You apparently have assumed that you were not assuming.
Can a worse assumption be made?
The simple fact that I stated that you assumed should be sufficient evidence to not assume that you hadn’t.
A) you assumed that I didn’t already know that you meant “Man” and not “men”.
B) you have apparently assumed that it isn’t a male vs female distinction.
C) Although I don’t know of your third reference, I can tell that you assumed something negative about it that very probably wasn’t there.
Hahahahahahahahha. Does that tell you how I feel about that statement?
Are you taking on the role of god again, James?
In a court of law, your so-called “fact” and so-called "evidence would be thrown out of court. The judge would probably say to you - "shame on you, James. Now, the latter sentence there is an assumption but it’s based on empirical knowledge. lol
I didn’t assume anything there either - I was just asking for clarification. IF I had assumed, I wouldn’t have asked.
No, wrong again. Words DO make a difference, James. No assumption there either. That was merely my thought, my intuition. It isn’t an assumption which is more or less made in stone.
Wrong again, by my perception it was negative. For whatever reason, you at least appeared to think it was funny when MA said that gross thing…gross by my perception and I kind of INTUIT, not assume, also by the perceptions of men in here, men who might also be turned off by particular sexually gross comments such as that was and men who would even dream of putting something like that in here. You responded with a laughing smilie - whatever your intention may have been - it didn’t seem either logical or reasonable to me. Such as it was, it might only be encouraging to him. If a child said something gross to you, would you shrug it off by laughing?
[/quote]
Fine. I’m asking now. Why would you laugh at something so gross, off the wall, and which clearly to any reasonable person, has no place in here. Of course, that is only my perception, but as far as being logical or having any aesthetic value at all, it was meant for the gutter.
Past , future and present are not derivative.
There is a continual present. The past is a dream of things no more. History is our understanding of the past in light of the present, and the future is yet to be - but always shall be.
Don’t forget that human beings are so cooperational that it takes a government through the use of violence, coercion, and blackmail to get human beings to cooperate because if that didn’t happen nobody would work together under the types of organization that we have today.
What does all of that mean anyways?
Could it be that our natural disposition left unchecked is an asocial one?
Another strike against the moralists once again.
As I said earlier, complete assinine fucking bullshit.
Please note. As promised on the What Are you Doing thread, I relocated your point about my tactics here at ILP to another [more appropriate] thread. viewtopic.php?f=6&t=186785
I welcome a debate about these relationships with you. Either there or here.