I defend allowing people speak how they want to speak.
-
Hanz-Willhelm2 — 9 years ago(January 05, 2017 08:56 AM)
It's not a horrible word. It's just a word.
Truthfully I can't even remember what you two were arguing about and what he said.just something like "you are acted retarded" or whatever. Then you went on your "you can't use the word retarded" crap and bringing up your cousin as if that has anything to do with anything.
I just reviewed it. It appears you weren't even involved. He didn't call you retard. He/she said "No retard, I'm saying money is a powerful aphrodisiac."
He wasn't even talking to you. You then go on the horrors of calling someone retard.
Me hypocrite? How so? You hypocrite? Definitely. Your whole gripe is he said retard. So what. You're being a hypocrite because you imply that it would be ok if he/she said "No idiot" or "No beep or "No dicksheet" or "No dummy" or "No Asswipe" or "No sheet for brains" or "No moron" or "No you fool".you chimed in as if something extraordinarily horrible occurred because they said "No retard".
That's political correct BS. He's not talking to a developmentally retarded person to begin with..that's the insult. Implying they are challenged when they are not.
Sure, it's mean to call people anything. I don't condone it even though I cuss out my fellow drivers under my breath on the interstate all the time. I'm just pointing out PC hypocrisy at the sudden outrage because when he chose to insult the other poster (not you) instead of choosing one of the other insult phrases of which I provided lots of possibilities in my above list he/she chose one of your PC "instant offense" words.
I might share your outrage if they were actually picking on and belittling a developmentally challenged person.
Anyway, fine be offended because he got annoyed and called someone a name in an argument. You are just a hypocrite because you imply they are suddenly more of an evil person and suddenly despicable because he/she typed "No retard" instead of "No dummy" or "No you moron". That's just stupid BS.
He/she didn't go from just being rude to suddenly being "disgusting" because of using "retard" instead of beep or "moron" or beep or "imbecile".
I very rightly noticed your outrage wasn't over defending the other poster and saying they didn't deserve to be called rude names. Your response was being he called a name you don't like and frequently referred to the name they used as disgusting. That's hypocrisy.
Just take up for the other poster by saying they don't deserve to be called anything or let them know they've lost the debate since they so quickly resorted to name calling. You only objected to your PC word being used.
That's just BS.
Lamar Jackson for Heisman! -
Cursedchild13 — 9 years ago(January 06, 2017 08:19 AM)
I wasn't talking to you at first either. I replied to someone else, and you jumped in. So you can jump into something where nobody was talking to you, but someone else can't do the same thing? Man, you just go out of your way to be a hypocrite.
-
cecelia_lisbon — 9 years ago(January 04, 2017 08:00 PM)
You said that money is a powerful aphrodisiac to you.
That means it definitely is, always, and the "you" is referring to women.
To re-clarify the OP's question, she was asking if money may have been a factor in one woman's decision; not stating, but asking.
You responded by saying the answer is yes because it always is.
I really don't care what you think; I'm saying what you said.
Ok, I care a little what you think. It's a stupid, common, and frustrating stereotype. But in the end it does not affect me. -
reaseltbim — 9 years ago(January 03, 2017 01:55 PM)
it is scientifically proven women in general care more about wealth while men care more about attractiveness
http://www.medicaldaily.com/when-it-comes-finding-love-traits-men-and-women-look-long-term-partner-vary-wildly-353302 -
Painbow — 9 years ago(January 04, 2017 08:32 AM)
So you're a closed minded fool who embraces the incredulity fallacy?
Good to know.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity -
reaseltbim — 9 years ago(January 04, 2017 10:51 AM)
Ive never experienced seeing a rainbow in real life ever so therefore rainbows are fake
you see how childish and silly that sounds? You might as well say that because you never experience racism therefore racism doesn't exist like, how can you be so naive ? -
cecelia_lisbon — 9 years ago(January 04, 2017 07:26 PM)
Do you know why I said that?
Because what use exactly is a study that says women are more interested in money, and how accurate could that "study" possibly be?
Oh boy, I now believe that women are more interested in money and men are more interested in looks because a study tells me. My thinking has been swayed, regardless of what I've experienced in all my interactions with real people in real life.
That's useful to my life.
Are you beginning to understand this? By "individual" level I mean what I see in the real world, with actual people, not a small sampleagain, how reliable would this little study's extrapolations really be considered?
My gosh, I couldn't care less if I tried. Thanks for trying to prove something to me, though. Didn't completely waste your energy at all. -
reaseltbim — 9 years ago(January 12, 2017 07:31 PM)
Is not even about women being interested in money itself but they are interested in a provider. A man that can provide.
The same way men want to pick a voluptuous beauiful woman because of offspring. This is wired in us from cavemen times.. both men and women have superficial preferences. Both genders tend to look for similar stuff.
Im sure some women have no problem dating a homelesd guy (maybe you are like that)
But MOST women wouldnt date a jobless guy living at home with their parents at 40.
Just like most women wont date shorter men than them. Im sure you might have no problem with dating a short broke guy but most women wouldnt do that -
Moonlighty — 9 years ago(January 04, 2017 08:03 AM)
One study isn't the same as "scientifically proven." And you also can't use "women in general" as proof that every woman always does something just because a majority of those surveyed do.
Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that I'll be over here looking through your stuff.
-
reaseltbim — 9 years ago(January 04, 2017 10:53 AM)
it means that it is not just some crazy people online talking about something or making stuff up.
Everyone Knows guys tend to care more about looks and women tend to care more about wealth. the point of the link is that even REAL scientists went out of their way to do a study about this and even confirmed it from their one study.
You might say that one study is too small but that is something MOST people already knew. the only difference is that it is now backed up by actual data.
men are shallow in beauty and women are shallow in money. anyone alive could have tell you that.
But now we at least have scientists that looked at it, it is not just someone's opinion -
reaseltbim — 9 years ago(January 12, 2017 07:25 PM)
Is the same as guys going crazy for women'looks or body.
Does every single man pick a hot girl? No. Not evety man.
Do most men value beauty a lot? Yes. Men tent to follow with their eyes. Are all men superficial? No. But there is a precedent.
Is just like women dont go for short men how a lot of women wont date someone shorter than them
Doesnt matter how angry you get. People will have dating preferences -
SilverLexiGirl — 9 years ago(January 04, 2017 07:08 PM)
Painbow, I think she's just asking about Monica specifically and not other women. Would Monica have gone for Pete without the millions.? Probably not. Because she wasn't attracted to him to begin with and without his money, he would not have been able to buy her a restaurant, thus she would never have fallen for him. He used his money to worm his way into her life. And it worked! For a while.. Lol
-
Moonlighty — 9 years ago(January 03, 2017 08:48 AM)
Monica really wanted a man and a family, so I think she would have considered any proposal thrown her way.
Yeah there's no indication she particularly cared about his money but Pete was into her and she was into the idea of marriage/kids so I'm sure she would have toyed with the idea either way.Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that I'll be over here looking through your stuff.
-
SeinfeldFriend — 9 years ago(January 02, 2017 05:02 AM)
Her mother had her self esteem so low that she would have said yes to any proposal I think. The others were the ones who made a big deal out of his money, not Monica. And, she hadn't been attracted to him until he kissed her, so her initial attraction had nothing to do with his money