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:Trish against men Message-ID: <713@ihuxe.UUCP> Date: Tue, 3-Jul-84 19:01:29 EDT Article-I.D.: ihuxe.713 Posted: Tue Jul 3 19:01:29 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 4-Jul-84 03:45:18 EDT Sender: rainbow@ihuxe.UUCP Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 99 >>> Recently, someone told me they hadn't voted for a presidential >>> candidate in years, meaning that they have been voting against >>> a candidate, rather than for his opponent. I thought of Trish. >>> She embraces women only as a side-effect of rejecting men. Her >>> sexuality is a denial, not an affirmation. I think that's sad. >> Huh?... What?... This makes no sense... >> I haven't voted for a presidential candidate either in some time. >> But that was because I approve of neither. I think its wrong to vote >> for someone because they are the lesser of two evils. A vote is >> always considered an affirmation. I refuse to vote for someone >> and then not be able to justify it with a positive argument. My not >> voting is making a statement in itself that I want something better. >> Its not voting against a candidate. Its voting against both. As for Trish, >> she has made her vote. Its an affirmation of what she wants. You certainly >> dont believe she chose homosexuality as the lesser of two evils? Do you? >> Especially with a logical third choice that she could have just avoided all >> relationships for the time being. Or do you live your entire life making >> choices with negative arguments? And you can't obstain from making either >> choice. If so, I think thats sad. And I'll then wager >> that you are the unhappy one. Not Trish. If necessary, I can provide >> endless examples to back me up. ie you go to buy a used car but they are >> all lemons. You are certainly not going to be happy wasting your money. > Trish told us she chose homosexuality because she believes most men > are "egotistical, chauvinist, insensitive, macho assholes." If that > isn't a negative argument, what is? Once again, what is wrong with a negative argument? Its saying the same thing as a positive argument but in reverse. You don't seriously believe that she reluctantly chose homosexuality only because being straight was totally unacceptable to her. Thats why your original statement makes no sense. You wouldnt insist on buying a car just because the others are worse. You'd wait until you found something you liked. She did not have to chose homosexuality just because she wasnt interested in a relationship with a man. She chose it because thats what she wanted. Its an affirmation. That doesnt make something wrong with her. > And I'll say it again, because I'm tired of getting flamed by people > who don't understand my point. I respect her choice. I even accept > her reason. How can you call a feeling right or wrong? Whats this? A sudden turnabout? Suddenly you sound like someone I dont recognize. Well, its about time you see the light. Hopefully now I can stop flaming soon. Those above sentences are what I have been trying to convince you of. Trish was undeserving of those malicious words you've been writing all over the place. > If she feels bitter, then that's how she feels. Irrelevent because I doubt she has any bitterness. However, if that is indeed the case, you are correct. ie thats how she feels. But unless she says so, you cannot assume that. Or make that deduction from her article. > I just think it was wrong to vent her bitterness the way she did. What way? Bitterness? All she did was try to convince the people out here that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. I agree she was a bit crude and it would be reasonable to object a little to her wording, but it was right in line with those articles she was responding to. Thats no reason to jump all over her like she just committed the worst possible blasphemy. > And I'd still like to know why hardly anyone is complaining, when I > know everyone would be bitching and moaning if a man had made similar > remarks on the net. Why should there be any people complaining? Once again you assume Trish has done something terribly wrong. This is a fallacy. Okay, I'm a man. I'm not a homosexual but I will have to do. I think of women the same way Trish thinks of men. ie I think most women lack understanding and are insensitive and unfeeling. So there. However I do have a good number of female friends. Very good/close friends. But I do tend to avoid getting involved in any kind of relationship because of those opinions. I have no bitterness. I have no hatred for women. I'm perfectly happy. There is nothing wrong with me. You will not find a more considerate person. Why should anyone care what my thoughts are? Why would anyone vehemently complain? Its my life. Its my choice. It doesnt affect me in any way. And I'm not biased. I have exactly the same opinion of most men. So what are people going to flame about? Unless once again there a few who are going to try to make a big deal out of nothing. I'll be waiting. Just because I may be in the minority doesnt automatically make the majority opinion doctrine to be followed or else. If I had used some harsh language perhaps then people would have a reason to object. But it wouldnt justify personal attacks upon my being such as Trish has been getting. Actually, I wonder why people don't object more to your personal vendetta. At least publicly because I've received a good number agreeing with me in private. However you did mention receiving many flames, so I feel a little better. Of course I in no way claim my opinions are correct(those mentioned above with regard to most men and women) or try to force them upon anyone else. They are just observations I have made over the course of a lifetime about the people I have known in various degrees. I am entitled to those opinions. Some day the balance may swing the other way. I am very open-minded and impartial.