Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxe.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!ihuxe!rainbow From: rainbow@ihuxe.UUCP Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: RE2:the chicken and the egg Message-ID: <712@ihuxe.UUCP> Date: Tue, 3-Jul-84 18:55:48 EDT Article-I.D.: ihuxe.712 Posted: Tue Jul 3 18:55:48 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 4-Jul-84 03:44:48 EDT Sender: rainbow@ihuxe.UUCP Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 97 >> Hey... Slow down... Hold on a minute here... > I'm listening... One would never have been able to tell from your actions. ********************************************************* >> Since when are people guilty before proven innocent. > Trish was innocent in my book until she announced, "I think most > men are your egotistical, chauvinist, insensitive, macho assholes." > Bigotry is not ok with me, and she just pleaded guilty... Since I refuse to repeat myself over and over again for the deaf(or is blind a better term), check out my article in response to bigotry. To sum up, you are taking things out of context. You are distorting Trish's intent to justify your accusations. In short, you are the only one showing bigotry. **************************************************************************** >> Shall I start making unfounded accusations against you? > I haven't made any derogatory comments about women or any other > group, have I? Maybe not. But then again its open to serious debate. One thing for sure, you are making derogatory comments toward an individual(Trish) for no reason yet that I can see except one. You dont approve of any homosexuals. Since you seem to claim denial of this, I am left in a quandary. Others have already indicated they assume you are lying as a cover-up. I have not gone that far yet. I repeat yet. Soon you'll leave me no choice. *************************************************************************** > What would have taken guts, in the case we're discussing, is for > some of the women on the net to show some integrity and publicly > reject Trish's remarks. I assume most women disagreed with her, > but I was bothered by how quietly they did it. Maybe you are the only one to misinterpret the intent of Trish's article. See article in response to bigotry for details. Your assumptions with regard to who is right and wrong in this argument are a little mixed up. Why are you so close-minded as to not realize that maybe there is agreement with Trish out there. And you're right, it would have taken guts to reject Trish's remarks and support yours. No one wants to support a losing side of an argument and get flamed at with no possible defense. Especially if they agree with the other side. ***************************************************************************** >> Anyway, back to the content of your article, you seem to think people >> make decisions on a subject matter in which they have absolutely no >> experience with. I'm sure Trish didn't one day just on whim decide most >> men are not as sensitive/feeling/understanding as women. >> I assume most people are open-minded until they have reason to feel >> otherwise. > So, if Trish believes it, she must have a good reason. Of course. > After all, people are basically open-minded, right? I wish to quantify that. Make that some people. You obviously are not. > What about those people who hate Blacks, or Jews, or gays? > Do you assume they have a good reason? Your whole argument is silly. How did we ever digress to this? Anyway, they are obviously bigots and need help. But this has nothing to do with our discussion. My arguments are silly? Yours arent making much sense as you helter-skelter form one subject to the next. ***************************************************************************** >> On the otherhand it is obvious you aren't this way >> because you brand Trish with no data. So it is understandable >> you think other people are the same way. Once again I feel sorry >> for you though I know not why. > No data? What the hell are you talking about? I had the data > straight from the horses mouth. True, but it was data in a foreign tongue to you which you obviously didnt bother to translate/interpret. And if you did, you did so incorrectly. **************************************************************************** > Trish said she *chose* to be a lesbian *because* of her negative > feelings toward men. This means she decided she didn't like men > *before* she decided to be a lesbian. I'll repeat my arguments once more and this time dont just say they are silly because you lack any response. First, a person doesnt make a choice between two evils if no choice is necessary(take presedential argument I gave before). So when Trish says she chose homosexuality because of a dislike for relationships with men, its the same thing as saying she chose homosexuality because of a like for relationships with women. How much clearer can I get? Trish was not forced into homosexuality because it was a lesser of two evils. Just like you werent forced into being straight as the lesser of evils. Also, I person doesnt make a choice without first gathering a reasonable amount of information. So whats wrong with her above statement? I dont understand the point you are trying to make. And how am I mixed up? And how is this argument not valid? Its not fair of you to just make these comments and give no reasons which I can reply to.