect that we have never had to have a third party legal system to try and contain problems caused by bad decision making and discretion..." to avoid actually addressing any of the point.

Deliberately so as you cannot. And no you cannot.

That comment by you is pure through away garbage. It is in no way a reply to my post or what I asked you. You basically said 'yes but when you allow for free engagement between two people sometimes conflicts arise' as if that is a point or a reason to not allow for free engagement.

Sure, I'm happy to answer you questions. Make sure you don't evade and do respond to mine in your next post.

Sure, it is entirely appropriate to introduce yourself to someone like a writer you've read. I wouldn't walk up and start talking about how they look. That would be creepy af. But of course there are innumerable totally reasonable reasons why humans would like to talk to each other that aren't accosting someone totally random walking past you on the street and commenting on their looks. As it happens, on campus it is usually the reverse as thousands of students know me much better than I know them given the asymmetrical nature of large classes, so people come up to me all the time and introduce themselves. Thankfully, nobody comments about physical appearance in these interaction. That would be very creepy.

Well as I would never creepily blurt out comments about random people's appearance as they walk past me on the street, I'm less likely to take actions that trigger people's prior abuse such as the story I shared earlier about my wife.

Cuepee, how did you decide, when you decided that you wouldn't hold back from complimenting people, that this was better than not complimenting them or insulting them? What factored into that decision?

itt i learned that QP actually invented random acts of kindness.

I'm grunching this thread, and Sklansky is probably doing his infamous, homeless-man's-Socrates contrarian shtick, but I still feel confident enough to say ...

No. No, David, it is not appropriate to tell a woman that you like what you just read on her ass.

And btw, her shorts are not "expressing her viewpoint", lol, as if she's a car and her ass is a bumper sticker, it's almost always going to be the brand name of the clothing company. If you see a woman with "JUICY" written on her yoga pants, please understand that this is not an invitation to go ask her if she prefers apple, orange, or grape.

I was talking about situations where it is clear that it was a message she wanted read. It was mainly a Russel Paradox type joke. But I deleted it anyway since it seems that some people didn't realize that.

How often do you think this occurs?

"Approximately never" would be my guess.

I don't think anybody but you realized you were making a "Russel Paradox type joke". First of all, his name is Russell, with two "l"s, but also, that's not remotely related to anything anyone's discussing ITT (I went back and read through to make sure).

Nevermind though. We don't want to miss any of the gems that Cuepee might drop in this months-long addy binge.

I've seen such messages at least 20 times.

The recent posts mentioned wildly inappropriate comments that no one would normally say.

I'm quite sure people like uke would have realized that it was a sort of interesting possible exception.

No, that is not interesting.

How bout the question of whether it should be illegal for a cis man to marry their brother?

This feels like a poker concept. Imagine 2 situations.

Situation one: You approach a strange woman and say "what lovely weather this evening"
Situation two: You approach a strange women say "you have a nice ass"

All women are different, you don't know beforehand how either one is going to react. In situation one you may run into a woman who is scared or angry. In situation two you may run into someone who doesn't mind.

Even though we don't know the specific reaction, we can infer the range of reactions. In situation one that range will consist of a tiny percentage of bad reactions and a large percentage of neutral/good reactions. Situation two is going to have a tiny percentage of neutral/good reactions and a large percentage of bad reactions.

We generally see situation one as appropriate and situation two as inappropriate because of the differing levels of negative reactions in the respective ranges. We do this even if we don't know how any individual women will react.

As always the devil is in the details. Two people may estimate these ranges differently for the same approach. Two people also may have different comfort levels about high the negative range can be to still make the approach. Ie one person may view saying "you have lovely hair" as inappropriate. They think that a high enough percentage of women will be offended so they don't do it. Person two believes either that the percentage is either not that high or that offending 10% is fine if 90% are neutral/positive in their reaction.

just multiply the probabilities

It is. Because the correct decision need not be the one that is more likely to be right. And depending on the situation it may mean that you should engage a stranger even if there is a 60% chance they won't like it, or not engage even if there is a 60% chance they will like it, even if your overriding criteria is how THEY will feel. But most people here don't like thinking that way.