Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

I <3 you, but I'm offended about one thing I've noticed about you. I'd like to understand your reasoning, because this upsets me.

Do you take the time to read all the threads through or do you simply post your opinion then leave without even caring to read the responses?

I can think of two examples - one was where you completely ignored what Usdk actually wrote about slutwalks ( viewtopic.php?f=21&t=10159 ), instead pushing forward with your opinion that Usdk was trying to say dressing slutty = ok to rape (which he wasn't). You never returned to the thread when several people called you out on this.

The second example was the Plan B thread where you came in, called me stupid, yelled "CONTRACEPTIVES FAIL" several times, assuming that I was saying the Plan B pill is evil...when my only point was that I think requiring 17+ to get it without parental permission is reasonable. You have not been seen in that thread again.

I actually PM'd you my response because I had a hunch you wouldn't read it, and I didn't want you to come away with the idea that I'm the kind of person who thinks abstinence education works. I haven't heard back, so I'm assuming that like the Usdk situation, you didn't read it, or didn't care to say "my bad, I misinterpreted what you were saying"

Anyway, my point is, why don't you at least try to engage in a positive dialogue, or at least acknowledge others viewpoints (whether or not you share them), rather than form an incorrect opinion about someone's views and leave the thread right away? It's not really fair.

You don't have to agree with everything everyone says on this forum, but to come in, get really mad at someone, wrongly interpret what they are saying, and then just leave without giving them a chance to defend their position? Don't you think that's rude?

Thank you - please don't hate me.

Is this question rhetorical? You clearly already know the answer.



There's nothing rude about it. The "rudeness" is being disingenuous in your discourse.

You want people to engage your superficial opinions in a superficial way, to give them a pretense of legitimacy, but you don't want people to engage your opinions in a constructive way, because that would call attention to the willful ignorance and mental laziness that underlies them.

Constructive engagement means accepting new ideas and information and adjusting your opinions accordingly. You can't and won't do this. Your beliefs and opinions get shot to Swiss cheese but you go on believing what you do and then make lame equivocations like "I guess we'll have to agree to disagree". Ending any discussion with a weak equivocation disrespects the time and effort of the other party, and completely negates the point of discussion. It's also fundamentally dishonest in that it betrays that you were never really interested in a serious discussion in the first place.

Simone and I clearly share the basic inclination to refuse to give your superficial and willfully ignorant opinions the pretense of legitimacy you want them to have, but our reaction diverges. I make a point of engaging your opinions directly and highlighting their faults, Simone simply refuses to engage them at all.

To be fair, her approach is probably more sensible as she clearly believes, probably correctly, that my efforts are futile.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

You've wavered my opinions before Aestu, if not out-right changing them. I certainly don't feel as impassioned about the subject (Plan B should be 17+) as I did before.

The point isn't that she doesn't engage a conversation - the point is she misinterprets what is said and then never returns.

For example, I never said Plan B itself was evil and shouldn't exist and that no one should have access to it. Yet her response "CONTRACEPTIVES FAIL CONTRACEPTIVES FAIL" indicates that this is the point she was refuting, which was not my point at all.

Just like with Usdk, who didn't say "dress like a slut = you can be raped" yet that's the "point" that Zaryi refuted, without even reading what was said.


You at least read 75% of what is written, I think. In the Plan B thread, you and I drilled down to the heart of the disagreement. The outcome is irrelevant, the point is you at least took the time to understand what I was saying, however "wrong" or "uninformed" you may have felt it was. In so doing, you caused me to think about the subject differently. I still know how I personally would feel were it my daughter...but perhaps that's not the best way the government should rule on it.

Again, I'm wondering why Zaryi engages at all if she's not going to take the time to read and understand the opinions that are being expressed (no matter how "stupid" they are)

People like responding to things that make them angry or that they think they disagree with, regardless of the actual content.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

This thread makes me think of Seagull Managers.

That is all.

Had to look up that term, then I lol'd.

No, I read your response and I read that thread. (ps I read most threads, 2+ hours of commuting daily by bus doesn't offer much options for entertainment).

Your pm to me didn't warrant a response.


Yah, I read it. K, we disagree? Is that what you wanted to hear?

And on the slutwalk one, I got angry and the thread took it's usual turn of the same 3 people beating one another around the head with bullshit and I realized that a) I was going to be too emotional to deliver even the most basic of coherent response (just thinking about that thread now is making my hands shake), and b) I was going to be muted out by the typical bitchfest already taking place in the thread. So yah, Tuhl's pretty much spot on.

Generally, threads here aren't worth engaging in.

(I'm also terrible at expressing my opinion in text format, /shrug)

Fair enough. That answers my question.

I just didn't want you to think I was a moron for the wrong reasons.

What does that leave, angry brandishing of frying pans? I don't really see how you can express opinions any way but text.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

Actual face to face conversations, for a start.

Have you ever seen or heard two people try to express opposing opinions at each other? Spoken word is an awful medium for anything resembling meaningful discourse, because the average human being has massive composure issues.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

I did Y&G for 3 years and debate/speech teams in my brief time at Uni, and I've also been to dive bars. Both ends of the spectrum are more enjoyable than forum debates.

So on one end, scripted debates with a moderator. Gotcha.

...wait.

That would have made sense if it had only included the bit about dive bars. But you've been old enough to go to bars for what, 4 months?

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

If your hands were shaking when trying to type while in your room alone I doubt you'd be any better at it in a spur of the moment verbal dialogue.

I'm pretty sure a bar is the absolute worst place to have any argument with anyone. Every time someone talks politics while I'm drinking I just want to leave and go hang out with people who are fun.

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]