I’m pretty certain I didn’t change your words, but simply copied and pasted. Did you think I was bolding your words to create the false impression of aggression in your assertion that the poster knew a lot about Sex and the City? If so, I apologize, but I routinely bold specific parts of a post so I can address it specifically.
You changed my words by bolding some that I had not bolded, thereby placing an emphasis on those words even though I didn’t place any emphasis at all. You changed my quote. You changed the context.
I honestly don’t know why you bolded my words. But if you routinely bold specific parts of someone else’s post you should know enough to add that you are the one who has bolded - not the original poster. That is common forum decorum.
I stick to my opinion though. That statement was simple counter with an underhanded accusation tacked on. The only reason you could have for saying that, is that you wish to cast doubt upon the moral standing of the poster, since if they know a lot about the show/movies, they clearly must watch them a lot. I should have said “nobody who likes an honest argument wants to hear that kind of thing.” Perhaps you think I am being harsh, but I took real issue with that statement. In fact, here’s some more things you said that are unfair…
An underhanded accusation tacked on? Oy vey!!
The “only” reason you give is certainly
not the only reason. It appears that you are making assumptions based on very little.
I do not wish to “cast doubt upon the moral standing of the poster.” As I stated earlier, this poster has discussed both
Sex and the City and other TV shows quite a bit. I would like to know why he knows so much about these shows. If they are offensive to him, why is he watching them? It could simply be that he is gathering evidence to back up his views but I don’t know. And I stand by what I said.
by LittleSoldier, although I didn’t bold any of it:
"Unless I’m mistaken, underwear is worn under other clothes. Thong underwear is very comfortable. And yes, people pay for it. Obviously. What difference does it make to you? It’s covered up! Why are you so interested in women’s underwear anyway?"
Why is he so interested in women’s underwear? That’s a laughable and again, UNFAIR attack on this poster’s person. You apparently can’t contradict his argument, so you resort to a suggestion that he has an unhealthy interest in women’s underwear.
There you go, again bolding words I didn’t bold. I am requesting that you discontinue this practice. By bolding another poster’s words you are changing the context of the post. That’s rude.
Why is it laughable that he is so interested in women’s underwear? What possible difference could it make to him? This thread is about immodesty and the lack of respect for women and in that post women are being derided for wearing underwear that doesn’t even show. How could that possibly have
anything to do with the topic? Why would any man be interested in what women wear under their other clothes? They don’t show, so what difference does it make? Is it immodest to wear thong underwear to Mass? I don’t think so!!
by LittleSoldier, although I didn’t bold any of it:
"Yes, Catholic women - wake up! Don’t open doors on your own! Let men do it. Pretend to be helpless creatures who need men to make the decisions and treat you with kid gloves and put you high upon a pedestal."
Again you bolded my words. Why do you keep doing this?
So when men open doors for women, they are basically implying that women are helpless creatures who need to be treated with kids gloves? I suppose you also think it is sexist to say that men are more natural leaders than woman?
Thank you for asking an actual question instead of just making an assumption. Ooops, then you made another assumption.
Men opening doors for women used to be (and still sometimes is, although the practice seems to be disappearing as far as I can see from my own experiences of seeing men open doors for women) a sign of respect. But why is it a sign of respect? IMHO it is because some men have put women on a pedestal. I don’t know what it means each and every time a man opens a door for a women. Do women who have doors opened for them by men ask why the man is doing it? It could be a sign of respect. But it could simply be that the woman is standing behind a man and he would also open a door for a man. It could be that the woman is carrying packages or walking with a cane and opening a door for her is an act of kindness that has nothing to do with her gender. But I would hope that a man would open a door for a man that is burdened with packages or is using a cane, too.
I open doors for men who are burdened with packages and/or using a cane or walker, if I can. I also hold the door open for absolutely anyone.
And men really don’t need to treat women with “kids” gloves. I was referring to the material that forms the gloves, not the size of the gloves.
About men being more natural leaders: you’re correct in that I believe this is sexist (at least on the surface) but as you didn’t specify what the man or woman would be leading, it’s really hard to say. Are you referring to a president of a country or the person who runs the local PTA or Boy Scout troop? Do you have research findings that show support for the idea that a man is a more natural leader? If so I would like links to that research and if you have already provided links I request a post number and would appreciate that.
-----continued in next post-----
