water said:
Did you think I didn't see it? It is what I have been trying to make clear to you for over a year.
It was clear enough from early on, but the fact that it still comes up - even now in this thread - means that something about the fact hasn't been accepted. I think it has to do with that list (you have always had such lists in your head, covering various topics), and how you it filters out what
is possible from indirect communication. And I have been guilty of overestimating its abilities. There is a golden middle somewhere.
I think that when you are telling someone you love them, you are assuming they understand the word the same way you do.
If you mean "universal love", then say "I universally love you", and not "I love you".
The play of words is all yours.
It's not a play of words, it's a valid and crucial distinction. There is nothing to be gained by treating it as merely a clever play on words.
One generally doesn't have to say "I universally love you", because the words "I love you" never stand in isolation. There is always something preceding, and something proceeding from it. It simply cannot
mean romantic love between family or friends, unless there is an overlapping of contexts.
Please, what are you implying?
Once again, I must point out that the meaning of the words don't depend on what I implied (as if the
real meaning is somewhere between the lines). If you don't understand what I said, just say so, and I'll try to clarify it.
In short, it meant that someone may not be compatible with all aspects of a particular group, and an effort to
become compatible with them in those aspects (in order to be liked, accepted, or even honoured) is to assume their identity, and not one's own.
Maybe not in a controlled environment, or an environment where more self-control is expected, but here on sciforums? Yes necessarily. You've said yourself that in order to fit in you've felt it necessary to compromise on some things. And when everyone is dictated by everyone else, the pendulum swings from political correctness to mere anarchy, and will never settle for academic discussion. That's just the kind of place this is.
That might be so, or not. With some posters, one can have intense discussions about various topics, yet always remain strangers. Some people are handling forum discussions very professionally, strictly separating between real life communication, and online communication.
I bet that these are people are independent of the forum. They don't try to fit in, be particularly liked or disliked, so they don't become involved in the politics and struggles that dictate these things.
True, but what they say, the level at which something has been discussed, is very different.
If they
maintain that difference.
If you understand this, why did you say "But, for some reason, it was read subjectively", as if you were surprised by a typical sciforums debate?
This is not true though. Because you know the "story behind it", you interpret things differently, in accordance to that.
To some other posters, it remained a general comment, "Yes, such are things in real life".
But you can only assume it remained a general comment - and it didn't stand in isolation. It seems likely that people would interpret your confident assertions that the scenarios you described accurately reflects "real life" (which can only be "real life" according to
your experience) as things you personally believe to be true. That people do not take your observations for granted is not a sign of their ignorance, it means your observations have to be qualified. (For interest: do you still believe it is representative for a rape victims to be considered "impossible to repair, forever filthy"?)
Not true. I said:
"Also, and this moreso, other people upon hearing that a person has been a victim of rape may discard that person and consider them "damaged goods", impossible to repair, forever filthy."
I didn't give a statement on what obligatorily happens, but on what *may* happen.
I often find it difficult to say anything here, because I see how often people don't pay attention. I put in clear qualificators in my statements, I say "for example", "this may", "such is possible", "some" -- but so often, these qualificators get overlooked, and my statements taken as absolutes, disregarding the qualificators.
Maybe the difficulty arises out of the
direction of your posts, rather than the qualificators you use. For instance, this particular premise wasn't simply an option for your argument, it was necessary for it. It's obvious that someone who considers another person "filty" wouldn't want a relationship with them, but that you associated this aprticularly with victims of abuse, and specifically with their romantic partners, builds a case on an (unlikely, according to the poll) possibilty.
It
may not be so, but it
seems that you would be unwilling to let your argument fall like a house of cards once this assumption had been disputed. That you thought it reflected "real life", enforced this perception, since what can contradict "real life"?
It spelled an end of objectivity for those concerned only if they *wanted* or *let* it be so.
Quite so. But when walls tumble they don't do it neatly.
Plus, I was only giving my opinion, which could easily be classified as a speculation. I often wondered when someone would actually ask me what credentials I have for speaking the way I did. I waited for someone to ask me, "What do you know about abuse and rape?" No one asked me that. But it is not like everyone actually knows what happened to me either. Assumptions ...
Assumptions don't appear fully formed out of thin air. You give away more than you realize in your posts. Your "opinions" sometimes have a force or a threat behind them that say more than the opinion would have on its own.
That people don't ask you for your credentials may have something to do with the fact that not everybody is of the opinion that only qualified professionals have valuable contributions to make to their knowledge and understanding of things. Or maybe they were also interested in an impersonal discussion themselves.
I'm alright with that. This is just how it is, presently. I wish I could be more consistent, but presently, I don't manage it. I have accepted that. I'm not an easy person, and I don't expect people to like me.
But I think you'll agree that my behaviour is challenging for others, hopefully making them think about how they behave, and whether the way they respond to other people depends on other people.
Honesty like this is how people get to know you in spite of anything else you might do or say. What will make a difference now is whether you reienforce this, or contradict it - in other words, whether you make it clear you were sincere about who you wish to be.
I may be wrong, but I don't think these controversies have such an effect on people as you think. People learn more from restraint and example than from conflict. They may notice some patterns, but behaviour is only fixed when it is consciously reinforced, not so much when it flares up instinctively. How people acted when they were agreeing, disagreeing, happy or angry with you is more or less how they act usually under such circumstances, and I don't think this is where they'll see themselves that way for the first time.
And aren't you playing the "lay helper" yourself if you do this?
And once again, I agree.