FamilyLife Forums

spare_parts:

dallasapple:

"

And he makes the mistake of not only lumping everyone in one group, but then invalidating that whole group, then contradicts himself by saying they should not assume motives, etc."

 

NO he does not..He is saying that is the WRONG way to go.He is saying that view is out there and its HURTING men.

Shoot your self in the foot hun..I dont care.Its your foot not mine.

Love

Dallas

 

So what you are saying is you are no more willing to validate than he is.

Apparently, you can't even bring yourself to say, "I can see where such an opening statement would close dialog and appears prejudiced."

Instead, you just tell folks they are wrong for not finding what he's said to be empowering or affirming.

You can tell me I'm wrong all you want.  But then how is that empowering or affirming to keep saying I'm wrong?

You don't affirm by finding fault.  You affirm by agreeing with the parts you can agree with.

This guy started with DISAGREEMENT.  Which is NOT affirming, nor is it empowering.

So you can call this affirming.  You can also sit in your garage and say you are a car.  In both cases, saying it doesn't make it true.

 

Im not looking at "opening statements" Im not narrow minded.The man was DISAGREEING with the method and MIND set.

And I dont care if you are "wrong " or not..I am not here to "affirm you".Im here to fight for my sons rights if his girlfriend decides to run off with my sons child my grandbaby..Im not going to sit back and whine and talk about the mean mommy's .Im not going to draw a gender war .Only speak to the rights of men and women alike.

I have my stakes in this battle and Im a feminist.I like this guy ..and its because he sees CLEARLY attacking women isnt the best way to go.Men and women have very common interest.The "mans movement" is starting off on the wrong foot.And when you trip over your self dont blame me.(a woman)There are more like us.

Love

Dallas

dallasapple:

spare_parts:

dallasapple:

"

And he makes the mistake of not only lumping everyone in one group, but then invalidating that whole group, then contradicts himself by saying they should not assume motives, etc."

 

NO he does not..He is saying that is the WRONG way to go.He is saying that view is out there and its HURTING men.

Shoot your self in the foot hun..I dont care.Its your foot not mine.

Love

Dallas

 

So what you are saying is you are no more willing to validate than he is.

Apparently, you can't even bring yourself to say, "I can see where such an opening statement would close dialog and appears prejudiced."

Instead, you just tell folks they are wrong for not finding what he's said to be empowering or affirming.

You can tell me I'm wrong all you want.  But then how is that empowering or affirming to keep saying I'm wrong?

You don't affirm by finding fault.  You affirm by agreeing with the parts you can agree with.

This guy started with DISAGREEMENT.  Which is NOT affirming, nor is it empowering.

So you can call this affirming.  You can also sit in your garage and say you are a car.  In both cases, saying it doesn't make it true.

 

Im not looking at "opening statements" Im not narrow minded.The man was DISAGREEING with the method and MIND set.

And I dont care if you are "wrong " or not..I am not here to "affirm you".Im here to fight for my sons rights if his girlfriend decides to run off with my sons child my grandbaby..Im not going to sit back and whine and talk about the mean mommy's .Im not going to draw a gender war .Only speak to the rights of men and women alike.

I have my stakes in this battle and Im a feminist.I like this guy ..and its because he sees CLEARLY attacking women isnt the best way to go.Men and women have very common interest.The "mans movement" is starting off on the wrong foot.And when you trip over your self dont blame me.(a woman)There are more like us.

Love

Dallas

Yet he's not willing to stop attacking men yet.  So what he says doesn't match up with what he does.  If it's wrong for men to attack, then why is it OK for him to attack?

Like I said, he has some good points, but hides them by not living up to his own standards.  If attacking by these so called "violent" (basically that's an attack on these men) is not going to accomplish the stated goals, then why would he think it's a valid tactic to attack those men.

By his own actions, he is saying that attacks are the way to go.

Sure, his words say no, but then he uses attacking language.

So my question is what does the author REALLY believe the solution is, because it's obvious he doesn't believe what he's just written.

---

It is illogical to argue logic with someone unwilling to examine more than his/her feelings on a matter.

spare_parts:

dallasapple:

"

And he makes the mistake of not only lumping everyone in one group, but then invalidating that whole group, then contradicts himself by saying they should not assume motives, etc."

 

NO he does not..He is saying that is the WRONG way to go.He is saying that view is out there and its HURTING men.

Shoot your self in the foot hun..I dont care.Its your foot not mine.

Love

Dallas

 

So what you are saying is you are no more willing to validate than he is.

Apparently, you can't even bring yourself to say, "I can see where such an opening statement would close dialog and appears prejudiced."

Instead, you just tell folks they are wrong for not finding what he's said to be empowering or affirming.

You can tell me I'm wrong all you want.  But then how is that empowering or affirming to keep saying I'm wrong?

You don't affirm by finding fault.  You affirm by agreeing with the parts you can agree with.

This guy started with DISAGREEMENT.  Which is NOT affirming, nor is it empowering.

So you can call this affirming.  You can also sit in your garage and say you are a car.  In both cases, saying it doesn't make it true.

What are you saying Spare?  That mine & Dallas' perspective on this author & article is wrong & yours is right?

I mean I thought it would help.  Because you guys are saying you don't line up w/anti-feministic views & neither does this guy.

He sees a problem also.  He feels it's serious enough to have the need to address it.  He's saying this is how we can handle this in a way that we don't do damage to ourselves & the women.  Which is exactly what you guys have been saying you've wanted!

I was lining you all up w/him & his thoughts on the issue.

Wrongly so I guess.

You & DiC honestly confuse me.  You are sending out double messages.

---

Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground...

He's actually saying what DiC said, but also talking about how to put those words into action.  DiC said this isn't a folcrum.  We don't have to smash down the ladies in order to lift up the men.  He's just going a step further in saying how to do that.

---

Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground...

BcauseHeLives:

He's actually saying what DiC said, but also talking about how to put those words into action.  DiC said this isn't a folcrum.  We don't have to smash down the ladies in order to lift up the men.  He's just going a step further in saying how to do that.

Or rather how to avoid doing that or even giving the impression that is the desired result.

Help the men while also helping the women...help the women while also helping the men.  Coming together in essence.

---

Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground...

What's confusing?

He says that he shouldn't assume motives, and yet he assumes motives.

He says attacks are ineffective and counter-productive, yet he attacks, used loaded words and so forth.

He says there should be validation, and then largely invalidates any complaints or criticisms.

Are you sure you are pointing to the right folks when you cite the source of your confusion? 

I find this article and the description provided by you and dallas most confusing.  They don't match up.

I don't find it empowering, nor do I find it validating, and so forth.

There really isn't anything to be confused by regarding what I've said.  I've given examples of how it contradicts itself and fails to validate and avoid those things the author himself says are ineffective and counter-productive means.

Is he trying to prove those techniques don't work by using them himself?  Because he does what he says doesn't work and/or should not be done.

---

It is illogical to argue logic with someone unwilling to examine more than his/her feelings on a matter.

spare_parts:

What's confusing?

He says that he shouldn't assume motives, and yet he assumes motives.

He says attacks are ineffective and counter-productive, yet he attacks, used loaded words and so forth.

He says there should be validation, and then largely invalidates any complaints or criticisms.

Are you sure you are pointing to the right folks when you cite the source of your confusion? 

I find this article and the description provided by you and dallas most confusing.  They don't match up.

I don't find it empowering, nor do I find it validating, and so forth.

There really isn't anything to be confused by regarding what I've said.  I've given examples of how it contradicts itself and fails to validate and avoid those things the author himself says are ineffective and counter-productive means.

Is he trying to prove those techniques don't work by using them himself?  Because he does what he says doesn't work and/or should not be done.

Okay Spare...you don't like the guy.  Duly noted.

Moving on...

---

Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground...

BcauseHeLives:

He's actually saying what DiC said, but also talking about how to put those words into action.  DiC said this isn't a folcrum.  We don't have to smash down the ladies in order to lift up the men.  He's just going a step further in saying how to do that.

I missed the part that lifts up men, was it the part that called them violent, or the part that said their complaints in the family court system were without merit.  Or was it the part where he called them angry and bitter and hurting (as they would say, but apparently no validation of that status by him.  It would have been so easy to validate it, instead of painting these things as the criticism he levels at men.)

So I missed it.  Where was the part where he lifted up these men, instead of merely critiquing them.

I missed the lifting up in the ocean of criticism.

---

It is illogical to argue logic with someone unwilling to examine more than his/her feelings on a matter.

BcauseHeLives:

Okay Spare...you don't like the guy.  Duly noted.

Moving on...

Duly mis-noted.  I might enjoy having a beer with him.  I simply disagree with what he's written.  I don't know if I'd like him or not.

This is part of the problem.  I've been talking about the article, what he wrote.  You framed it as I don't like the guy.

It has nothing to do with liking him or not liking him.  It has to do with his approach here.

How about you address the meat of my complaints instead of attributing some sort of bogus social commentary on if I like him or not?

---

It is illogical to argue logic with someone unwilling to examine more than his/her feelings on a matter.

spare_parts:

BcauseHeLives:

Okay Spare...you don't like the guy.  Duly noted.

Moving on...

Duly mis-noted.  I might enjoy having a beer with him.  I simply disagree with what he's written.  I don't know if I'd like him or not.

This is part of the problem.  I've been talking about the article, what he wrote.  You framed it as I don't like the guy.

It has nothing to do with liking him or not liking him.  It has to do with his approach here.

How about you address the meat of my complaints instead of attributing some sort of bogus social commentary on if I like him or not?

Be blessed Spare...

---

Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground...

spare_parts:

dallasapple:

spare_parts:

dallasapple:

"

And he makes the mistake of not only lumping everyone in one group, but then invalidating that whole group, then contradicts himself by saying they should not assume motives, etc."

 

NO he does not..He is saying that is the WRONG way to go.He is saying that view is out there and its HURTING men.

Shoot your self in the foot hun..I dont care.Its your foot not mine.

Love

Dallas

 

So what you are saying is you are no more willing to validate than he is.

Apparently, you can't even bring yourself to say, "I can see where such an opening statement would close dialog and appears prejudiced."

Instead, you just tell folks they are wrong for not finding what he's said to be empowering or affirming.

You can tell me I'm wrong all you want.  But then how is that empowering or affirming to keep saying I'm wrong?

You don't affirm by finding fault.  You affirm by agreeing with the parts you can agree with.

This guy started with DISAGREEMENT.  Which is NOT affirming, nor is it empowering.

So you can call this affirming.  You can also sit in your garage and say you are a car.  In both cases, saying it doesn't make it true.

 

Im not looking at "opening statements" Im not narrow minded.The man was DISAGREEING with the method and MIND set.

And I dont care if you are "wrong " or not..I am not here to "affirm you".Im here to fight for my sons rights if his girlfriend decides to run off with my sons child my grandbaby..Im not going to sit back and whine and talk about the mean mommy's .Im not going to draw a gender war .Only speak to the rights of men and women alike.

I have my stakes in this battle and Im a feminist.I like this guy ..and its because he sees CLEARLY attacking women isnt the best way to go.Men and women have very common interest.The "mans movement" is starting off on the wrong foot.And when you trip over your self dont blame me.(a woman)There are more like us.

Love

Dallas

Yet he's not willing to stop attacking men yet.  So what he says doesn't match up with what he does.  If it's wrong for men to attack, then why is it OK for him to attack?

Like I said, he has some good points, but hides them by not living up to his own standards.  If attacking by these so called "violent" (basically that's an attack on these men) is not going to accomplish the stated goals, then why would he think it's a valid tactic to attack those men.

By his own actions, he is saying that attacks are the way to go.

Sure, his words say no, but then he uses attacking language.

So my question is what does the author REALLY believe the solution is, because it's obvious he doesn't believe what he's just written.

 

HE is NOT attacking MEN..He's saying MEN need to STOP the  attack  on women MEN and WOMEN alike have RIGHTS.

If YOU want to deny there is not a hostile and violent attack on women by men GO ahead.He is saying that aint gonna work.And he is right.Its not going to achieve rights in family court..Its not going to help you advance in men's movements against violence against them.

Love

Dallas

BcauseHeLives:

spare_parts:

BcauseHeLives:

Okay Spare...you don't like the guy.  Duly noted.

Moving on...

Duly mis-noted.  I might enjoy having a beer with him.  I simply disagree with what he's written.  I don't know if I'd like him or not.

This is part of the problem.  I've been talking about the article, what he wrote.  You framed it as I don't like the guy.

It has nothing to do with liking him or not liking him.  It has to do with his approach here.

How about you address the meat of my complaints instead of attributing some sort of bogus social commentary on if I like him or not?

Be blessed Spare...

Not one bit of acknowledgment.

You know you cannot support your assumption that I don't like the guy.  So instead of saying so, you just say "be blessed" and run off.

I presented facts, supported my assertion with examples from the article that it was neither empowering, nor affirming.

Not one bit of validation.  Not one bit of, "I can see how you might come to that view" or similar.

You speak of validation, but I find little evidence you know how to practice it. 

Instead, it's cut and run.

Be blessed. That must be code for, "you got me, so I'm not going to concede you have any sort of point, so I'm going to run now."

So much for validation.

---

It is illogical to argue logic with someone unwilling to examine more than his/her feelings on a matter.

dallasapple:

spare_parts:

dallasapple:

spare_parts:

dallasapple:

"

And he makes the mistake of not only lumping everyone in one group, but then invalidating that whole group, then contradicts himself by saying they should not assume motives, etc."

 

NO he does not..He is saying that is the WRONG way to go.He is saying that view is out there and its HURTING men.

Shoot your self in the foot hun..I dont care.Its your foot not mine.

Love

Dallas

 

So what you are saying is you are no more willing to validate than he is.

Apparently, you can't even bring yourself to say, "I can see where such an opening statement would close dialog and appears prejudiced."

Instead, you just tell folks they are wrong for not finding what he's said to be empowering or affirming.

You can tell me I'm wrong all you want.  But then how is that empowering or affirming to keep saying I'm wrong?

You don't affirm by finding fault.  You affirm by agreeing with the parts you can agree with.

This guy started with DISAGREEMENT.  Which is NOT affirming, nor is it empowering.

So you can call this affirming.  You can also sit in your garage and say you are a car.  In both cases, saying it doesn't make it true.

 

Im not looking at "opening statements" Im not narrow minded.The man was DISAGREEING with the method and MIND set.

And I dont care if you are "wrong " or not..I am not here to "affirm you".Im here to fight for my sons rights if his girlfriend decides to run off with my sons child my grandbaby..Im not going to sit back and whine and talk about the mean mommy's .Im not going to draw a gender war .Only speak to the rights of men and women alike.

I have my stakes in this battle and Im a feminist.I like this guy ..and its because he sees CLEARLY attacking women isnt the best way to go.Men and women have very common interest.The "mans movement" is starting off on the wrong foot.And when you trip over your self dont blame me.(a woman)There are more like us.

Love

Dallas

Yet he's not willing to stop attacking men yet.  So what he says doesn't match up with what he does.  If it's wrong for men to attack, then why is it OK for him to attack?

Like I said, he has some good points, but hides them by not living up to his own standards.  If attacking by these so called "violent" (basically that's an attack on these men) is not going to accomplish the stated goals, then why would he think it's a valid tactic to attack those men.

By his own actions, he is saying that attacks are the way to go.

Sure, his words say no, but then he uses attacking language.

So my question is what does the author REALLY believe the solution is, because it's obvious he doesn't believe what he's just written.

 

HE is NOT attacking MEN..He's saying MEN need to STOP the  attack  on women MEN and WOMEN alike have RIGHTS.

If YOU want to deny there is not a hostile and violent attack on women by men GO ahead.He is saying that aint gonna work.And he is right.Its not going to achieve rights in family court..Its not going to help you advance in men's movements against violence against them.

Love

Dallas

That's how I saw it too Dallas.  But instead I think they are seeing this as an attack on them.  So they must see themselves as the men that this guy is speaking of. 

Why else be so defensive?

---

Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground...

BcauseHeLives:

That's how I saw it too Dallas.  But instead I think they are seeing this as an attack on them.  So they must see themselves as the men that this guy is speaking of. 

Why else be so defensive?

Come on now, this has to be against the TOS.

Accusing folks of being violent in this tacit fashion.

No attempt to look at it any other way but to make those who disagree look the worst.

This has to be against the TOS.

Where is the public reprimand about personal attacks?

---

It is illogical to argue logic with someone unwilling to examine more than his/her feelings on a matter.

spare_parts:

BcauseHeLives:

spare_parts:

BcauseHeLives:

Okay Spare...you don't like the guy.  Duly noted.

Moving on...

Duly mis-noted.  I might enjoy having a beer with him.  I simply disagree with what he's written.  I don't know if I'd like him or not.

This is part of the problem.  I've been talking about the article, what he wrote.  You framed it as I don't like the guy.

It has nothing to do with liking him or not liking him.  It has to do with his approach here.

How about you address the meat of my complaints instead of attributing some sort of bogus social commentary on if I like him or not?

Be blessed Spare...

Not one bit of acknowledgment.

You know you cannot support your assumption that I don't like the guy.  So instead of saying so, you just say "be blessed" and run off.

I presented facts, supported my assertion with examples from the article that it was neither empowering, nor affirming.

Not one bit of validation.  Not one bit of, "I can see how you might come to that view" or similar.

You speak of validation, but I find little evidence you know how to practice it. 

Instead, it's cut and run.

Be blessed. That must be code for, "you got me, so I'm not going to concede you have any sort of point, so I'm going to run now."

So much for validation.

Grow up Spare, I owe you nothing.  You are not entitled to argue with me.

I mean really.

Be blessed, means be blessed.  It's not code for anything.  Kind of "ironic" you would take my words & make them into something other than what they were...or maybe hypocritical?  I don't know...you decide.

I'm just walking away altogether.  Dropping the rope where you are concerned.  No more tug of war.  You'll have to find someone else to pick up the rope.

---

Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground...