So I am unclear what your distinction is?


In 99.9999% of random approaches of people on the street or an elevator you might 'deem to say 'hi' to', I would argue there is no outward anything you can read to determine if a person is having a good day or bad day, wants you to say hello or does not.

I am saying in 99.9999% of the times you will have NO DATA to make that distinction.


I think you are saying in that 0.0001% of the time you may in fact see the person crying or distressed and in THAT instance you do (I do) make an assumption.


Is that your point and gotcha? That in some tiny percent of times we do have projected data to consider?

Or are you saying the 'absence of data in what I call the norm' is the assumption?

Because i can tell you I say hi every time, many times a day when I get on the elevator and I have ZERO clue as to how the person receives it. I make no assumption prior. If I saw them crying I would, but in the absence of projected information by them, I am making no assumption and ONLY acting on my desire to say 'hi'.

We are doing the same thing. I think your behaviour is disrespectful. You think it is not disrespectful. Neither is more a "definitive statement" or a claim about being "factually wrong" or an "assumption of fact" than the other. Basically you have concoted this entire nonsensical narrative that I - and only I, never you - must add "in my personal opinion" over and over when it is completely obvious that it is my personal opinion. You, like me, like everyone, make all kinds of statements of what we believe without being super explicit that this is our views and not the view of the Queen of England, as it is entirely unnecessary to do this when I can see right beside your post that it is you who made the post.

You are making things up. I never said you are not entitled to your view.
You are making things up. I - of course - did not equate your behaviour to sexual assault.

It is a truism that "Assumption" means to assume.

Does me saying that mean I just proved you wrong?

You keep acting as if you taking words out and saying they are 'truisms' and trying to get me to acknowledge that is right, then makes you right on context and it does not.

So can you stop saying simply you have identified some truism and instead make a point on context if you have one.


It can be true respect = assumption.


It can ALSO be true that there "A person approaching another who says hi, is doing so by making no assumptions with regards to whether or not the person wants you to say hi or not'.


I can walk down to my lobby, see my concierge right now 'and make no assumption as to whether or not they want me to say hello' I can say 'hello' in passing and not even glance their way at an look at them.

Those things are entirely true and factual.

And you saying but "respect" = "Assumption" has no meaning to my statement even if ALSO true.

QP: I think Sci Fiction is the best movie genre
uke : I think RomComs are the best movies and you are wrong QP
QP : I am not wrong as this is not a topic where someone can be wrong as it is opinion
uke : no you are wrong, wrong, wrong.

10 pages later -

uke : we are just doing the same thing and offering our opinions.


No uke we are not. When you tell me I am 'wrong', when i factually am not wrong and instead we just disagree that will cause problems.

Because you are focusing like a lazer on the binary of approach not approach.

Its more complex than that because of course the approach can be conducted in ways across the whole spectrum of human communication and interaction.

So there will be assumption in how we approach.

So if we look at the statement:


Is obviously false if we say we should be respectful, because this is a clear and obvious assumption on behalf of the women.

Its not hard.

Nice backpaddle.

You absolutely did try to associate my position of the appropriateness of me saying hello or complimenting someone with sexually assaulting a women by touching (slapping) her a$$ unwanted.

The reason you brought that into the conversation was to draw a line between my behaviour and choice (to say hi or compliment) to someone who just decided to slap a woman a$$.

I get that after the fact you understand how disgusting your argumentation tactics are and you try to disavow them and that is good. But that you do it in the first place is not good. Its disgusting.

If you state it should be done respectfully then it would involve an assumption.

If you want to remove the "respect" out of the interaction then of course, another refinement goal post shift as we are specifically discussing the presence of the claim of their not being any assumptions with the claim be respectful in all they do.

If you want to use example that remove the respect clause that is just removing all the conditions of the debate.

Given that Cuepee seems almost completely devoid of any capacity for self-reflection and/or self-correction, I'll think I'll leave that thankless task to someone else.

it is not hard. it is just a meaningless nitpick to try and establish a point where none exists.


Again, you seem to be trying to define the absence of information as an assumption.

That I don't see crying or anger or displeasure or the things I would assume that would stop me in 99.9999% of interactions and therefore I am acting on an assumptions always.


That is not true and not the point.

My point is and was "i cannot assume whether the woman wants me to say hello or not' and that in 99.9999% of interactions is accurate. I will not have any data that helps me discern that.

Her crying might be something I can use to determine I should NOT approach and say hi. But in the normal course the absence of information does not tell me 'she desires an approach or not'.

You are making a mistake in logic.



In the undeniable vast majority of times I simply will have no way to discern or any assumption to make specifically about the 'receptivity of my salutation by another'.

That is fact. That is the norm.

Im not talking about crying in that example in anyway.

FFS

Wrong,

This is exactly where i said you were gaslighting prior in the PM's.


It can be true that I assume things should be done respectful.

That DOES NOT mean I can assume the person wants the Hello even if done respectful.


It is only the latter we are arguing over despite your attempt to goal post shift.


The entire question here is 'can I know before I say hi, if the person wants me to say hi', and I have said that 'no, it is not even possible to discern that so the person saying hi has no responsibility to do so'.


And I am correct.

You comeback with 'ya but you assume you should be polite. That is an assumption' So gotcha. Which is not applicable. I assume I should always be polite. That does NOT mean I can assume whether or not a person wants me to approach.

Point if Information:

Cuepee has used the word "gaslighting" in 92 posts within the last twelve months.

You are wrong no matter how you cut it and thus why you would never bet on this and i would instantly. We could easily take this to a university chat forum and ask them to see whose logic is correct and let a poll decide.

My position - Person A approaching an elevator and seeing Person B on is says 'Hi' as they typically do when entering an already occupied elevator. Person A can only say 'hi' based on their desire to do so in those normal course situations, as they have no outward information from Person B as to whether or not they desire that 'hi' or not. So Person A can only act on their desire to say it, not by assuming if the other person wants to hear it or not'.


That is my position. It is not controversial nor wrong.

You can argue any version of 'you make other assumptions' or not and you will lose that bet.

The only way you can attempt to win is by trying to shift the goal posts on what we are arguing over which is what I encapsulate above.

Yes believe it or not, me simply saying I say 'hi' or will offer a random passing compliment because years ago, I decided not to hold back 'nice thoughts' when I realized people generally thought a lot of nice things about others in a day they bit their tongue on, rather then telling a person, go uke to compare my actions and choices to sexual assault.

It was at that same time where i made the conscious decision to do more random acts of kindness that I said to myself, given time I would never refuse to buy a homeless person food if asked and got known by Edmonton's homeless downtown hardcore guys on my route as that person who never turned them down and always walked with them to Subway, WokBox or TimHortons in-between my office and condo.


I know right, terrible person I am to make those life choices to be more complimenting and helpful. As uke would say i am basically sexaully assualting people.

Well again its just you goalpost shifting by refinement.

This is how you stated your position:

Ok so the first problem is your conflatoblobing, whereby you assume I was ever making arguments that were not in precise relation to this statement, that is not the case. Stop playing the victim card and dont assume just because someone is disagreeing with you they are "piling on". There was no gaslighting etc (qp gonna qp)

In this statement, the underlined contradicts the bolded, if we just look at this statement, that is a truism as respect is a clear assumption on behalf of the women.

Now you may want to argue that there were other givens not stated, in my read of that thread that is a false claim. As at that point we were talking about:

Which you have to admit is an utterly different context to hi in a lift.

However please note I do not say its wrong to do the above, just point what I think is a contradiction in your statement, its not something I move onto, its what I do at the top of our debate. Move on from that preconception.

I'm pretty sure he was commenting on your grammar, not content. I've suspected before (and even asked) that English was your second language give the numerous minor mistakes you make. Plus, it would maybe explain why you misinterpret people's meanings so often.

It’s not really a “minor mistake” to not know how plural nouns work. This is entry-level stuff here.

I How the f do you know this??

I think he wants to balance and switch it up with 'stuffing a strawman' which he used before. Cant eat peanut butter every day imo.

I like gas lighting better, i know what it means and don't know what stuffing a strawman means.

Yes the mind is a powerful thing.

Yes, believe it or not, individuals typically know what their own position is, much better than someone else interpreting it.

The alternative is that Cuepee knows better what we mean than we do. Or that people are being disingenuous and lying about what their position is. And apparently in Cuepeeworld, that happens A LOT.

* given

I can hear cuepee wildly smashing his keyboard.

Wait for it. he is charging now.

Ah, so "equate" has now turned into "associate". That was a lightening fast.....backpaddle. Sadly, your guesses aside, I also did not "associate" your behaviour with sexual assault either and your guess as to the reason was not correct. You were making very bad points, and I thought it would be helpful to compare to a behaviour we would both clearly condemn (slapping asses) to see whether your same very bad points would apply in this context. Ultimately you were not capable of following that argument, so the comparison proved unhelpful. Regardlessly, it is an embarassing misread to think that the comparison was me trying to either 'equate' or 'associate' (hardly the same thing) your behaviour with slapping asses. While you should do neither of them, the latter is clearly worse.

Next strawman?

Lol. Amazing. You have finally agreed with me! Indeed, it is completely obvious that normative behaviour claims are not a topic where someone can be "factually wrong". This isn't like you ****ing up the definition of a demand curve where you need 30 seconds to read the definition to realize you are factually wrong. This topic is a value judgement. I think your behaviour is disrespectful and you shouldn't do it. So nobody - including you! - is going to add unnecessary clarifiers of "in my opinion" on every single post because it is completely obvious this topic is one of different opinions and nobody is saying anything about being "factually wrong".

Basically you have purely imagined I'm claiming you are "factually wrong" and have been trying to burn down this strawman.

Next strawman?

1. Go to ADVANCE SEARCH

2. Enter username CUEPEE

3. Enter keyword "gaslighting"

4. Specify date range

5. Choose "show posts" option

6. Click SEARCH NOW