Ladies! You may think you’ve got the men of the world fooled, but the guys over on MGTOWforums.com can see right through you! As dontmarry puts it:
Everything that a woman does is deceitful. From makeup, push-up bras and high heels, to fibbing about her dick count or proclamations of ‘I don’t mind marrying a poor man’ (oh yes you do).
That’s right, ladies! We know those eyelashes aren’t real! We know your cheeks aren’t really that rosy! And your lips aren’t really that red! And your boobies aren’t really … um, what was I saying? I got distracted thinking about boobies. Anyway, you’re all a bunch of liars! I bet some of you even wear Spanx, which are a tool of Satan.
Also, that thing he said about the dick count. Stop the lies! We demand dick count accuracy!
Silly Nobinayamu, we’re just not smart enough to grok his superior intellect, don’t you know? You need to stop arguing like a liberal and start reading more Ann Coulter. Or something.
Kristin, I think reading chuckeedees comments is more than punishment enough.
Captain, I’d have less of a problem if he’d at least hedge his bets a bit; use a few modifiers and that “superior intellect” to work. Speaking in such absolutes about something that you barely understand…
I mean, yes, it’s classic chuckeedee. And goodness knows next week he’ll have contradicted everything he’s written in the past two days and moved on to some new theory of why women suck expressed with his customary pleonasm.
But it costs nothing to use modifiers and their use will keep the gears of that bike nice and lubricated when you, inevitably, have to begin your retreat.
Do be specific, instead of waffling in unsubstantiable [oops, big word] abstractions. “To role-play, to play a “type” of woman, as in feeling sexy and attractive…” provides a comprehensive spectrum that covers pretty much all possibilities, from “making a statement” through to the good Cap’ns wife’s example of dressing for work (just as men wear suits for work). Your thinking seems terribly linear and one-dimensional. You must be a liberal.
DISCLAIMER [seems we still need it after all]: Apologies to the less gifted among us, for my use of big words. I find it more economical to write this way.
chuckeedee: Fallacy of False dichotomy. I really have to wonder at the circles in which you travel that such as this is considered, “intellectual”.
Perhaps a course in basic logic would help (a good English 103, or Phil 10X, Introduction to Ethics will do; if you are feeling up to it you could try Symbolic Logic, but that’s almost like math).
DisclaimerI use short words and simple grammar when I need to make my views plain to the meanest understanding.
Ah.. the NWOSophist: Holly didn’t answer my question the way I wanted her to, so I can pretend I am answering.
Pecunium disagrees with me, therefore he thinks anything a woman says/does is right.
Never mind that I don’t think anything a woman does is “OK, because it was a woman.
Here’s one example in which I most plainly said a woman was wrong: Laurie Klein is an idiot, who ought to have been arrested, and had her carry permit yanked.
So, argument disproved. And NWOslave still pretends to answer questions.
are we back to discussing my purported intellectualism, instead of the topic at hand? And grammar? Good grief.
Are men “role-playing” when they put clothes on as well, then?
*eschews deception, daubs self with woad*
Chuckyfuckwit, we are calling you a pretentious wanker. Not an intellectual. An intellectual would know the difference, for starters.
yes… they are making statements as to how they live their lives and what they value. Refer to my previous comment in brackets:
unsubstantiable … wow… chuckeedee has managed a neologism.
I’m so proud, our baby is growing up.
and your point is?
Back… chuckeedee, you never stopped. That’s the entire point of your disclaimer, to promote your mighty intellect; so spare and economic with words, and powerful in ideas.
Now, you might actually look at the comment; and try to explain away the fallacy (false dichotomy) but no, you’d rather pretend I attacked your grammar.
I really have to wonder at the circles in which you travel that such as this is considered, “intellectual”.
as far as i can tell, its because capt. bathrobe called him pretentious, and chuckeedee, not really understanding what that word meant, took it to mean he was being too high falutin’
Neologism? Google “unsubstantiable” and you will see that it is nothing of the sort.
If your definition of “deceptive” includes every situation in which a human being is clothed, it is then meaningless to say “women are deceptive”. You could, instead, say “women put clothes on” and make yourself clearer. But then it would be obvious what a load of drivel you’re typing and it would be rejected by the JEPN.
I take it back, Hershele, you had it right all along. Sheesh.
Chuckeedee, you aren’t using big words; you’re using too many words.
“Abstraction” is not a big word and neither is “unsubstantial.” I shudder to think of what kind of company you keep if think this vocabulary is illustrative of a rigorous intellect.
You say precious little and use a lot of words in which to do it. No one here is confused or impressed. You know what would impress me? If you went back to that absured bell-curve “thought experiment” and actually laid out the data behind that the concept, i.e. which traits in men and women were being measured by said “bell-curve”. Would it still be bullshit? Absolutely.
But at least there would be some effort involved. Because, right now, between your idiotic proximity theory and your insistence that you have some unique and definitive understanding about how women approach cosmetics and make up, your posts are not only a prime example of pleonastic writing, your thought processes are also lazy as fuck.
And grammar? Good grief.
if you are going to stutter on about how advanced your writing is, your ability to form sentences should be under scrutiny, yes. particularly because its clearly minimal.
chuckeedee:
https://encrypted.google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=YZ7&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22unsubstantiable%22+definition&oq=%22unsubstantiable%22+definition&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=4492l23909l0l24318l27l23l4l0l0l0l264l3198l1.12.6l19l0
all of 4,700 hits. It may not be unique to you, but it’s a neologism.
But you are right, it seems you aren’t up to coining neologisms yet…
who cares? Once again, we have liberals trying to force the conversation into Bush driving a car into a ditch, as per previous example I posted:
[cue sound of crickets chirping?]
Chuckeeedee: Who, apart from you, is talking about Bush, Fannie Mae, etc.?
People here are being on topic to the points you are bringing up .
That you are wrong, or engaged in fallacy has nothing to do with your politics, but completely with your arguments being, wrong/fallacious.
Chuckee’s boring, let’s talk about bears again. Bears roll in dead things to mask their own scent, the lying shits.
Colouring your hair, putting on make up, getting breast implants and so on are all LIES. This is why I feel no sympathy when guys lie to women about how much money they have to get in to their pants.
Another linear thinker, plodding along in autistic fashion. Where do you people get your education from? Metaphor, examples, all these things play their part in explanation and rhetoric. No wonder America is spiralling down the gurgler.