Dating: If you're short, you better make $$$$$$$

[Subfallen]

LOL @ people trying to argue with Blarg. STFU and learn, fools. STFU and learn.

Also, keep in mind: "Some people are born on third base and go through life thinking they hit a triple." (Barry Switzer)

[Anacardo]

Also, keep in mind: Quoting Barry Switzer is gross.

[Anacardo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fluff,

I bet it's pretty easy to maintain a sunny outlook on life for a long, long time, when you're a stunningly beautiful redhead from San Diego, who comes from a lot of money, and has a rich young baller for a boyfriend.

[/ QUOTE ]
In a vacuum I wouldn't think much of this particular post. But it's like the 40th or 50th I've seen from you directed at fluff, FFK, I think Tennenbaum, and maybe others that is just super weird to me. All fairly recently, and all with a similar theme, "aren't you a pretty li'l thing, what with your good looks and attractive boyfriend and creature comforts". I've cringed at every one of them, partly because you almost never see the female poster respond with a "heh, good one, pal" validating response.

It just seems to me you harbor some bitterness towards these chicks and possibly jealousy towards their SO's - extra awkward since some of them are regular posters in this forum. That's great and all, but it also seems hypocritical when you turn around and rip on X-Factor for flirting with them, like he's some dog infringing upon your territory. This is relevant because it's no secret that you've been in flagrante delicto with more than one of them. (Also, as an aside, that Dids joins in on the ripping is a huge LOL for a ton of reasons. This may make him hate me more but he is so consistently clueless in chick threads he should just STFU on these matters for the sake of both him and humanity.)

My advice is to let these chicks breathe and enjoy a beer or two, but after reading your painful thread in El D's forum I'm sure you won't take it. Also, don't PM me about this, I was concerned about your well-being earlier this year and sent you a PM that you couldn't be bothered to respond to. I won't respond to yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh. Good one, pal.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
As to you poo-pooing my life experience. You may be right. I am a year out of college and probably a fair bit younger than you. Having said that, I 've attended elitist preppy schools for my entire life and do not come from a wealthy family. So, in terms of being surrounded by people with far more money than me in social settings, I would be surprised if you had as consistent or concentrated an experience as myself.


[/ QUOTE ]

Life is full of surprises.

[ QUOTE ]
I assure you that I approach women and was not being disingenuous when stating that I don't think money matters as much as you make it out to. Although, it appears that the majority of your second paragraph was more of a gibe at me than a series of serious thoughts.


[/ QUOTE ]

How much money matters can depend a lot on who you're talking to, needless to say. You are right that I did play back the negative tone I saw in your post in part of mine, to give you an indication of how I felt you came across so you could see how it felt and consider doing things differently next time.

[ QUOTE ]
As I previously posted, I did think some injustice took place when fluff's initial post was met w/ someone calling all women idiots based on her cursory response to a topic which is heavily avoided in most social settings. You seemed to agree, "Yup, this is a taboo subject, and its discussion can be pretty easily socially punished. There's a good amount of fear around honesty of this type." So you openly write that it's an incredibly difficult topic to talk about for the great majority of women, yet expect the sole woman responding to the thread to be completely honest about all the underlying socially ingrained reasons behind a particular action which she may not have throughly poured over herself b/c hey, "[t]his is a forum, not life." That does seem a bit unrealistic, does it not? Again, I'm not sure how I stepped so far out of line.


[/ QUOTE ]

I do not expect honesty; in fact it surprises me. However, being less than honest or insightful puts what one says up for discussion, or there is no point to a post, a thread, or a forum at all. Feedback is natural. You seem to conflate feedback of every type and validity with merely the tone of some feedback. This is not fair and reasonable. Better distinctions should be made. And it's actually true that even some of the worst tone might be involved with comments that are on the money. That's the nature of the internet.

But whatever the nature of responses to a poster, that doesn't relieve their own posts from the possibility of being discussed fully and held to account for their shortcomings.

Your responses were too accusatory on the one hand and at the same time hyper-defensive on someone else's behalf. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too; be the white knight or voice of reason while at the same time going on sloppy and unwarranted attack.

Consider that a discussion is more about attacking ideas than people, and ideas are up for grabs. Nobody gets a free pass, and everybody gets a chance to shoot any idea down. Wanting a free pass or defending the right to one is inappropriate. Positing an idea is inherently taking a chance. In the discussion at hand, how honest people are was of the essence. How is it then out of line to discuss whether responses were really honest and the full truth was really being told?

Attempts to block honest discussion by defending someone as probably incapable of holding her own are patronizing while at the same time comically heroic. Why is it that I have more confidence in someone's ability to respond in a discussion she has willing joined than do you, who seem to put yourself in a position of some sort of protector?

Is it that you want to stop honest discussion, or that you think some poor poster incapable of it, or both? Or do you just want to stand out as one heck of a nice and noble guy? Regardless, it's inappropriate. In our attempts at hashing things out in discussion, both she and I, as well as quite a few others, are making honest attempts. You are instead making an uncalled for intervention on the behalf of someone who hasn't asked for it and likely doesn't need saving. Nor does anyone profit from the distraction of such an attempt.

Who here is really being respectful of the discussion and its participants?

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

if you want to get married, i think you should consider going to a third world country and finding a poor girl, because poor girls seem to be much more down to earth and have a greater sense of responsiblity, and a much lower sense of "what they deserve".

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm not exactly sure how to respond to this but this mostly describes the girl I've been with for the past 5 years and she is from a 3rd world country.
All except for the 'poor' part because her family is really pretty well off by her country's standards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but in my experience many of the wealthy third world familes arent big spenders. My girl is half chinese and her grand parents half atleast a million USD in property alone that I know about it, but I imagine that their wealth will be horded and stay in the family if that makes any sense at all. They live very simple lives. For instance, the grand parents own these houses and the rest of the family lives in them, and I imagine the next generation will live there, etc.

In America, I think its more like, inheriet your parents wealth and spend as much as it as possible in your lifetime, as opposed to save save save for future generations... or maybe Asian's are just cheap, lol.

About marriage in the USA: if your wife is going to be a stay at home Mom, its got to be pretty difficult on you unless you are really making bank. I wouldnt want to have to make the sacrifices that my father made to take care of our family. No wonder birth rates are declining and divorce rates rising.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Asians tend to think of the family as multi-generational. So wealth is thought of that way, too. Westerners tend to think of a single generation at a time.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
i think that list might be the more accurate one for some girls.
But a lot of 5'2" to 5'4" or so girls might be more comfortable with a 5'9" guy than you might think (compared with a 6'5" guy who just totally dwarfs them).
Differs according to the girl's taste of course.


I'm not seeing my 5'6" frame on that list.
You mean that being 5'6" isn't immediately considered super-duper-desireable? Bummer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I buy women liking 6'5" more than 5'9" either, at least most of the time. Most women are short enough that 6'5" towers above them kind of ridiculously and the couple will start to look a little absurd. At only a bit shy of 6'2", I find it sometimes odd when you're walking along the street with a girl and look at her and she looks like she's staring up from the bottom of a well.

[Jon1000]

As far as I can tell, you find fault w/ me along two points. The first is that you believe money matters a great deal when meeting women and I don't.

While I agree w/ your statement "[h]ow much money matters can depend a lot on who you're talking to," I disagree that money is almost ever a deciding factor in and of itself. As has been repeated multiple times in this thread, women are interested in a variety of things. Men who become fixated on money preventing them from being happy with regard to meeting women are usually also lacking in a social and/or attractiveness sphere. This is not always the case, but it is a good general rule. My initial reaction to this thread was simply that a lot of the responders, not just yourself, place an undue degree of weight to the role money plays in dating/meeting women because they are unwilling to look at other aspects of their lives. I am addressing more people than you, but we have become embroiled in a one on one discussion. While you most recently said that money matters to some and not others and that is that, you originally responded to another poster and myself that we must lack experience or lack the mental capacity to see how much money plays a role. That statement is the one with which I took exception and the reason I quoted it. The original point in contention between us was your appraisal of my lack of experience w/ women and money b/c I do not subscribe to your women/money/dating view. I did not take offense to either, but I believe both are mischaraterizations.


The main sticking point you have since developed with me is my defense of fluff's post and my objection to your tone.

I am new to debates on the internet, but to a lay observer, many 2+2ers seemed entirely rude and immature in response to fluff's post. That is not to say that their/your arguments are invalid because of their caustic tones, but it does mean that you are highly unlikely to get a response. From a logical analysis standpoint, tone should not matter when addressing an issue. However, from a common sense/social standpoint, it is painfully obvious that a repulsive tone is going to alienate a single responding minority and also make her defensive and less likely to engage in an extended open and honest discussion. This may be counterintuitive logically, but I firmly believe it to be true. So while my objections may be sloppy, I hardly think they are unwarranted, nor do I feel as though they represent as much of a personal attack against you as you appear to feel they do. So, while I admittedly defend civility, my actions are probably more conducive to allowing for honest discussion in this particular instance and are not meant to be patronizing.

As an aside, I do not think the tone of the post, that sparked a degeneration in the civility of your language, was particularly aggressive. If you can tell me how it was, I would genuinely appreciate that you PM me and I will attempt to curb it in the future. But if anything, I think the sudden combativeness with which you began address me speaks volumes precisely about the the need to guard your tone in debate.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as I can tell, you find fault w/ me along two points. The first is that you believe money matters a great deal when meeting women and I don't.

While I agree w/ your statement "[h]ow much money matters can depend a lot on who you're talking to," I disagree that money is almost ever a deciding factor in and of itself. As has been repeated multiple times in this thread, women are interested in a variety of things, and men who become fixated on money preventing them from being happy with regard to meeting women are usually also lacking in a social and/or attractiveness sphere. This is not always the case, but it is a good general rule. My initial reaction to this thread was simply that a lot of the responders, not just yourself, place an undue degree of weight to the role money plays in dating/meeting women. However, you are the individual who chose to respond to me, and so I am actually addressing a larger audience though we are speaking on a one to one basis. While you most recently said that money matters to some and not others and that is that, you originally responded to another poster and myself that we must lack experience or lack the mental capacity to see how much money plays a role.


[/ QUOTE ]

In this same paragraph, you say you don't think it effects things "almost ever." This strikes me as absolutely absurdly overstated.

[ QUOTE ]
That statement is the one with which I took exception and the reason I quoted it. The original point in contention between us was your appraisal of my lack of experience w/ women and money b/c I do not subscribe to your women/money/dating view. I did not take offense to either, but I believe both are mischaraterizations.

The main sticking point you have since developed with me is my defense of fluff's post and my objection to your tone. I am new to debates on the internet, but to a lay observer, many 2+2ers seemed entirely rude and immature in response to fluff's post


[/ QUOTE ]

You should separate posters out and not lump them together. All the more so when you are being critical and addressing people themselves rather than whatever it is they say. You cannot expect fairness you do not extend to others, nor much in the way of a good discussion from there on out if you do otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
That is not to say that their/your arguments are invalid because of their caustic tones, but it does mean that you are highly unlikely to get a response. From a logical analysis standpoint, tone should not matter when addressing an issue. However, from a common sense/social standpoint, it is painfully obvious that a repulsive tone is going to alienate a single responding minority and also make her defensive and less likely to engage in an extended open and honest discussion. This may counterintuitive logically, but I firmly believe it to be true. So while my objections may be sloppy, I hardly think they are unwarranted, nor do I feel as though it they represent as much of a personal attack against you as you appear to feel they are.


[/ QUOTE ]

When venturing into the dangerous waters of lumping people together and then jumping on them, you make a choice. People will of course react to such choices. Perhaps better choices are available. That might be worth considering, especially when faced with obvious evidence that things could have been done better.

[ QUOTE ]
So, while I admittedly defend civility, my actions are probably more conducive to allowing for honest discussion in this particular instance and are not meant to be patronizing.

As an aside, I do not think the tone of the post, that sparked a degeneration in the civility of your language, was particularly aggressive. If you can tell me how it was, I would genuinely appreciate that you PM me and I will attempt to curb it in the future. But if anything, I think the increasing deterioration of civility with which you address me speaks to the need to guard your tone in debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are turning things around here. I did give you a taste of your own medicine in my first response, to let you see how it feels yourself. If you wouldn't have lumped all tones in with one, or me with all posters, that wouldn't have happened. I at least have addressed you specifically, without bundling you into a group and tarring the lot with the same brush. That strikes me as the fairer path. If there is tone or direction that has gone astray here, you had best look in the mirror.

By the way, I still do think your attempts at rescuing fluff diminished her. I'm still convinced her posts are as up for discussion as anyone's, and that she understands that and is as perfectly capable of dealing with it as is anyone else.

[Jon1000]

I do not believe "almost ever" is absurdly overstated in my personal experience. I allow that money is more important to some than others when meeting women, but I stand by the fact that it can almost never be the sole deciding factor in and of itself. To me, your current objection to my word choice regarding frequency is quite different from your original objection to the idea as a whole and that I must just be lacking in experience or sincerity.

I apologize for lumping you in with another poster. Truly. This seems to be the single thing you took personal offense to in my original response post. I attempted to do better in my last post by specifically addressing you when I thought necessary and demonstrating that I was engaging more people than you with regard to my money/women beliefs in another instance.

I still do not think that my accidentally lumping you together with another poster really affected the overall message of my original post. Looking back at my it, I wrote that she "got her throat jumped down" and did not mention you specifically. I then said that you either said or insinuated that she was "completely dishonest." You, in fact, did insinuate she was being dishonest. I then went into my defense of her and expressed my belief that she was unlikely to respond. Again, I do not see where my tone became sophomoric. You became upset that I lumped you with another poster, not that I acted uncivilly. It appears that you threw the first stone on that front through a bit of hyperbole involving the odd imagery of me being a hairy knight.

"When venturing into the dangerous waters of lumping people together and then jumping on them, you make a choice. People will of course react to such choices. Perhaps better choices are available. That might be worth considering, especially when faced with obvious evidence that things could have been done better."
You say that you responded sarcastically to me in order to how me how an inappropriate tone feels and to "teach me" to do it better next time, but at no point did you say such a thing. In retrospect, it comes across to me more as indignation and immaturity in response to my incorrectly lumping you together with another poster. I also immediately apologized for that prior to your post. I was wrong in my lumping. I have said so a few times at this point. But I do not feel that I was the first to sink to baser tone.

Finally, my initial reaction was one of disgust at the people jumping on the only girl to respond to the thread. While my ineffective intervention may not have been necessary, it was not my goal to diminish fluff in any way and I would ask you and her both to read my posts if you sincerely feel that way and determine if my true intention was to diminish her b/c I did not feel her capable of defending herself.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not believe "almost ever" is absurdly overstated in my personal experience. I allow that money is more important to some than others when meeting women, but I stand by the fact that it can almost never be the sole deciding factor in and of itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

*sigh* We are not arguing facts but opinions. There are no facts about these situations, and if there were, you wouldn't have any more access to them than anyone else.

As for experience, your personal experience no more describes the whole than does my own. Since apparently mine is wider than is yours, I'd say it's a little silly to write it off completely, especially by reference to your having seen less. This just doesn't seem to logically hold water.

Thank you for your apology. I think we've extracted as much value as we're going to from this discussion.