And this was the core of my dispute with uke and O.A.F.K.

My position is 'everyone is different thus we will all have differing views of where is appropriate or not and that is ok'.

uke (and O.A.F.K. until his shift) addressed my position as WRONG, and yet uke said there are numerous of OTHER PLACES that are fine to offer a salutation and O.A.F.K. offered the Elevator was a fine place.

It is ok that you disagree O.A.F.K re the elevator or uke in his 'other' places. But it would be wrong for you to tell them they are wrong based on your view.


That is why we have these types of fights on this forum as others cannot accept anyone has a differing opinion. uke and O.A.F.K cannot just say 'you do you, but we disagree' and instead start with an attack which then leads here.

Let me ask you this.

Read my last post and tell me if you think the sentiment is wrong or even if you think I used the english language wrong, in what I said given the context?


I absolutely stand by it as a totally appropriate view point to hold and am convinced I am not missing anything, so I would be curious if you think I am?

If there are any really crap gotcha's of course they are coming from QP.

Lets discuss issues around unsolicited approaches on the street. ( Which for the record I never universally claimed were wrong).

Haha you said HI in an elevator is ok.

Just so weak sauce.

It was a joke

More seriously, I'm not making any assumptions. If some woman is hoping for me start chatting her up in the street then I'm afaid that's tough and she will just have to live without it.

You are just lying once again.

I did not have to specify as the discussion flowed naturally.

The entire dispute that exploded with uke that you jumped in on was over my position that it is fine for a man to offer a passing salutation or compliment to a woman or man they are passing on the street.

When uke told me I was wrong and that is not an appropriate place, while saying he knew of numerous other places the verbal war was on as I would not accept I was wrong.


That is and was the dispute. YOu then offered the 'elevator' as another acceptable place, in jumping into an argument where I was being told I was wrong for my chosen place.



That is it. That was the argument. If not for THAT contention, there would have been no argument. You want to pretend that was not it and pretend your goal post shift was the source and contention and it was not.

Dude you have the barefaced cheek to accuse someone of goalposting shifting lying etc whilst claiming to have never seen a video you clearly quoted.

All the things you accuse others off exposed clear as day smoking gun

here:

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

Sure. But point still stands that is ok for some people to have differing views.

I ride elevators every day and there are people who always say hello and people who never do.

Anyone telling any of them they are WRONG based on their opinion, is just wrong. Each can decide for themselves whether to engage or not.

And no matter how much O.A.F.K. will rail against it the people who decide to say 'hello' do not have any obligation to try and discern FIRST if the other person wants the hello. It is their job nor their responsibility to do so.

It is impossible for them to do so. No amount of O.A.F.K like 'but...but... they assume others things and so...' has any meaning here. Yes they assume other things but they cannot assume for the other person they want or do not want to be engaged. His 'truism' has no impact on my statement.

Just so we are clear the elvator reduction goal post shift happens in post 531 in that thread, its closed on post 537, 6 posts later.

However your argument is still wrong when presented in this completely different context.

Because of course I am going to make assumptions, if a person is crying or any number of other behaviours its going to affect my assumptions about communicating with them and of course I have a responsibility to make that assumption.

Just saying Hi is predicated on numerous assumptions about how I say hi, I dont shout it at the top of my voice etc.

Again,

read the words only for that post and then read my retort.

If you can make the argument that my retort makes zero sense if I did not see the video you MIGHT have a point. But my retort makes perfect sense as reply to the words only.

I have no reason to lie about the video. The video is not some gotcha other than you made a mistake thinking I saw it and now will not let it go.

I am saying for fact, as the only that knows the facts, I replied to the words and have yet to see the video.

You continuing to say 'you know better than me and know i did' is just the nonsense we talked about in PM.


So the question is how long do we go back and forth on this one?

You can cut and paste "you did see the video. I know you did

And I will cut and paste "I never did and you certainly are not going to convince me I did as I actually no."

And we can do it a thousand times.

I know for you, you think you finally have found a way to shift the goal posts to try and get a win, but it is not. You are wrong. But, lets copy and paste if you need to.

Maybe dont call me a liar for assuming you had seen the video, when its a perfectly reasonable assumption.

I wont expect you to apologise.

FWIW though the post reads exactly like you are replying to the points raised in the video.

The goal post shift is pretending this involves 'crying'.

The discussion was EVERY DAY NORMAL COURSE passing by of individuals on the street or elevator where you have no information except for your desire or not to say hello.

So the 99.9999% of interactions and not the 0.0001% you are now trying to goal post shift too.

No the goal post shift comes from the opening statement from you that started the whole debate:

to

Hi in a lift.


Im not pretending it involves crying, if someone is crying I assume its not ok to say hi, if they are not crying I assume its ok. How are you not getting this, there is always assumption when one communicate with others in any qualified way unless one is being absolutely selfish and anti social.

Respect = assumption.

Do you clearly state being respectful yes or no?

Approaching a women unsolicited and trying to strike up conversation is the exact same context as hi in a lift.

QP ladies and gentlemen.

Says the guys who is literally calling me a liar when I tell him I was replying to the text and not the video... and that is perfectly acceptable if you read the text... but nope, he insists he knows I watched it and am lying.

Anyone who examines my posting history, can see i break up replies ALMOST ALWAYS when i am segmenting my reply to certain parts of the post. So if i was referring to that video specifically, it would be inconsistent with my past posting not to seperate by quote tags and reply to it specifically.

The point being 'they are all discretionary acts and no other person has a right to tell any other person that one is correct and the other is not'.

If you and uke would accept that as opposed to acting like you are the keeper of some known truth here we would have no issue.


In any sane world my position of 'saying hi' or 'offering a random compliment' would get at WORST, 'not something I would do, but you be you'. But on this forum you guys have to say 'Nope, I would not do it.... thus it must be WRONG'. And away we go.

I then am the unreasonable one as I won't just accept the 'others' opinions should dictate my actions.

Sigh.

I never argued that I would not do it so it must be wrong.

I must have told you this a million times.

The yes or no does not matter as it has no impact on the truth of this statement by me..

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


You can say guy = man agree or not as if I admit that truism it proves me wrong and it does not.

Time and again you keep trying to solicit those type of admissions in an attempt to get a win because you cannot just deal with what I said.



Do you agree or not, that in the normal course 99.9999% of interactions on the street or elevator where you consider saying 'hi' or not you will not know, nor is it your job to assume whether the person wants you to say hi or not and WHAT WE ALL DO, IS MAKE THAT CALL BASED ON OUR OWN DESIRE TO DO SO OR NOT?

Ironically, you do a lot of goal post shifting in this single sentence. I didn't say you were wrong, let alone "factually wrong". I said it was creepy. I don't even know what it would mean to be "factually wrong" about value judgement like this, clearly it is an opinion, something that shouldn't need to be explicitly stated for you to understand it is the opinion of the person you are talking to and not Oprah's opinion nor a fundamental fact of the universe. And you goal post shift by saying the objection was to nothing but a salutation, it was explicitly about commenting on the appearance of random strangers walking past you.

The singular is “woman.” “…on behalf of a woman,” for example.

Right, but that is exactly the argument you piled on to by uke until much later when you tried to goal post shift to your weird quoting of words and trying to get me to admit what they mean so you could then claim that instead as a win, because you realized, via my arguments that ike was wrong and you jumping on his arguments were also wrong.



Let me put it this way. If you were not arguing 'the appropriateness or not of my view that approaching in the street and that being wrong' then our entire discussion was one of us talking past one another and neither of us referencing the same starting point. A reason why I often try to get people I am engaged with to define exactly what they think the issue is we are discussing to ensure we are not. Something I did ask you to do and you refused.


I've told you exactly what I was arguing and quoted it many times in a single sentence.

So why don't you do the same. Spell out exactly what you think was my position was that you took issue with.

I cant know whether anyone will want me to say hi or not but I will like everyone who is at least making some attempt to be civil and polite and respectful make some assumptions before I make any attempt at communication, this is standard and if you read the thread, you are the only person who claims not to interact like this, though you do actually because when you say you are respectful etc you openly admit to making assumptions.

I was always most amused in his "BioWoman" phase that on top of everything else he had a less than 50% success rate at figuring out whether to conjugate it as plural or singular. I don't think he has any idea he is doing it. However, he does claim to be regularly gaslighting people on this forum, so maybe he is deliberately doing it wrong as a sort of weird level?

QP, if English is your second language, I’ll stop nitpicking, but it really is crazy words like “woman/women” trip you up.

What you do uke is make definitive statements, which is an assumption of fact. You make them as if you hold the 'one true opinion'. It IS disrespectful. And so on. Like i have to agree.

If you think saying hi on a elevator and numerous other places is fine but not on the street that is fine.

If I think saying it on the street but not the elevator that is fine.

We are both different people and can disagree.

YOu don't accept that and so instead you say 'it is disrespectful', since I don't agree I ay 'it is not' and we are now locked in our usual battle back and forth as you will not just accept we have differing views and while you are entitled to yours, I also am to mine. So that then leads you to equating mine to sexual assault and other absurdities.

There is nothing extreme or wrong with my view, even if you feel only the elevator or 'other locations' are fine to approach but the street is not. And yet this argument sustains as you simply cannot accept it. you MUST have 'others' accept your opinion as the only one. (enter Carlin Meme)

I never refused, I qualified it but you would not accept it because you are a helpless conflatoblober who cant stop conflatoblobing.

All I have ever argued is that it is a contradiction to say make no assumptions and then qualify that approaches must be respectful, because respect = assumption.

Again this is a truism, respect is based on assumption.