1) You shouldn’t do X
2) My personal opinion is you shouldn’t do X

For X a value judgement, it should be obvious that 1) and 2) are the same ****ing thing, obviously if you say 1) you are sharing your opinion about the value judgement and not some definitive fact about the nature of the universe. Indeed, YOU rarely add pointless “my personal opinion” clarifiers every single time you state your opinion and you don’t need to because it is completely obvious when you state an opinion it is your as you are the one stating it! You have made up some purely imaginary fake argument to try and split hairs with.

No , sorry dude. No more impact here than it would in the BFI with them saying same.

You look at a meme like this




And assume there must be truth to it if one side is pointing a finger.

You do not consider if both sides pointing the same finger could speak to the middle being the reasonable ground as you, just at those in the BFI do, say 'NO BUT WE ACTUALLY RIGHT', as all you do is hide in your insular 'sides' bubble taking comfort on your 'rightness' when confirmed by those in that same bubble.

The only thing I am not sure of when it comes to you is if "you do without even realizing it because you get so caught up in your side of an arguments"?

I invite you read the article above again which discusses this dynamic and do so with an open mind and see if you can see any way these forums diverge from the elements laid out pretty clearly there.

False.

QP - I like comedies more than RomCom's when is comes to my movie choice
uke - you are just wrong and it is proven RomCom's are better

On and on and on we go, as QP then argues 'no, in fact I am not wrong' and uke argues QP is.

After pages uke reflects realizing he was wrong and says 'I was never saying you were wrong... I was saying I disagree with your opinion'.


uke if i say 'I like comedies best', and you say back 'I disagree and IMO romcom's are best' you and I will never fight over that. At least I will not. I could CARE LESS if you say 'you think romcoms are best' . You have every right and it is not telling me I am wrong for my choice.

That is NOT what you do. You always start from judgement, telling me I am wrong on a matter of opinion and that is when we always go 10 pages..

Again you always later, upon reflection realize what you did and try to soften and change it (and that is good and I appreciate it as it is as close to an apology as i know you will ever offer) but that is not where you start out. EVER.

I think it's really neato that here a P&S we have a BFI thread. Whose on board with starting a P&S thread in the Travel Forum? Perhaps can begin by discussing safety-tips.

Lol. No, buddy, people - including you - don't need to excessively pepper their conversation with "in my personal opinion" on every sentence when giving a value judgement. Anyone with a brain knows if I tell you that your behaviour is creepy af I'm telling you that my opinion is that your behaviour is creepy af not stating a property of the universe. Be mad if you must that your disgusting behaviour was called out, but getting mad that I didn't add "IMO IMO IMO" when calling you out is a hilariously stupid hill to die on.

No you just constantly tell me I am 'wrong' full stop. You do so on items of opinion where 'wrong' is not appropriate and I push back telling 'I cannot be wrong' because it is a matter of opinion, and you NEVER say 'dude its just my opinion' because that would end it there and then, and instead you double and triple down on the 'wrong' and escalate it with rhetoric.

In our next major dispute over opinion, I will point out you doing it. See if you can change your tact in the heat of the moment when you are so intent in asserting your opinion as the 'One True Opinion' or if like in all instances it is only days after the fact you can concede my point while pretending you did not.

Anyway, regardless I am happy you now concede my view of approach someone and chatting in the street is not wrong and the only difference between us is you think there are dozens of places to do the same thing I do, but just not there. We can agree to disagree, just as I might disagree with some of your dozens of other places. That is how things work as we can all agree or disagree on a variety of places and thus it would be silly to insult someone over such a disagreement.

Right, you saw that when O.A.F.k. named an elevator as a fine and appropriate place to say 'hi', that if you are going to insist that a public street is wrong for 'reasons' such as making the person feel uncomfortable, compromised, etc, then the Elevator chat poses that risk and more as the person is confined in a space with you. So best to not get too critical even if you believe the street is wrong but the elevator is ok. Best not to assert your opinion as infallible and correct and to insult those who hold a differing view as that is arrogant and foolish.


You uke, pretend today you 'stand behind your opinion' but you won't dare offer any of the dozen or so 'appropriate places' you say exist for such an approach. The reason being as you don't want to make the mistake O.A.F.K did as you can see how easily someone with a different opinion can criticize pretty much any place as inappropriate easily if they want.


And that is ultimately where you fail uke. As you know you are wrong and everyone can see it thus why you will NEVER say the more appropriate places. But you will still assert you are correct and do so with insulting the other person for simply holding what you now are trying to say is a just a contrary opinion and nothing more.

A person with any humility, is not going to be so convinced his Elevator (or any of any of a dozen others places) is so correct and the 'street' is not such that they begin the insulting the person for the diverging opinions. A person not suffering from hubris would instead just agree to disagree and that would be all.

If you're referring to how I've characterized your posting, no, as I've told you several times I don't need to assume there must be truth to it; I know there is because you've done this to me (mischaracterizing points) many times, and I've seen you do it to others. But no worries, since me telling you this many times before didn't change anything, I wasn't really expecting it would this time. I'm ever the optimist, but I also try not to be unrealistic.

Bobo, I thought you were just portraying a modern day Don Quixote.

I've likewise been misrepresented many times by our good friend Cuepee. But then, who hasn't? It's not a particularly exclusive club.

Well, I certainly can't argue against the idea that I'm prone to tilting at windmills at times.

I never once in anyway argued that the street was wrong for saying "Hi." This is exactly what Bobbo is talking about


This is however is again another massive galactic scale goal post shift bye you.

Lets not forget that you attempted to justify this video which is about more than simple acknowledging with a hi.




With these EXACT words:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...&postcount=316



The amount of times you backtracked on that position is basically infinite as you abandoned it completely. As you went on to keep qualifying assumptions that a man must indeed make.

Which is all our debate was about, me trying to get you to realise that claiming a man should not assume anything, but always be respectful etc etc etc (there are lots of etc about location and time) is off course a contradictory position as being respectful implies an assumption on behalf of the women.

So to be here lecturing people about moving their positions is again pure QP gonna QP by which I mean chronic lack of self awareness and hypocrisy.

Also there is no analogue between the behaviour in that video and simply acknowledging the presence of someone with a headnod and a simple one word "hi" when entering a lift.

So even on the simplest level your whole ahah but you said a lift hi was ok is a complete and utter swing and miss.

Yeah TS iin the BFI used to same thing as you. He saw me doing it to him personally. He was CONVINCED he was right too. Every individual is just so convinced they are on the side of right because of their view of their personal experience.

Got it.

Yes but you are gaslighting here and lying. Oh no, QP is using the actual words of what is being done.

That is EXACTLY what the entirety of the debate was about.

You jumped into THAT arguement I was having with uke and then when you found you had no ground to stand on you dishonestly tried to pretend the argument was about something else. A claim you are doing dishonestly below but which I will split out in its own post.


This is also a lie. Again.

The goal posts were uke engaging me and telling me i was WRONG (factually wrong) for my opinion that offering a salutation or compliment to someone in the street.

You, desperately, in an attempt to goal post shift tried to misrepresent my position (split out to next post) and then got mad when I would not allow it.

LIE.


I have never seen this video. Not in the other thread did I watch, or now. My comment had NOTHING to do with this video. My comments you quoted were in reference to the other commercial.

So O.A.F.K. lets have an honest discussion on these words, as I will admit they became a flash point for you, and what I call the beginning of your gaslighting and the attempt to goal post shift my position.


Here is what I said "Again, it is not the guys job to assume anything on behalf of a women."

You took umbrage with this position of mine as if you had caught me saying something wrong and that you had proof, as you said "I do assume OTHER things so saying 'anything' there was your trap and how you caught me.

But here is the EXACT context of what I said for others to see how dishonest you were being.


My comment was specific to a person approaching another in the street and offering a salutation (which I think is fine and uke does not ) or a person doing same as they enter an elevator and offer a salutation which O.A.F.K. thinks is fine.


What i said in the quote above is that the person offering the salutation has no means (it is impossible) to know if the other person is 'open to' or 'wants' to be engaged with a 'Hello' and that is not the requirement for them to try to figure it out. " it is not the guys job to assume anything on behalf of (another)" and as such all that person can do is act upon their own desire to offer the salutation or not.

Not only is that a reasonable position, it is the only position to hold in that situation. There is no way to ask without asking if the person wants to be engaged so only YOU can make the call to do it or not but either way you are making a call and ASSUMING.

O.A.F.K took umbrage and cited "see you make assumptions elsewhere in life, so you saying 'it is not your just to assume anything' makes you wrong... admit you were wrong.


That si the ENTIRETY of how he tried to refocus (shift goal posts) in his argument with me to grab a win where he had otherwise lost.

And he is WRONG. My statement is and was accurate. " it is not the guys job to assume anything on behalf of woman" IN THAT INSTANCE, which was the context.

He can say all he wants you assume in other situations and it does not change the above one iota which is why I was right and he was lying.


There is no person on this forum who can argue these words in the context I used them are wrong "Again, it is not the guys job to assume anything on behalf of a women.".

When you enter an elevator or pass someone on the street IT IS NOT YOUR JOB TO ASSUME ANYTYHING ON BEHALF OF THE WOMAN, with regards to how she will receive a 'Hello', and that is just fact.

This is an amazing statement.

This is easily the most mental CP take ever. Of course you have to make certain assumptions when you interact with people. That’s how humans communicate. If someone very clearly doesn’t want to be bothered, you don’t bother them.

Post 316 in that thread, you directly quote the video and make the no assumptions comment.

Here:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...&postcount=316

So stfu with the lies comment, you sound like a crazy person who cant remember their own posts.

If you are going to quote a video and make statements, of course people are going to link those statements to the video.

Your claim that it was to some other video (not quoted) seems like total and utter BS absolutely proven by the link above.

As I said epic pot meet kettle.

Its nothing to do with assumptions in unrelated areas of life.

I am talking about assumptions you make absolutely specific to this example and context.

Being respectful = assumption.

Making sure its a secure space = assumption.

etc etc etc.

You dont understand the concept of assumption is the core problem, as you continuously state all the assumptions you will make in your approach to a women seemingly unaware you are stating assumptions.

Bolded contradicts underlined, that is the argument and is all I ever argued.

Its not even an argument, its me pointing out a truism.

I think an elavator is a really wierd place to say hi to people. I might consider using one while not wearing any pants which maybe a bit odd but at least wont bother anybody.

I would never say actually say Hi in an elevator because Im not American.

"Alright" headnod look away.

Maybe not how its done in the big cities but round here it would be considered rude not to.

Alright is not a direct question, someone just had to tiny head move back and we are golden.

That is my closest analogue to hi.

Can someone explain the difference between “woman” and “women” to CP? He got it correct 1 out of 4 times in that last post.

And yet you are WRONG and you would never bet on it because you know you are wrong. I would bet on it as I know I am right.


You cannot strip the context of my post.

No one reasonable here would agree that this statement is, in any way wrong ...

"...Again, it is not the guys job to assume anything on behalf of a women...."

given the context which was 'on approaching a person on the street or an elevator and as you contemplate whether to say hello or not'.


Nothing you say in what you imagine are gotcha's about other assumptions made change the above or make i wrong. You are simply saying 'those things over there are truisms ergo you are wrong' and that is not true or accurate.


It is absolutely factually true' when offering that salutation (Hi) when entering the elevator you have NO CAPACITY to know how it will be received', THEREFORE when you are contemplating offering it ', it is not your "responsibly to assume on the other persons behalf', and you can only act on your desire to do so or not.

Nothing you say in your gotcha invalidates that.

I want anyone who reads this exchange to understand this is the entirety of what O.A.F.K feels he got me on in the other thread as my grievous wrong.

This position by me he thinks is wrong because of his above points...

It is absolutely factually true' when offering that salutation (Hi) when entering the elevator you have NO CAPACITY to know how it will be received', THEREFORE when you are contemplating offering it ', it is not your "responsibly to assume on the other persons behalf', and you can only act on your desire to do say it or not.

Except this is you doing exactly the goal post shifting and finessing of your argument until the original argument is lost.

You did not specify any range of communication in that post, the whole reduction to "hi" came later, also approaching someone on the street is not the same context as an elevator, where being in the same space is mandatory.

So we can see you in the process of a goal post shift right here with your false equivalence.

An unsolicited approach on the street is a completely different social context to entering a lift.

Also are you going to completely evade your whole I never saw that video claims, caught with your pants right down so no wonder you dont want to talk about it.