Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site opus.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: This is a rainbow? I'll take the thunderstorm... Message-ID: <604@opus.UUCP> Date: Tue, 10-Jul-84 04:09:09 EDT Article-I.D.: opus.604 Posted: Tue Jul 10 04:09:09 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 12-Jul-84 03:44:25 EDT References: <701@ihuxe.UUCP> Organization: NBI, Boulder Lines: 125 Just when things got quieted down between alan driscoll and rainbow (robert), rainbow got fired up at Greg Woods. It looks like we're about to start the whole thing over again; I guess he didn't learn anything the last time...As I wrote this response, I became gradually convinced that there's something to be learned about how to argue and how to deal with a serious, heartfelt controversy. I hope I hit enough of that and didn't get too embroiled (sic) in the flaming process... > = rainbow >I beg to differ with your comments. Trish Millines' article did not >exude hostility. It was a statement of fact which I totally agree with. I want to try to be careful here. Trish did, in fact, state her opinion of straight men AS opinion, so it's fair to conclude that she stated a fact (namely what her opinion is). But rainbow is obfuscating here - the fact was Trish's opinion; there is no fact in the idea that most straight men are macho assholes. There's a certain suspicious side to feeling that it's necessary to state agreement with fact. OK, I got it: <> You have no grounds for complaint about the preceding statement. It does not, according to your own standard, exude hostility. It is a statement of fact, according to your own reasoning. >When will you and many others learn to face the facts and realize the truth. When will you read what other people say instead of just tearing it apart because it is at variance with your own viewpoint? You're taking a position which will be hard to defend, apparently claiming that you've got the facts. That's the result of a discussion (sometimes:-); you don't get to claim it at the outset. >I have known an awful lot of guys in my lifetime. So what? Wait a minute, now I get it. I thought you meant an (awful lot) of guys but you must have meant an awful (lot of guys) Sorry you don't meet any of the nice people. Y'oughta work on that. :-) Seniority or experience is a pretty tenuous basis for arguing about things relating to understanding people. It comes quickly to some; others (like us engineers:-) take years to get some of the basics. >...I would feel sorry for >my sister if she'd marry any one of them. As a guy I see their true selves >and not the show/act they put on when in the company of women. Now you're saying that either (1) You only know men who put on a show/act in the company of women--poor choice of friends, rainbow, or (2) you think that women can't see through the act of the strutting male--but they can, often better than men can. Excuse me for getting away from the flame and onto a topic that belongs in net.singles, but I've found that women are much more aware of the games that <*SOME*> men play than those men realize. In other words, don't feel sorry for your sister. She may have the whole situation scoped better than you do. She may also realize that some men put on shows in spite of their intentions. (Trying not to put on a show is itself an act!) She may even know how to get past that show, and let someone get past hers, to find the real people underneath. That's part of becoming friends with a person (whether motss or motos). >To say her >article is a gross overgeneralization just proves you are trying to hide >your shame behind a bunch of meaningless words. PAY ATTENTION, rainbow: The intent has NOT been to say that her article is a gross overgeneralization. The intent--of Greg, Alan, myself, and several others--has been to say that CERTAIN STATEMENTS that she made are unreasonably abusive in that they imply unjust, unreasonable, false characterizations of a large group of people based only on sex and sexual preference. There is no shame. Taking offense at a perceived insult is not shame; it's perfectly normal. However, trying to make someone feel shame in order to prove your point is not an honest way to argue. >Its pitiful that you >cannot even admit she is right, but to continue the charade is ridiculous. Spare us your lame, condescending pity. You don't pity a damn bit and you know it; you're saying that in a vain attempt to feel superior. Touching again on a topic of interpersonal relations (nominal relevance to net. singles?), it's not a good idea to try to argue by manipulating emotions in this way. You only stand to win against an emtionally insecure or weak person, and then only by playing on (and probably increasing) the weakness. >You are looking awfully foolish. She could have used a lot more harsh terms >and still never reached the point of overgeneralization. Rainbow, you too are looking awfully foolish on this one, to my way of thinking, by saying that with neither reason nor honest motive. Yes, she could have used more harsh terms. Harshness is unrelated to generalization. The matter of overgeneralization, if that's your label for it, is in her view encompassing perhaps 40-45% of the adult humans on the planet. >To call her a man-hater is absurd. No, it isn't. It is overly harsh, perhaps. It is certainly unnecessary. If one were to be precise but persist in labeling her, calling her a "straight man hater" might be better. But it is not absurd to any greater degree than her statements were absurd, if they were. >I'm sure she has a good number of male friends. >Just like I do. But that does not stop one from forming opinions about >them. How can you call someone a bigot for expressing those opinions? We all have opinions about friends, enemies, acquaintances, even people we have never met. Fine. Opinions may or may not be based on bigotry. And I wish you'd get it through your head that there's a difference between calling a person a bigot and calling a person's particular opinion a bigoted opinion! Once again, the presence of bigotry in an opinion is determined by the basis for the opinion. I have met men who fit Trish's description to a T. They are out there, and there are enough of them that they aren't hard to find. The objection, and where those of us on the other side find the bigotry, is in the big leap from seeing some men like this to concluding that "most straight men" are thus. In other words, it's the conclusion that being straight + male implies all these bad things that feels like bigotry. >Anyone with a little insight can see that you have just backed up her >words with your actions. I thank you for announcing them all over netland >to be used as exhibit A in Trish's defense. I believe that if I did not take offense at the opinion that I am an insensitive, egotistical asshole, I would be much worse off. (When someone makes a serious effort to insult me, I feel some obligation to be offended:-) The simple act of defending our beliefs and refuting attacks on our own integrity and worth is not reprehensible in any sense. If I must admit I'm wrong in an argument, it will be because my position has been demonstrated to me to be incorrect and not because my opponent has belittled me. I don't fall for that sort of tactic. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Nothing left to do but smile, smile, smile.