Exploitation: Real, imagined, or deliberately disingenuous?

[Gator]

What percentage of that 5% are realistic? or have honorable intentions? I have
no idea.

I never went to a social or took a tour, yet I happened to bump into a few Brits and Yanks in Moscow, Dnepropetrovsk, and Kiev.   I spoke very briefly with them, the most when having a beer with one in a bar. We both had a chatty English-speaking UW date, and their comments were more interesting.   

So I can not comment on whether their intentions are honorable, yet all seemed like your average educated man.    They did seem a little unsure about what was happening.  None were bragging about the FSUW they dated.  A few seemed out of touch based on such clues as white athletic shoes. 

[Muzh]

Lets be painfully obvious...it doesn't matter to me if it is man or woman...I disagree equally with both...So why DO YOU find it necessary to try to turn into a gender issue? 
So lets use 'wise' Muzh logic...if you disagree with a woman and express it the same way you do with a man, that makes you a woman 'disliker'...wow that makes perfect sense...
Fathertime!   

Heh
 
Sure you disagree with men and express it the same way.
 
It just happen that the men you disagree with were on the women's side.
 
Err, like just now.
 
But, carry on. Please.

[fathertime]

Heh
 
Sure you disagree with men and express it the same way.
 
It just happen that the men you disagree with were on the women's side.
 
Err, like just now.
 
But, carry on. Please.

If we boil down what you just said  here is how it reads:"   If a man makes an argument and it is counter to to some women's perspective, then he is a 'woman disliker'...NOT simply a man with a viewpoint. 


I have found that usually people on the preachy side who like to dictate try to employ this technique of dishonest argumentation...because they are too insecure to actually argue the merits of certain issues....so it becomes 'Label Time'...Weak muzh, but I gotcha...it is a feeble substitute, but it is all you have. 


IF there is something specific you disagree with, I'm all ears to have a discussion on the issue.


Fathertime! 

[Muzh]

Heh, talk about being dishonest.
 
Do you really believe people were born yesterday?
 
Obviously.
 
Daveman, this is my last post on this. It goes nowhere.

[Daveman]

 
Daveman, this is my last post on this. It goes nowhere.

Yeah, the topic went around the block a few times.  I think pretty much all that is left are the side angles.  Hey, we did try to get it back on track, eh? 

As with most any hot button issue, most, if not all, are entrenched. 

I still think it would be interesting, and relevant to the topic, for someone (other than myself) to realistically tackle this question:

At what point does free choice and personal responsibility (for choices made) cease to apply?

We'll throw it out there and perhaps someone will run with it.

[Gator]

I still think it would be interesting, and relevant to the topic, for someone (other than myself) to realistically tackle this question:

At what point does free choice and personal responsibility (for choices made) cease to apply?

We'll throw it out there and perhaps someone will run with it.

I throw out the extreme, and perhaps we can work back from there:  Sophie's choice regarding which of her two children would live.   

[Misha]

he is a 'woman disliker'...NOT simply a man with a viewpoint. 

so it becomes 'Label Time'...

We seem to have a clear degradation of the quality of the labels. A few weeks ago it was misogynist. Nonetheless, there is a bit of irony IMVHO when misogyny is thrown out, when the rationale seems to be that women must somehow be "protected" as they apparently are not capable of arguing their point of view. A true "misogynist" would not believe that women are equals in terms of intellect and reason and thus have a frank discussion with them as equals; the misogynist would invariably believe in my estimation that it is their duty to protect the "weaker" sex. If you believe that men and women are equal (as I do incidentally) then you also believe that women are capable of holding their own in a debate heated discussion.

[Muzh]

Well Misha, that's your "IMVHO" as you stated above. 
 
Sure, brother.

[Gator]

To disagree with a woman is misogony?   And I always thought of misogyny as sexual objectification of women, subordination of women, etc. 

I suppose it depends upon whether the man understands her opinion and respects it. 

[Shadow]

To disagree with a woman is misogony?   

Only if you are right. 

[fathertime]

 [size=78%]Do you really believe people were born yesterday?[/size]
 

No, but one thing I do believe is that you don't think too clearly


...You grumbled earlier on the thread about an old man from Pennsylvania that was photographed with a young woman on an AFA ad.  You also whined about men that could be grandfathers of the women they were with (40 year age difference)...neither of which is typical.  I've countered these two exaggerated points and you prodiced silence except to create labels. 

 
Daveman, this is my last post on this. It goes nowhere.

[/size]

Now you make a grand proclamation that you are leaving the thread, because nobody 'understands' you..sniff sniff.    And how about all that backhanded and unwarranted criticism you so generously doled out on this thread and many others?  It seems cowardly that you would run away now that others are making strong counterarguments to your labels during "Label time"...but I can't say it is surprising that you are slithering away now   


 Yeah so the poll didn't go the way you think it should, that doesn't mean you aren't allowed to make you case or dial it back about 3 notches....and try not to go calling/implying men that disagree with a woman.  'woman dislikers'.


Fathertime!   

[Muzh]

No, but one thing I do believe is that you don't think too clearly


...You grumbled earlier on the thread about an old man from Pennsylvania that was photographed with a young woman on an AFA ad.  You also whined about men that could be grandfathers of the women they were with (40 year age difference)...neither of which is typical.  I've countered these two exaggerated points and you prodiced silence except to create labels. 



Now you make a grand proclamation that you are leaving the thread, because nobody 'understands' you..sniff sniff.    And how about all that backhanded and unwarranted criticism you so generously doled out on this thread and many others?  It seems cowardly that you would run away now that others are making strong counterarguments to your labels during "Label time"...but I can't say it is surprising that you are slithering away now   


 Yeah so the poll didn't go the way you think it should, that doesn't mean you aren't allowed to make you case or dial it back about 3 notches....and try not to go calling/implying men that disagree with a woman.  'woman dislikers'.


Fathertime!   

I just saw this.
 
So Dave, explain to me how is FT addressing the post?
 
More like toking the embers, don't you think?
 
Interesting.

[JayH]

Truth is a defence in libel and slander cases--- it being a truth stated ought to pass muster here also!

[fathertime]

I just saw this.
 
So Dave, explain to me how is FT addressing the post?
 
More like toking the embers, don't you think?
 
Interesting.

You sure do suddenly publicly complain a lot....and after all the nasty comments/insinuations you made to others, it seems hypocritical that you moan now...  There is no requirement that you address or even read my posts if they insult your sensibilities.  It is ironic though, considering your 'contributions'. 


I am always up for a reasonable debate, but very few want to read your backhanded/dismissive comments...so don't be too surprised when they receive a response.   


Fathertime!

[Gator]

FT, to be precise,  Muzh did not whine but "cringed" about grandfathers dating young RW.  I don't know about the rest as I did not read the thread closely when the topic of misogyny, woman disliker, etc.  derailed it.

Over the years Muzh is usually reasonable with his arguments.  I have never seen him make stuff up,    yet just like the rest of us, he may tilt it in favor of his set of values.   

[JayH]

.

Over the years Muzh is usually reasonable with his arguments.  I have never seen him make stuff up,     

I have seen him make stuff up-- so beg to differ on that.
There is no excuse for that.
Muzh's condescending insults are past their use by date on the forum--it is about time he woke up to that.

[Daveman]

RWD basically just went through what could be considered similar to a reboot.  That's the bottom line. This particular thread is a carry-over from prior to that point.  Let's move forward.

There's no reason for anyone to continue the back and forth.  I would suggest everyone to wipe the slate clean and go from there. 

Check out these pertinent excerpts from the RWD Site Vision:

...
RWD stresses inclusivity and self-moderation amongst the members who join our site.

RWD promotes spirited, even heated, discourse and exchange - within the confines of civil behavior and with a focus on increasing our collective knowledge and understanding of these international unions.
...

Topics at RWD range from politics to sexuality, religion, culture, history and beyond - all within the overall context of international relationships with women from the FSU

RWD practices tolerance of diversity in opinions expressed and experiences shared, and promotes the notion of individual choice wherever and whenever possible.