Can you please quote the part of the video which implies that the audience is limited?
Would you mind defining the word “creeper”?
Under “Alignment” on his character sheet, brazil84 put down “Chaotic Argumentative.”
Don’t need to. Rebecca makes youtube videos for people who want to hear what she has to say or are at least familiar with her. While some others may be hostile to her opinions or are new to hearing her words it is more than apparent that she is speaking to an audience that would attend skeptical/atheist conferences or would like to. If my friend makes a video about Spartan military history he doesn’t need to preface statements with ‘Now this is not for NASCAR fans’. Simple as that.
If you have to ask, you are probably part of the problem.
You could say the same thing about 99% of people who post videos to Youtube. Agreed?
Well let’s take your analogy a step further: Your friend makes a video where he talks about his trip to a military history convention at a hotel/convention center. In the video, he mentions that a female convention-goer at the hotel bar winked at him at the bar and then would not give him her phone number upon request. He says “Ladies, don’t do that.” I would be correct in assuming that in your view his request was directed ONLY to girls who attend military history conventions?
:shrug: Assume for the sake of argument that I am part of the problem.
Now please give me your definition.
Quite possibly. So?
There’s really no answer for this because it is a complete analogy fail. It doesn’t even come close to the Watson circumstances and frankly shows how pig ignorant you are of the situation.
Well a lot more than 1% have the general public as their intended audience, agreed?
What exactly is wrong with the analogy?
Also, please give me your definition of “creeper.”
Have access to a mirror?
Lol, nice ad homenim, bowels.
But it does echo my earlier suspicion – that Miss Watson’s real objection was at least as much about who the man was as it was about what he did. If he had had higher status, I doubt she would have complained about his mildly worded offer.
Anyway, bowels, please answer my question from before:
Do you think it would be uncool to give gleena a dose of her own medicine?
What is your point? That she should not speak to her audience but rather some generic person stumbling around youtube?
Well for starters you have someone being winked at and not getting a phone number - which you are going to need to explain why this situation in any way resembles what happened to Watson.
That it does not indicate that her request is limited in scope. Duh.
The key point is that the youtube speaker did not like what happened and felt – justifiably or not – that girls should not behave that way.
To show that your distinction is irrelevant, I can change the analogy a bit:
Your friend makes a video where he talks about his trip to a military history convention at a hotel/convention center. In the video, he mentions that a female convention-goer at the hotel bar winked at him at the bar and then when he approached her, misbehaved in some way. He says “Ladies, please don’t do that.” I would be correct in assuming that in your view his request was directed ONLY to girls who attend military history conventions?
Also, please give me your definition of “creeper.”
Isn’t it amazing how brazil constantly takes “You are a disgusting person due to your racist, sexist assholeness” as an excuse for “Women are nasty and I have full right to insult them and berate them” ?
Like wow. Is there any gross, evil viewpoint that this shithead doesn’t hold?
Again, your analogy fails to be an even remotely comparable situation beyond taking place in a hotel at a convention. The fact that you cannot see where you fail is indicative of why you have a problem.
No, the fact that you are unable to explain what is wrong with my extension of YOUR analogy is indicative of why you are wrong.
Nor have you sustained your other argument:
However, you refuse to define the word “creeper,” rendering your argument meaningless.
Anyway, I am not interested in a discussion with someone who refuses to answer simple, reasonable questions so that I can understand his position.
I extended your analogy a bit, then modified it in response to your objection, and you insist that my extension is not comparable but you will not say why upon request. You state that the conduct of the man in the original encounter was not reasonable; that he was “being a creeper,” but you refuse to define the word “creeper” even though I asked you a few times.
It may a useful tactic for you to play hide the ball with your argument, but I’m not interested. Goodbye.
You can say that all you want, I rather doubt you are convincing anyone.
I’ll use small words, or at least try to, in explaining this.
Your analogy fails because you have both parties involved actively in something more akin to flirtation (damn, big words). They both took action: She winked, he went over to her. Watson did nothing to entice or provoke the man’s comments in the elevator. That alone makes the analogy meaningless.
This is why you fail.
Spomehow I am doubting that.