Khuutra on 02 February 2009
Oh how I had hoped that you would not rise to that.
Yes, I was quite proud of it. I wasn't that liberal of my paraphrasing of your opinion, and it was more for the sake of those reading who perhaps couldn't follow the conversation.
Please. The only opinion expressed in my post is that your post was tasteless and made poorly operative assumptions concerning gender's role in determining one's views on the role of sexuality in advertising. Extrapolation beyond that is not paraphrasing, it is base conjecture, making things up to fit a pre-established expectation concerning a set of circumstances. It is even worse than just lying, because it is a lie attributed to another person.
And assuming that any people "couldn't follow the conversation" is so needlessly condescending it borders on the comical.
As for excusing myself, I did no such thing. I'm simply gave you my motivations.
I am not saying that you attempted to excuse yourself, simply that your explanation fails to excuse you. The fact that you don't realize you are in error in this context has nothing to do with anything.
I believe that your PC world, and general perspective on the entire subject of ideology is illogical.
You have nothing on which to base this except that your post was in poor taste. If it has taken you this long to realize exactly why, I will explain at the end of this post, but that I have to tell you is embarrassing.
It seems more concerned with feelings and people than reality and truth.
This is the most ridiculous post I have ever seen on these message boards, and I saw Paul_Warren predict that the PS3 would pass up the Wii by 2011. I mean, this is just breathtaking.
I have said nothing concerning my "general perspective on the entire subject of ideology" except that you were in error to make such generalized assumptions about gender perspective. You have no basis for this statement! You are assuming some greater agency in the wind.
Blunt, oh absolutely. Offensive? Not purposefully so. However, there is no debating ideals. Both sides simply get more "dug in" in their stances. Afterall, we both have our bias' I'm sure.
Being offensive without realizing it is no more readily excusable than attempting to be acidic about the same subject matter. In many ways it is worse.
Let me just ask you straight out, and perhaps we can push public opinion in my favor.
This isn't about public opinion. We are not performing for an audience. We are having a conversation between you and me concerning a faux pas you committed in assuming (or joking about assuming) that KylieDog was a woman.
If you are having this conversation to sway "public opinion" in your favor, you are having it for all of the wrong reasons.
Do you, or do you not believe that women, in general, tend to dislike exploitation of the female form TO A GREATER EXTENT than men, all other factors being equal?
My opinion on that subject is irrelevant, and has never been stated in this topic, and will not even be implied in this topic.
Where you committed your error was in assuming that KylieDog's opinions indicated he was a woman. He's male. Quod erat demonstratum, your assumption was wrong, and revealed presuppositions concerning certain perspectives on gender representation. The fact that you could be wrong was why I said your post was tasteless, but the fact that you were wrong illustrates much more clearly why your assumption was inherently fallacious.
