Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry


( 25 comments — Leave a comment )
Apr. 13th, 2012 01:26 am (UTC)
And yet people of all shapes and sizes still manage to get laid. It's a miracle!
May. 31st, 2012 04:30 am (UTC)
hahahah. excellent retort.
May. 31st, 2012 09:40 pm (UTC)
Because getting laid anyway is all that matters.
Jun. 1st, 2012 12:22 am (UTC)
The information you chose to post specifically relates to sexuality and attraction.

Jun. 1st, 2012 12:39 am (UTC)
Yes. And the riposte remains irrelevant.
Jun. 1st, 2012 01:00 am (UTC)
Then the woman's remark was accurate and we're all good. Senses of humor in tact and wot.
Jun. 1st, 2012 01:51 am (UTC)
You'd have fit in well around here in '07. Perhaps you did. No form, but lots of stubbornness.
Jun. 1st, 2012 01:55 am (UTC)
Ohhh, a personal attack. Original.

Is this the part where one gets offended?

Calm yourself. We've interacted before and recently, just not in this comm. I simply thought a remark was wry to the post and you already proved that everything was relevant. There's no need to get huffy.

Jun. 1st, 2012 02:05 am (UTC)
Thank you for the confirmatory post.

Or, in your language: Ooh, someone acting like it was a serious discussion. (Standard LJ tactic: act the part of an ass, then reverse and act as though it were a serious and sober conversation.)
Jun. 1st, 2012 02:16 am (UTC)
I know that somehow, in your universe, that this is actually a conversation, and while I would love to keep bantering on behalf of tatjna (who was never directly addressed), or at the threat of being further perceived as being "stubborn" or an "ass"...I have this pesky thing called a life.

And so, I will have to bid you good day -- person who keeps accusing people and getting upset about exactly what they, themselves, are doing.

Jun. 1st, 2012 02:18 am (UTC)
You bring to mind the clunky pomposity of the liberal bumper-sticker that begins "It'll be a great day..."
Jun. 29th, 2012 08:55 am (UTC)
Oddly enough, my lj note for you includes the word 'pompous'.

And yes, it was a dissenting opinion. I disagree that this study strikes any kind of blow for evo psych theory against feminism because evo psych is only set up against feminism by people who would use it in simplistic ways to reinforce constructed stereotypes that disadvantage women. Witness you posting it here as if it proves anything about feminism.

Note the lack of studies into what blind women find attractive. Why is that, I wonder? Why do we only care what men fancy? Note also the continuing ability of people with a variety of body shapes to reproduce successfully. Note the different body shapes that have been seen as attractive in different times and different cultures. I can't buy this stuff as either unbiased or realistic and it certainly can't be used to draw any conclusions about what is 'natural' to find attractive. Touting it as some kind of blow against feminism is just the sort of puffed-up crap I'd expect from you though.

Now please, show me how pompous you're not with your masterful schooling of the uppity feminist. Put me back in my natural place, go on.

Jun. 29th, 2012 08:58 am (UTC)
Ooh, lj notes! Including an adjective, even. That's definitive.

"Dissenting opinion" nothing. It was snark, and treated as such.

Typical of your breed, who phase in and out of serious discussion at will. If you want to express an opinion, express an opinion and argue for it - without attitude.
Jun. 29th, 2012 09:07 am (UTC)
I just did, as I did in the first comment - it is not my problem if you choose to be too dense to see it. I've repeated myself for your benefit because you argued elsewhere that my original comment wasn't dissenting, which is a misrepresentation. Ball's in your court, sunshine. And if you don't want attitude, I'd suggest you don't attempt to attribute qualities to me based on my 'breed'.
Jun. 29th, 2012 09:32 am (UTC)
Lead off with snark, and as a snarker shall ye be treated. No instant reformations or conversions along the way.

( Also, memory is not magically erased. You've done it before. You're not here to opine or reason. )
Jun. 29th, 2012 09:38 am (UTC)
No, you're right. Mostly I'm here to point and laugh at you, because mostly the things you say are laughable.

However, my opinion is dissenting, mostly because I disagree with almost everything you say. And I have historically opined and reasoned and discovered that your responses, as this one has been, are exactly as you are described in my note - pompous. Frankly, it puts me off wanting to engage more deeply.

It's also noteworthy that I've had discussions with evo-psych fans many times and it gets old refuting the same old assumptions over and over again. So here. A summary of why I'd rather snap off a one-line snark that amuses people than engage you seriously. Make sure you read the comments, you might learn something.
Jun. 29th, 2012 09:40 am (UTC)
You ... think I'm interested in your opinions? Or want you to engage more?

I consider you a clown. Now, bumble off and go talk to the Stupids.
Jun. 29th, 2012 09:43 am (UTC)
Hahaha funnily enough, I was just coming to realise that you don't actually have an argument of your own.

But please, continue to pretend you're above it all if it makes you feel more superior. I'm off to bed. 'Night!

Jun. 29th, 2012 09:45 am (UTC)
You're stuck in a robotic mode.

Listen carefully to a simple explanation: you're not a serious reasoner, at least here. (You might be lovely offline, but here you are an ass.) Therefore, you don't receive serious argument. This is what I'm talking about re. conversions: you can't start out as a snark, and then profess to suddenly want to reason, then flip back into snarking.

Interesting psychological confession about the superiority.

Sleep well. : )
Jun. 29th, 2012 07:40 pm (UTC)
I did sleep well, thank you.

Now, let me keep this simple. I don't care if you can't/won't debate the point with me, that's not why I returned to this thread. I returned because I don't like it when fuckwits like you misrepresent me in other forums. I returned for the benefit of those who might follow that link here, to do two things:

1. Make it clear that my snark was, in fact, expressing a dissenting opinion.

2. Create a thread in which you demonstrate just how pissy you are about it.

Achievement, as they say, unlocked.

Now, I'm done. Congratulations, you get the last word. Please, spend more of your time explaining to me why I'm not worth your time.
Jun. 29th, 2012 08:58 pm (UTC)
"Dissenting opinion[s]" are serious and occur in a rational setting. You, by contrast, are a snarker and are writing here. Q.E.D.

Oh, you're wonderfully worth my time. Mocking the Stupids is never time wasted!

[ And autolulz at replying to old threads. Clearly my good example infects. ]

Have a joyous afternoon. : )
May. 4th, 2012 09:47 pm (UTC)
Jun. 1st, 2012 01:55 pm (UTC)
Re: hi
Of course they do, blind people don't live in a black hole. They're subject to the same social discursive forces as their sighted brethren. It's ableist to assume otherwise :))))))))))
Jun. 1st, 2012 02:12 pm (UTC)
Re: hi
hi sry i'm new to lj this wasn't supposed to be in reply to you.....
Jun. 29th, 2012 05:31 am (UTC)
Re: hi
One would not be going out far on a limb to posit that people that can't *see* any of the images that we are bombarded with would have diferent standards. If that theory proves untrue, then it does tend to weaken the theory that the standards are due to the images.
( 25 comments — Leave a comment )


Who said it was about equality anyway?

Latest Month

June 2016


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Golly Kim