Wednesday 4 June 2014

Eviscerating A Woman

A follow-on from my previous post about Your Voice, I'm back to FreeNortherner's website where I put the boot into a stupid bitch female. I'm not gonna bother quoting it properly - too much hassle right now:

1. Neither psychoanalysis nor ad hominem are valid arguments in a discussion.
2. I did not reject, nitpick or twist Free Northerner’s analogy as I did not use his analogy at all, but instead merely utilized the theme of his analogy to make another.
3. Should you really be trying to psychoanalyze others while having a name like “BlackPoisonSoul”?


3. "Know thyself." I do know myself. It is very evident in my choice of name, visible to all as a heads-up warning - is yours? Thank you for the ad-hominem.

3a. For the record: I know myself because I undertook an extremely thorough (and difficult) look into my motivations and drives and various aspects of my personality. Have you? Again, thank you for the ad-hominem.

3b. Thank you for the opportunity to hit you with two ad-hominems right from the beginning (three counting this one).

2. FreeNortherner's example of the bank was defining what is "socially acceptable", as in it is not acceptable for a contract with a bank where the bank would overstep the bounds of expected contractual behaviour. Similarly a sexual relationship would not overstep bounds of expected social behaviour and decency into deviation, which was what Futrelle was automatically assuming (and claiming) that FreeNortherner was espousing.

2a. You then twisted the analogy by implying that FreeNortherner's analogy meant that he espoused sex within marriage as a free-for-all, "drop everything and do it with me NOW" situation. Basically that he was saying the marriage contract WAS all about one partner unilaterally stepping over acceptable boundaries - you even conflated the two. Read your own writing thoroughly.

2b. Psychoanalysis (Refer #1 below): This thinking is coming from the mentality of the marriage contract is *only a promise to have sex occasionally with the spouse*, on a *when I feel like it* basis. In bald fact you literally stated that it was only a promise, not something set in stone: "you went from: spouses promising to have sex with one another by becoming married - to each spouse promising to have sex with the other spouse whenever the other spouse desires it". (Hyphen and colon added by me for clarity.) A promise can be broken at any time, whereas something set in stone can never be broken.

2c. FreeNortherner's analogy was of a bank: on a regular basis, not on some nebulous wishy-washy never-never nor some brutal and random mugging. Your mindset is the wishy-washy never-never (tomorrow never comes/break a promise at any time). Futrelle's was the brutal (and deviant) random mugging.

2d. FreeNortherner's was on a reasonable and regular basis that did not overstep socially-acceptable boundaries - which was what he was stating. Yes, that statement was socially-implied - though personally I felt that his statements were quite eloquent. I caught his implications of what was socially-implied immediately.

2e. The problem is that you, Futrelle, and FreeNortherner are working from different mindsets of what is implied as being socially-acceptable. In addition, both yourself and Futrelle are automatically assuming that everybody is going to overstep these socially-acceptable boundaries (ie be unreasonable). And further that FreeNortherner was espousing such overstepping. He was not. Yet you both immediately went on attack.

2f. This is why you need to psychoanalyse at all times (Refer #1 below).

1. Any time is appropriate to psychoanalyse anyone. That way you can determine exactly where they are coming from thinking-wise and deal with the implied thinking that lies behind the statements and assertations they make.

1a. You stating that I was inappropriately psychoanalysing and ad-hominem attacking you was actually because *you didn't like that I caught you out and called you on your bullshit*. This is something that a (sarcasm) nice little boy (/sarcasm) would never do. I am not a nice little boy: Refer to #3 above. By the way, thank you for the sub-rosa ad-hominem, here's one in return.

1b. It is not for you to determine what is and isn't appropriate in a discussion. Those assumptions have been socially-developed over centuries and are now socially-implied. As examples: it is not appropriate to shout somebody down while they are talking, scream obscenities, punch or kick someone, stick your fingers in your ears and loudly sing "la-la-la I can't hear you!", or censor their speech for a nebulous reason along the lines of "I don't like what he's saying/he's upsetting me".

1c. It is especially not for you to determine what is and isn't appropriate in a discussion when it has been proven that you are attempting to frame said discussion in a manner that benefits your speech/points while restricting (aka censoring or muzzling) the speech/points of others. Refer to #2 above and #1b above.

Also: Refer to my prior post, and both your posts, and this post, and cogitate thoroughly upon why this post/answer is even necessary.

The TL/DR short version: Don't try to snow me under with your bullshit, I am fully cognisant of that female tactic of bellicose obfuscation and browbeating. I am also fully aware that to women, whoever buries her opponent under the most irrelevant garbage wins. Try your tactic elsewhere with someone who has less of a clue.

Here are several ad-hominem attacks, so that you can feel especially outraged at me for beating you repeatedly over the head with a stick (aka mansplaining to infuriate you further) and so you can feel special too:

• Anybody with a social clue would not require me to explain this all in nose-picking detail. (Did you catch the mockery there.)

• Anybody with a social clue would realise the inherent assumptions of decency and common-sense implied in the social fabric of our society. (Except you.)

• Anybody with a social clue would also apply said inherent assumptions sensibly. (Notice that I am implying that you are incapable of such discernment and delicacy in your social interactions. This implication is obvious to all, yet I feel it must be explicitly stated so that you don't miss it.)

• Anybody with a social clue would not be so deliberately obtuse. (That's especially gotta sting.)

Your lack of social ability makes types like you a laughing-stock. This is why I point this out to all reading this. This is why I laugh at you. This is why I am mocking you. This is why every person reading this should mock you.

This is why you should not come back until you can hold a sensible discourse.

Overall: You make a fine example to men of what is subtly wrong with women, in their thinking and their female-centric assumptions which permeate our twisted and sick society. This is why I point this out. Beginners need to learn to see this: and everybody starts out as a beginner.

Nor am I being subtle or sub-rosa about any of it.

Nor do I feel bad about verbally attacking and "being mean" to a girl. You can try to pull that card to gather some sympathy from other readers if you want. Good luck.
Ironic in the extreme given my prior post being mostly about debating nobodies on the internet, that I should bother debating some worthless nobody cunt on the internet.

I'd say "somebody's gotta do it" - except why bother, on the whole.

No comments:

Post a Comment