Girlfriend just told me I'm average

[dickapick]

Great to see that smallish issue has been solved .. :smile:

 

[D_Jerk_Douglas]

You aren't average, AT ALL. You're far above it. I don't know what this girl is thinking.

 

[Enid]

She says "I can't believe I thought that this was average. Look, I can get two hands around it and still have plenty on the end to play with."

See, it all came down to an unfortunate choice of words. :smile:

Word choice is sometimes a subjective thing to the individual, even if the issue at hand is objective. For instance, statistics on cock size.

I'm glad you didn't follow drabman's advice. It sounds like it would not have been right for you, and certainly not right for this relationship as you have described it. It wouldn't be right for me either.

Personally if it were me I'd claim to have had a bad experience with a former girlfriend who was so hot I found it stressful having other men constantly hit on her and then tell her how glad I was to have found the perfect girl for me.

I understand his point about pervasive game-playing, but to my mind there's a difference between presenting oneself in a good light at the beginning of a relationship (as long as there is no major deception going on) and contriving to undermine an individual whom you have perceived to have said something crass. IMHO, the mature/responsible individual confronts and deals instead of making back-handed jibes.

 

[henry8888]

Maybe its cos of how big it looks in relation to your body..... when i was 16 i was 6 inches and it was skinny but it looked quite big because of how stupidly thin i was.
But your not even above average anyway you are big which ever way you look at it.

 

[drabman]

Oh and drabman, I think you've applied a lot of sound logical steps to an extremely faulty premise to end up somewhere that appears rational but isn't. Saying a woman doesn't have a 'gorgeous body' isn't equivalent to saying a man doesn't have a 'big dick'. A man will always feel he wants a woman with a gorgeous (to him) body, but not every woman desires a big dick (you won't have to look long to find a woman who specifically doesn't want a well-endowed partner.)...

I don't think you understood my premise. I wasn't comparing a woman's opinion of the importance of penis size with a man's opinion of the importance of a gorgeous body. Rather, I was arguing that I find it difficult to believe most women would fail to realise many men feel having a large penis is a desirable trait on a par with a woman having a gorgeous body.

That is likely to be doubly true when her partner actually refers to his penis in the manner and in the situation you described. I would have thought it self-evident that telling a man his dick is only average in such a situation is likely to have the same effect on him as a man telling a woman her body is only average in a similar situation is likely to have on her.

Any intelligent or intuitive woman must surely be able to understand that. Consequently I still feel that what your girlfriend said to you was just as unnecessarily hurtful and belittling as the example I gave where the woman was on the receiving end of a similar remark. You can't deny the effect her words have had on your self-esteem.

I don't know why she said it - it could easily be perfectly innocent. At the end of the day my suspicion of an element of manipulation possibly being involved is pure speculation. It could even be the case that you inadvertently left something out that would make her behaviour appear less insensitive. At the end of the day only you can judge.

I'd just be careful that's all. That's not an attack on her BTW - I would personally be wary of putting anyone on a pedestal when a relationship is relatively new, even if they eventually turn out to be worthy of it.

 

[drabman]

I'm glad you didn't follow drabman's advice. It sounds like it would not have been right for you, and certainly not right for this relationship as you have described it. It wouldn't be right for me either...

My remarks were rhetorical - they weren't intended as serious advice. I thought that would have been clear.

I understand his point about pervasive game-playing, but to my mind there's a difference between presenting oneself in a good light at the beginning of a relationship (as long as there is no major deception going on) and contriving to undermine an individual whom you have perceived to have said something crass. IMHO, the mature/responsible individual confronts and deals instead of making back-handed jibes.

You're quite right. There is a difference. I haven't gone back too far through the thread, but I don't believe I ever suggested there wasn't- I was simply arguing against the pollyanna-ish belief that there is any such thing as some relationship with the kind of metaphysical simplicity and purity where both parties bare their souls 100% to "The One".

My point was that at a fundamental level there is an element of deception or manipulation in all relationships - indeed, it even seems to be present in most people's relationship with themselves. Whether that difference is qualitative or quantitative is open to question.

 

[D_JuanAFock]

I dont get this about other guys... this entire thread is strange as shit to me.

First, you have Shannon, who has great sex and a wonderful girl that says hes the perfect fit... and his first thought is, "wait... im not massive?" I just dont get that. If your sex is great, the size of your penis should not even matter. At all. The entire thought of, "how big am i?" should completely evaporate.

Then you have drabman, who is paranoid about anything a woman does. You are the political conspiracy theorist of females. Whatever happens, there is always some hidden and secret plan.

EDIT: Also, I can pretty clearly see that what she was saying was a misinterpretation. Shannon's question in response to what she said threw her off, she probably didnt think you cared that much about penis size considering all of the other stuff that she said... so when you asked, "am i really not that big?" probably had her thinking that you thought she meant you were small.

 

[715636]

Hahaha you said it yourself, "focused on the other issue" she said you were good in bed what more do you wan?. Anyway some girls just don't like saying your big.

If your not as big as a previous guy even if you are big she won't really think your big for some odd reason. Ive had this myself.

 

[drabman]

..
Then you have drabman, who is paranoid about anything a woman does. You are the political conspiracy theorist of females. Whatever happens, there is always some hidden and secret plan...

That is a complete distortion of my position. Please don't try to paint me as some kind of misogynist - that is not the case at all. I simply believe that some women can be just as unpleasant and manipulative in relationships as some men are, but that because women tend to be more skilled at non-verbal communication and more attuned to the subtlety of conversation and so on, probably for historical and social reasons, it isn't always as obvious.

I was actually arguing two different things, which you (and to be fair some others) seem to have conflated.

The first was a response to Shannon's practical problem. I was arguing that from what he told us in his OP, it appeared to me that his girlfriend could have been trying to keep him from getting too big for his boots by deliberately undermining his pride in having a big penis. This is not a case of "being paranoid about everything a woman does" or being "the conspiracy theorist of females" - it is something that a number of men, on a number of different forums, claim has happened to them in reality. It was therefore not unreasonable to argue that this could be the case here. However if you hadn't been so quick to leap to conclusions, you would have seen that I qualified that opinion by conceding that Shannon's girlfriend might have had a perfectly innocent reason for saying what she did.

The second was a more academic and philosophical point concerning the true nature of relationships. I was arguing against the view that there can be such a thing as a totally honest relationship between two selfless individuals whose motives are pure, whether they are male or female and whether the relationship is romantic or not.

My point was that there is self-interest and an element of manipulation in all romantic relationships, no matter how far below the surface it might lie, just as there is in all social and business relationships. In a sense, romantic relationships are just as much practical transactions as business ones - the air of metaphysical wonder we attach to them is a conceit that is entirely based on the positive feelings such relationships engender in us and the fact that our motivations and behaviour in such relationships is not always totally conscious or clear, even to ourselves. As a result I tend to interpret people's actions in light of that.

If you think I am wrong, then I don't understand why you feel the need to resort to mockery and insults, instead of simply stating the fact, or arguing against me. In fact there does seem to be a depressing tendency to make ad hominem attacks on this forum.

 

[drabman]

...Consequently I still feel that what your girlfriend said to you was just as unnecessarily hurtful and belittling as the example I gave where the woman was on the receiving end of a similar remark. You can't deny the effect her words have had on your self-esteem.

I don't know why she said it - it could easily be perfectly innocent...

Apologies Shannon - I didn't read your recent post properly. As it appears there was an innocent reason for her remarks after all, I hope that puts your mind at rest.

 

[D_JuanAFock]

That is a complete distortion of my position. Please don't try to paint me as some kind of misogynist - that is not the case at all. I simply believe that some women can be just as unpleasant and manipulative in relationships as some men are, but that because women tend to be more skilled at non-verbal communication and more attuned to the subtlety of conversation and so on, probably for historical and social reasons, it isn't always as obvious.

I think very few people enter into a relationship with the intent on being unpleasant and manipulative. Neither side is more than the other. I am bringing up the fact that you even had the thought that she was trying to be manipulative makes you paranoid as shit and you probably have psychological issues if it is something that instantly popped into your head.

I was actually arguing two different things, which you (and to be fair some others) seem to have conflated.

The first was a response to Shannon's practical problem. I was arguing that from what he told us in his OP, it appeared to me that his girlfriend could have been trying to keep him from getting too big for his boots by deliberately undermining his pride in having a big penis. This is not a case of "being paranoid about everything a woman does" or being "the conspiracy theorist of females" - it is something that a number of men, on a number of different forums, claim has happened to them in reality. It was therefore not unreasonable to argue that this could be the case here. However if you hadn't been so quick to leap to conclusions, you would have seen that I qualified that opinion by conceding that Shannon's girlfriend might have had a perfectly innocent reason for saying what she did.

A number of paranoid men, on a number of forums claim has happened to them. I am sure that there are scenarios wherein they are in a fight with a girl and the girl might talk badly about their manhood, but there are likely very very very few cases in which the person making the statement had the intent that you speak of.

The second was a more academic and philosophical point concerning the true nature of relationships. I was arguing against the view that there can be such a thing as a totally honest relationship between two selfless individuals whose motives are pure, whether they are male or female and whether the relationship is romantic or not.

This isnt even about honesty. 100% honesty doesnt exist in anything, I consider myself pretty honest, but I will tell half-truths for some things (not in a relationship, but I havent had to tell a half-truth in any relationship so far). That is also not an academic or philosophical point, that is just a simple observation that is made routinely in a television show by the name of House, "everybody lies".

My point was that there is self-interest and an element of manipulation in all romantic relationships, no matter how far below the surface it might lie, just as there is in all social and business relationships. In a sense, romantic relationships are just as much practical transactions as business ones - the air of metaphysical wonder we attach to them is a conceit that is entirely based on the positive feelings such relationships engender in us and the fact that our motivations and behaviour in such relationships is not always totally conscious or clear, even to ourselves. As a result I tend to interpret people's actions in light of that.

There might be self interest, but there is not an element of intentional manipulation. You are just once again reiterating the fact that you are paranoid and possibly delusional.

If you think I am wrong, then I don't understand why you feel the need to resort to mockery and insults, instead of simply stating the fact, or arguing against me. In fact there does seem to be a depressing tendency to make ad hominem attacks on this forum.

I wasnt making an argument against your case, I was simply calling you paranoid. I had no intention of discussing anything with you at all, therefore it is not really an ad hominem attack. It is, at the most simple of levels, me calling you paranoid. That is it. How the hell you came up with a 3/4 page essay on what I said is unbelievable. No wonder there are people that prefer to just ignore you than try to actually respond. I think I will probably follow suit.

 

[drabman]

I think very few people enter into a relationship with the intent on being unpleasant and manipulative...

I agree - but many relationships end up that way. And before you either wilfully or inadvertently misinterpret my point again, let me be clear that I am not saying that all, or even the majority, of relationships are like that; but many.

Neither side is more than the other....

Again, I never suggested that. I've conceded on a number of occasions elsewhere in this forum that many men are guilty of manipulation, acting in a controlling manner and other forms of bad behaviour. However the OP concerns penis size and there would hardly be a case where a man belittled a woman about the size of her penis, would there?

I am bringing up the fact that you even had the thought that she was trying to be manipulative makes you paranoid as shit and you probably have psychological issues if it is something that instantly popped into your head.

It is not a fact - it is simply your opinion. Your inability to express it without making insulting remarks suggests that you have issues of your own.

If you check back through the women's forum you will find examples of women admitting that they have responded to men asking about their penis size by lying that it's small or average when it isn't, due to their irritation at such a question. While that isn't specifically manipulative in the sense I meant, it suggests that my speculation is based on at least some element of objective truth.

A number of paranoid men, on a number of forums claim (that women have lied about penis size to undermine their confidence). I am sure that there are scenarios wherein they are in a fight with a girl and the girl might talk badly about their manhood, but there are likely very very very few cases in which the person making the statement had the intent that you speak of.

So yet again you dismiss testimony or opinion that doesn't support your assertions as "paranoia".

Why is it "likely" that there are very few cases? Do you have any evidence to support making this argument quite so strongly? What makes you think that with the mountain of examples throughout history of human cruelty, nastiness, unkindness and the sort of unpleasant belittling that you seem to revel in, this particular example is so uniquely taboo that few women would ever resort to it?

This (debate) isnt even about honesty.

100% honesty doesnt exist in anything...

By claiming that a debate about a relationship doesn't concern honesty and then tangentially expressing a view on how much honesty exists in relationships, you are simply contradicting yourself.

I consider myself pretty honest, but I will tell half-truths for some things

Half-truths are not honest.

I havent had to tell a half-truth in any relationship so far)...

Good for you - but many people do.

That is also not an academic or philosophical point...

I wasn't using the word "academic" in the sense you appear to believe. I simply meant that I was making that particular argument in a speculative sense, rather than having a direct or practical application to the OP. Only I can know my own motivations, so unless you are arrogant enough to believe you know them better than I do, you can't possibly say that my argument wasn't an academic one. It was clearly philosophical since it addressed the question of what is fundamentally true.

that is just a simple observation that is made routinely in a television show by the name of House, "everybody lies"....

That doesn't mean it isn't philosophical (although I agree it could make it trite). Philosophy is partly based upon observation, after all.

There might be self interest, but there is not an element of intentional manipulation...

That might be your view and it might be true in some cases. However my view is that there are relationships where one, or both parties act manipulatively.

You are just once again reiterating the fact that you are paranoid and possibly delusional...

And you are just once again reiterating the fact that you are unable to disagree without resorting to tedious abuse.

I wasnt making an argument against your case,

I know, you haven't read my post properly. I asked WHY you couldn't simply make an argument against my case instead of resorting to insults.

...I was simply calling you paranoid. I had no intention of discussing anything with you at all, therefore it is not really an ad hominem attack.

That's exactly what it was. Resorting to pejorative personal remarks about someone in a debate as a means of undermining the credibility of their position, instead of directly addressing their argument, is the very definition of an ad hominem attack.

"An ad hominem ...is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it."

Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is how you attempted to negate my argument at the beginning of your reply.

the fact that you even had the thought that she was trying to be manipulative makes you paranoid as shit and you probably have psychological issues if it is something that instantly popped into your head.

I rest my case.

How the hell you came up with a 3/4 page essay on what I said is unbelievable...

Almost as unbelievable as you describing it as unbelievable and then responding with a three-quarter page response of your own.

You attacked me, so I defended myself. If you insist on calling someone names, you should expect that. Your insults seemed to be based on a misunderstanding of my position, so I attempted to explain my argument in detail, in order to enlighten you.

No wonder there are people that prefer to just ignore you than try to actually respond...

I'm only aware of a solitary poster who expressed that view, after resorting to a torrent of abuse when they couldn't win the argument. Amusingly they continued to respond with similar abuse after they had said they would no longer bother to read my posts.

I'm sorry if there are people who prefer to ignore me instead of debating, when I haven't resorted to personal attacks, stalking, or other inappropriate behaviour. However ignoring a poster you consider annoying would be a more mature response than abusive personal remarks.

I think I will probably follow suit.

If you refuse to argue sensibly, then that would be preferable.

 

[D_JuanAFock]

I agree - but many relationships end up that way. And before you either wilfully or inadvertently misinterpret my point again, let me be clear that I am not saying that all, or even the majority, of relationships are like that; but many.

And it is of my opinion, that there are few, not many.

It is not a fact - it is simply your opinion. Your inability to express it without making insulting remarks suggests that you have issues of your own.

You are quite terrible at distinguishing between the fact and the opinion. The fact is that you had the position that she was trying to be manipulative. That is in fact, a fact. The rest of that statement is my opinion based upon that fact. The key word "makes" in that statement is to indicate that it is something based on something else. You are quite simply bad at looking at the structure of the statement. Also, making insulting remarks does not suggest I have issues of my own, it just shows that I want to make a bigger impact in the statement. Journalists use this often.

If you check back through the women's forum you will find examples of women admitting that they have responded to men asking about their penis size by lying that it's small or average when it isn't, due to their irritation at such a question. While that isn't specifically manipulative in the sense I meant, it suggests that my speculation is based on at least some element of objective truth.

So, the women themselves say that they say it is small or average, due to irritation. Yet, you speculate there is a hidden agenda. Case in point on you being paranoid. You are drawing false conclusions because of whatever reason.

So yet again you dismiss testimony or opinion that doesn't support your assertions as "paranoia".

Yes, I do. One, you looked at many forums to find few testimonies. Two, these men sound like they were hurt, so their opinion of the situation is already biased. Three, your own opinion is biased therefore you are seeking out cherry picked material.

Why is it "likely" that there are very few cases? Do you have any evidence to support making this argument quite so strongly? What makes you think that with the mountain of examples throughout history of human cruelty, nastiness, unkindness and the sort of unpleasant belittling that you seem to revel in, this particular example is so uniquely taboo that few women would ever resort to it?

Because the things that made history are not common. Yes, it exists within the potential of people to do terrible things, but these are rare. There is a reason we are shocked when we hear about terrible things on the news. It does not fall into a common occurrence, it is unusual.

These two statements are mutually contradictory.

What? No they arent. One is a statement that this scenario has nothing to do with honesty. It was a simple statement said to Shannon. There is nothing honest or dishonest about it. The second part is an entirely different statement about my opinion that 100% honesty does not exist. The third part you already agree with me:

Half-truths are not honest.

No shit, this 3rd part was a reinforcement of my opinion that 100% honesty does not exist.

I wasn't using the word "academic" in the sense you appear to believe. I simply meant that I was making that particular argument in a speculative or theoretical sense, rather than directly addressing the OP. Only I can know my own motivations, so unless you are arrogant enough to believe you know them better than I do, you can't possibly say that my argument wasn't an academic one. The argument is clearly philosophical since it's concerned with the question of what is fundamentally true.

In order for it to be qualified as "academic" in the sense that you claim, it would have to have a solid basis and can be repeatedly tested as true. However, given the nature of the issue, you can not repeatedly test it as true. Your idea of what you are doing, is not academic at all. It is just as academic as people that believe in political conspiracy theories. They have no factual basis, but they will argue it to no end. It is also not philosophical, because what is "fundamentally true" is not a persons motive for doing something. What that philosophical statement is for, is in relation to things that we know. Something like, "does a relationship actually exist" would be more philosophical than, "did she intentionally try to manipulate me".

I know, you haven't read my post properly. I asked WHY you couldn't simply make an argument against my case, rather than resorting to insults.

I explained why. I just wanted to call you paranoid. Thats it. I had no intention of discussing anything at all.

That is exactly what it was. Resorting to pejorative personal remarks about someone in a debate, instead of refuting their argument, is the very definition of an ad hominem attack.

Like I said, this was not a debate, discussion, or argument. It was me calling you paranoid. It is an insult, not an ad hominem attack. If you want to use that statement, please understand the areas of usage.

Almost as unbelievable as you describing it as unbelievable and then responding with a three-quarter page response of your own.

You attacked me, so I defended myself. If you insist on calling someone names, you should expect that. Your insults seemed to be based on a misunderstanding of my position, so I attempted to explain my argument in detail, in order to enlighten you.

Coming up with a 3/4 page response to a 3/4 page response is easy. Coming up with a 3/4 page response to a one liner is a touch more difficult. And you seem to do it with every single response against you.

I'm only aware of a solitary poster who expressed that view, after resorting to a torrent of abuse when they couldn't win the argument. Amusingly they continued to respond with similar abuse after they had said they would no longer bother to read my posts.

You are annoying, people dislike being annoyed.

It is funny though, that you cite ad hominem so much but freely use it on your own. While it is not as direct as an insult, it falls under the same category
"suggests that you have issues of your own."
"unpleasant belittling that you seem to revel in"

Anyway, my last response to you.

 

[drabman]

And it is of my opinion, that there are few (relationships that are manipulative) not many.

And that's a perfectly reasonable opinion. There is a huge difference between that and the position you took in your last post, which is that your opinion is fact and that simply because I disagreed with you I am worthy of abuse.

You are quite terrible at distinguishing between the fact and the opinion. The fact is that you had the position that she was trying to be manipulative. That is in fact, a fact. The rest of that statement is my opinion based upon that fact. The key word "makes" in that statement is to indicate that it is something based on something else. You are quite simply bad at looking at the structure of the statement...

I disagree. I would suggest that you are either being disingenuous here, or else you have failed to understand the structure of your own sentence.

Here is what you actually said.

I am bringing up the fact that (your assertion about the potential motive of Shannon's girlfriend) makes you paranoid as shit and you probably have psychological issues if it is something that instantly popped into your head.

You therefore claimed that it is "a fact" that I am paranoid, based solely upon a hypothesis I made. Unless you can provide empirical or axiomatic evidence that my hypothesis is irrational - for example that no woman, anywhere, has ever commented on a partner's penis size in order to undermine his confidence, or you have clinical evidence that I am indeed paranoid - your statement is demonstrably an opinion and not a fact, as you mistakenly claim.

Also, making insulting remarks does not suggest I have issues of my own...

I beg to differ. Those who resort to abuse instead of responding to an argument with rational debate, give the impression that either they so hate to be contradicted that they cannot help losing their temper, or that they cannot construct an intelligent response.

it just shows that I want to make a bigger impact in the statement...

I'm surprised that you believe mindless abuse makes any rhetorical impact whatsoever. If you need to employ abuse to make an impact, it is reasonable to assume that your argument is not strong enough to do so on its own.

Journalists use this often...

I'm not aware of any journalists engaging in debate by resorting to the sort of abuse you appear to be so fond of - although given the huge number of journalists that exist in the world I suppose it might be possible. However I disagree that it's routine behaviour for any serious journalist, as opposed to commentators. In any case, journalists are hardly arbiters of decent behaviour.

So, the women themselves say that they say it is small or average, due to irritation. Yet, you speculate there is a hidden agenda...

No - I'm not speculating at all. The women have admitted to lying, therefore it is self-evident that they were hiding the truth. It therefore follows that they were also hiding their motive - i.e that they had a hidden agenda.

Case in point on you being paranoid. You are drawing false conclusions because of whatever reason.....

Drawing false conclusions is a matter of being mistaken, not specifically of being paranoid. Therefore your logic is flawed from the outset.

Notwithstanding that fact, my conclusions are perfectly reasonable. I repeat - the women admitted lying in order to engender a specific response. That is patently manipulative, therefore it is clearly logical to describe their behaviour as such. Consequently my conclusion is logical and it is not rational to describe me as paranoid purely because of that logical conclusion.

Yes, I (dismiss testimony that doesn't fit my own conclusions)...

Then you are not engaging in honest debate.

One, you looked at many forums to find few testimonies. Two, these men sound like they were hurt, so their opinion of the situation is already biased...

That is wild speculation on your part. Neither of us can say with certainty what their motives were.

Three, your own opinion is biased therefore you are seeking out cherry picked material...

I have no more idea than you do whether or not the material is representative, but it is certainly not cherry-picked. Even if it is, that is immaterial. I am not drawing a conclusion about all women, as I've explained many times - I am stating that there is evidence some women have behaved like this in the past, so it is reasonable to assume that some other women have acted in this way, may be doing so now and will do so in future. Therefore it is only necessary for me to provide evidence that such behaviour has existed in the past. Even if the evidence is cherry-picked, I only need prove it exists at all to make my point. The only way in which being selective about the evidence would be important is if I was drawing a conclusion about all women, which I am not.

Because the (terrible) things that made history are not common. Yes, it exists within the potential of people to do terrible things, but these are rare. There is a reason we are shocked when we hear about terrible things on the news. It does not fall into a common occurrence, it is unusual.

I'm afraid I have to disagree. If anything many people are inured to the huge injustices in the world, which is why huge swathes of humanity lead utterly miserable lives. Don't make the mistake of thinking that the cosseted existence we lead in the West is in any way typical.

No (my statements) arent (contradictory). One is a statement that this scenario has nothing to do with honesty. It was a simple statement said to Shannon. There is nothing honest or dishonest about it...

You criticised (some might say attacked) my specific argument - that Shannon's girlfriend may have been acting dishonestly - and my general argument - which is that there is no such thing as total honesty in any relationship, romantic or otherwise. Therefore the debate was self-evidently about honesty.

The second part is an entirely different statement about my opinion that 100% honesty does not exist...

It doesn't matter if it was a different statement. The overall argument which you attacked had the issue of honesty at its core. Therefore to (incorrectly) claim that honesty was not the issue and in the very next sentence respond to my argument by making an assertion about the extent to which honesty exists is clearly contradictory.

No shit (that half-truths are not honesty).

Then your statement that you consider yourself honest, even though you admit to telling half-truths, is illogical.

3rd part was a reinforcement of my opinion that 100% honesty does not exist...

In which case you can only describe yourself as honest if you invent a definition of honesty that suits your own purposes, which renders your definition meaningless.

In order for it to be qualified as "academic" in the sense that you claim, it would have to have a solid basis and can be repeatedly tested as true. However, given the nature of the issue, you can not repeatedly test it as true. Your idea of what you are doing, is not academic at all. It is just as academic as people that believe in political conspiracy theories. They have no factual basis, but they will argue it to no end.

You are simply tying yourself up in knots here. You clearly do not realise that the word "academic" has more than one meaning. As I tried to explain, it can be applied to the practice of idle speculation that is not definitively or practically linked to the topic of a debate. You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that it only has the meaning of scholarly and objective. However strictly speaking, what you are actually referring to is the process of acquiring empirical evidence - another process you appear not to understand.

It is also not philosophical, because what is "fundamentally true" is not a persons motive for doing something...

As I have tried to explain, in the passage you are referring to I had moved on from the specific issue of Shannon's girlfriend and was arguing (academically) about whether true honesty is a part of the fundamental nature of relationships - i.e what it is that is "fundamentally true" about them. Fundamental truth is question of philosophy. I am surprised that you seem so sure of yourself, yet appear to be unaware of this.

What that philosophical statement is for, is in relation to things that we know. Something like, "does a relationship actually exist" would be more philosophical than, "did she intentionally try to manipulate me".

And I wasn't addressing either of those two things. I was addressing the question of whether fundamental honesty or selflessness can exist in any human relationship. If honesty is not a concern of philosophy then I suggest you tell all the students and scholars of Friedrich Nietzsche, or indeed any other existentialist, that they are all wasting their time.

I explained why (I didn't want to make an argument against your post). I just wanted to call you paranoid. Thats it. I had no intention of discussing anything at all.

And you don't think this is puerile?

Like I said, this was not a debate, discussion, or argument. It was me calling you paranoid. It is an insult, not an ad hominem attack. If you want to use that statement, please understand the areas of usage.

I understand perfectly what an ad hominem attack is. I explained it clearly, although you do not appear to understand my explanation.

Let me deconstruct your own argument for you.

To repeat my quote of your earlier post.

"the fact that you even had the thought that she was trying to be manipulative"..

Here you address my argument (that Shannon's girlfriend might be acting in a manipulative fashion). Therefore you are self-evidently engaging in debate, whether you choose to admit or not. Moreover, the following sentence clearly demonstrates that you are trying to explain why my argument is false - i.e you are trying to negate it, in an exchange of views - i.e a debate.

"(your argument) makes you paranoid as shit and you probably have psychological issues if it is something that instantly popped into your head."

And here you are negating it by claiming that my personal qualities (i.e "paranoia" and "psychological issues") in themselves mean my argument is discredited, instead of bothering to address the argument itself. Therefore, as I indicated before, your response could hardly fit the definition of an ad hominem attack more pefectly.

Had you merely been engaging in simple abuse as you claim, you would have simply insulted me without linking that abuse to my argument in the way you did (although quite why anybody would admit to indulging in pure abuse in a debate and therefore damning themselves as being spectacularly immature, is a mystery to me).

Coming up with a 3/4 page response to a 3/4 page response is easy. Coming up with a 3/4 page response to a one liner is a touch more difficult. And you seem to do it with every single response against you.

Your initial reply attacking me when I had previously attacked nobody else on this thread consisted of four paragraphs and 16 lines - hardly a "one-liner". I can quote it to you if you like.

You are annoying, people dislike being annoyed.

If you find me annoying, then that is your prerogative. However intelligent people do not normally react to annoyance in unintelligent ways, such as the abuse you openly admit resorting to.

While (Ad Hominem) is not as direct as an insult, it falls under the same category

It does not "fall under the same category" at all, unless you draw the category so widely that it ceases to have any meaning.

Ad hominem is clearly distinct from normal abuse. It is a logical fallacy that equates the validity of an argument with the personal qualities of the person making the argument. Insults do not necessarily address any particular argument at all - they are merely a comment on the subject of the abuse. You went to considerable lengths to unsuccessfully argue that your response to me was not an ad hominem attack but pure abuse. I'm afraid you can't have it both ways.

It is funny though, that you cite ad hominem so much but freely use it on your own. (for example)...

"suggests that you have issues of your own."
"unpleasant belittling that you seem to revel in"

Neither of these are ad hominem attacks as I did not argue that these personal qualities invalidated your argument. The first was a conclusion drawn from your habit of indulging in abuse and the second was an observation. In other words I did not argue that your beliefs were wrong because of these qualities - I simply expressed the view that you seem to possess these qualities.

Anyway, my last response to you.

I strongly suspect it won't be. In common with other posters who resort to abuse and then flounce off, you have posted again when you previously insisted you wouldn't. Prior experience suggests it is reasonable to assume you will post again with more abuse.

I'm perfectly prepared to cordially debate with you, or end this discussion here, but as I explained before, if you continue to attack me I will continue to exercise my right to defend myself.

 

[Tiggun]

Some women are extremely insecure, and degrade the penis to try and keep you attached to them. If a women ever comments negatively about your penis, just muster up the strength and leave her to get old alone.

 

[drabman]

Some women are extremely insecure, and degrade the penis to try and keep you attached to them. If a women ever comments negatively about your penis, just muster up the strength and leave her to get old alone.

And before we get any more abusive posts on this thread, please note that Tiggun used the words "some women", just as I did. We are not saying that all - or even a majority - of women behave like this. If you disagree that this phenomenon occurs at all then fine - but please; no more lazy accusations of "paranoia" or misogyny.