-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
  1.   (reply to 21590)
  2. (for post and file deletion)
/rnb/ - Rage and Baww
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 1000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 835 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2011-01-12 Show/Hide Show All

There's a new /777/ up, it's /gardening/ Check it out. Suggest new /777/s here.

Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7: Web Player, .m3u file. Music via Radio7: Web Player, .m3u file.

WebM is now available sitewide! Please check this thread for more info.

Teenage Girl 17/09/09(Sat)03:10 No. 21590 ID: fe9887
21590

File 150491944047.jpg - (171.23KB , 1101x1280 , tumblr_ovu8bzzcia1tcshnqo1_1280.jpg )

How can men be attracted to women? Because women have stayed indoors looking after the children and doing housework for however many millennia, their bodies have now atrophied to fat, and their brains have atrophied to emotion. Doesn't this fact that they are almost an entirely different species from you in every regard turn you off? Personally, I look for what resembles myself physically and mentally with the opposite reproductive organs. Am I narcissistic, or like almost all species in the animal kingdom that are not sexually dimorphic?

Wikipedia:
"Sexual dimorphism is the condition where the two sexes of the same species exhibit different characteristics beyond the differences in their sexual organs. The condition occurs in many animals and some plants. Differences may include secondary sex characteristics, size, color, markings, and may also include behavioral differences. These differences may be subtle or exaggerated, and may be subjected to sexual selection. The opposite of dimorphism is monomorphism."

I am not attracted to lazy blobs of fat ridden with illogic and emotion. I'm sorry, I'm not. What creature would want such stupidity? I want what resembles myself.


>>
Teenage Girl 17/09/09(Sat)03:11 No. 21591 ID: fe9887
21591

File 150491947683.jpg - (56.60KB , 400x506 , tumblr_oogc7sGUTn1u6pvbno1_400.jpg )


>>
Teenage Girl 17/09/09(Sat)03:13 No. 21593 ID: fe9887
21593

File 150491962494.jpg - (56.90KB , 475x700 , tumblr_ovchotu2AV1wwv8qwo1_500.jpg )

THIS is normal to me. In fact, it is the only thing that turns me on.


>>
Teenage Girl 17/09/09(Sat)03:58 No. 21594 ID: fe9887
21594

File 150492233543.jpg - (74.48KB , 473x500 , tumblr_osep2eSzSH1u6pvbno1_500.jpg )

Observe: what man and woman should have been.


>>
Teenage Girl 17/09/09(Sat)10:14 No. 21595 ID: 4d62fc
21595

File 150494486963.jpg - (218.12KB , 1280x960 , Modern Society.jpg )

>Am I narcissistic
Yes.


>>
Teenage Girl 17/09/09(Sat)21:06 No. 21597 ID: fe9887
21597

File 150498398238.jpg - (60.17KB , 698x694 , 25-Most-Beautiful-Russian-Women18-e1467445324867.jpg )

>>21595
Nobody cares? I think it's rather interesting, especially since men today seem to like the physical traits of women being sculpted with abs and such which can only be acquired through hard work in a gym. This "gym-work" is analogous to the physical work that women should have done in the wild.

The irony is that working hard in a gym to get abs isn't a very feminine trait yet nowadays men seem to look for these qualities. They even look for well-defined, "chiselled" bone structures.

Can someone please try to rationalise this? I must have an IQ below 80. I could not understand this if my life depended on it.


>>
Teenage Girl 17/09/09(Sat)21:18 No. 21598 ID: fe9887
21598

File 150498469253.jpg - (31.37KB , 500x500 , 1501272327529 2.jpg )

In my world, a woman would look like this with perhaps a /very/ subtle scent to them different from my own. No pronounced differences to the extreme that today's men look for. I am all for the subtle differences, both behavioural (idiosyncratic) and physical (scentlike), not the polar opposite characteristics. I'm not into bestiality.


>>
Teenage Girl 17/09/11(Mon)08:46 No. 21604 ID: fe9887
21604

File 150511238186.jpg - (81.83KB , 500x666 , tumblr_mt4jfcTNGx1sogvyao1_500.jpg )

I think I'm living in the wrong era. I will place a bet that this is what homosexuality is. It's nothing perverse, but a wish to have your partner resemble you, except with a vagina. The consequence of such a socially-immersive culture that imposes ideals of what you are to be is that we're just confused and trying to re-discover what humans should have been now that women aren't needed at home all the time. Our ultimate goal is to regain independence, which I'm sure existed down our line of ancestry at some point far into the distant, distant past where both genders looked the same.

These images look normal to me. This is not a lie.

I was inclined to put this thread in the philosophy forum, but I think they would consider it too far-fetched to even be remotely close to a possibility.


>>
Teenage Girl 17/09/11(Mon)08:47 No. 21606 ID: fe9887
21606

File 150511246494.jpg - (150.71KB , 500x750 , tumblr_ncvq35IU9d1r7ywa1o1_500.jpg )


>>
Teenage Girl 17/09/13(Wed)17:20 No. 21608 ID: a239c3

I know this thread is trying to be an up with Homosexual moment for everybody, and that's fine. At some point you will convince your male significant other to get a partial sex change and it will all work out for you> Until then please stop being stupid about human evolution. Your attraction to photo shopped gay porn does not make 10 million years of Sapien evolution null and void.
In the meantime enjoy this conecpt taken to its ridiculous conclusion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNhXYmJ0G8c


>>
Teenage Girl 17/09/13(Wed)18:57 No. 21609 ID: 4d62fc

>>21608
>everybody
Not really. fe9887 just figured he could post a bunch of photoshopped gay porn to a non-porn board. Because Drama.


>>
Teenage Girl 17/09/14(Thu)06:00 No. 21612 ID: fe9887

>>21608
What makes your recommendation null and void is the /drastic/ change of our environment that has occurred in the past few millennia. We got smarter, and started noticing patterns which lead us to being able to communicate to each other across the globe in a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a second.

With the new age of women demanding the same full rights as men, putting their kids at daycare (no motherly touch that used to be commonplace thousands of years ago, huh?), sending them off to schools full of other children for them to become over-social, and living their lives almost independently from their children, it makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint that the human brain would shift to accommodate this drastic change of environment. Women aren't needed at home anymore, so why do we need to be so different from one another? If women are going out and working their bodies for once, you will start to notice change in every aspect of our and our children's lives.. from what the see and learn to what their brain interprets is sexually right given their environment.

I am by no means trying to show porn and get away with it on a pornless board. I'm proposing a unique idea that has never been said before and is certainly possible. It makes total sense to me.


>>
Teenage Girl 17/09/14(Thu)06:51 No. 21614 ID: 4d62fc
21614

File 15053646623.png - (11.64KB , 196x255 , Gazoo.png )

>>21612
>I'm proposing a unique idea that has never been said before
Sure you are, dum dum.

Please do us all a favor: Don't Breed.


>>
Teenage Girl 17/09/14(Thu)08:54 No. 21615 ID: fe9887

>>21614
It is obvious that I won't since I'm not attracted to modern females.

I've never heard this idea before, and never in my readings of homosexuality have I come across it. It's very possible. In fact, in every instance in the past where someone claimed something far-fetched to be true, they were either scolded, laughed at, or killed, until the theory withstood the test of time and reason and people gradually accepted it.

I am not condemning heterosexuals. It is through you folks that the slow evolutionary transition to a species that will look relatively the same across genders will take place.

Since there is no theory or scientific explanation for homosexuality, try this one. It's rational, and, altho it might damage your self-worth and ego, it actually holds a backbone of logic which is somewhat hard to refute if you fully understand it.

The gays were almost too fast.. We jumped way ahead of ourselves biologically, and it came at the price of being totally confused by the extreme differences across genders. Fast enough that it can almost be seen as a disease to the clueless eye. The heterosexuals are in a more admirable position than we are because the slowness is the pace needed to change our biologies.

I'm not condemning you, but at the same time, if this is true, don't condemn us.


>>
Teenage Girl 17/09/15(Fri)04:54 No. 21616 ID: a870df

>>21615
>Since there is no theory or scientific explanation for homosexuality
Actually there is, but don't let your lack of effort to find the studies stop you from knee-jerking off a self-congratulatory long winded pat on your own back.


>>
Teenage Girl 17/09/15(Fri)14:16 No. 21618 ID: fe9887

>>21616
There is nothing pat-on-the-back-worthy of being too quick at something that it affects your ability to reproduce. It's a curse. It's maybe what evolution calls a "mutation" but not a convenient one in terms of sexuality.

Studies have been done but nothing is conclusive. Shouldn't we know this already? They didn't find the gene, and for as much as we know, the environmental social factor of how women behave, and a mere act of mimicry, could be how the overly-quick brain decides is the best way to get what they are attracted to. There is a sexually dimorphic breed of spiders where the male is at least 3 to 4 times smaller than the female. The roles heterosexuals play isn't always necessary especially when the environment has changed so drastically, yet you folks still hold on to them. There is nothing condemnable about this. Like I said, the slowness of change in heterosexuals is admirable because change on an evolutionary level is extremely slow.

All I'm proposing is an explanation for why there are /so/ many of us with this strange "mutation" given the new age of a totally different environment. If the brain is ahead of its body, you better believe there will be mass confusion. This doesn't necessarily mean we're smarter. Don't let this be a punch to your ego. Being too quick at something renders us unable to reproduce.


>>
Teenage Girl 17/09/16(Sat)10:13 No. 21619 ID: 4d62fc
21619

File 15055495942.jpg - (40.43KB , 640x640 , Three Ways.jpg )

>>21618
nihil sub sole novum

You were not the first to think of this nor will you be the last, all you are is one more attention whore amongst the teeming masses of attention whores.


>>
Teenage Girl 17/09/16(Sat)16:03 No. 21627 ID: fe9887

>>21619
I'm having tremendous difficulty understanding how this is "attention whoring". I never talk to people, live alone, and don't really care to interact with society insofar as I don't have an idea to share. I'm pretty sure this idea is original (yes, get over it) since nobody talks about it.

Find me any source online that talks about it or even mentions it.


>>
Teenage Girl 17/09/22(Fri)09:01 No. 21636 ID: d15088

This whole theory breaks down because homosexuality exists in a myriad of mammals and through all of recorded history. It would be unreasonable to assume NONE of the variety of homonids that evolved before homo sapiens did not, and that homosexuality is thus a "modern" phenomenon.

The only difference is that, for the first time in recorded history, we have a population that recognizes that one's "legacy" need not be limited to DNA, and so larger and larger numbers have no interest in reproduction. This allows homosexuals to be EXCLUSIVELY homosexual, as their need for a partner of the opposite sex is eliminated.


>>
Teenage Girl 17/09/24(Sun)04:43 No. 21639 ID: c56a97
21639

File 150622100670.jpg - (164.46KB , 1200x900 , Explosions.jpg )

>>21627
>I'm having tremendous difficulty understanding how this is "attention whoring"
You make six posts where one would do.

You post porn to a non-porn board.

You repeatedly indulge in self-fellatio crowing about having an original thought, despite it being completely trite and unoriginal.

The only way you could be more of an attention whore is to namefag.


>>
Teenage Girl 17/09/26(Tue)05:37 No. 21642 ID: fe9887

>>21639
Six posts which word the "unoriginal and trite, yet immensely thought-provoking idea I've never heard or read before online and in person" differently to a group of people that probably haven't thought of it before. Remind me once more how this is attention-whoring.

Your mentality reminds me of my former "family doctor" who lives by the motto that one can not self-diagnose. I was telling him for months I'm an aspie. The entire time he ignored it until I returned the results from a one-hour session with a psychologist with an overwhelming diagnosis. You are no different. One can self-declare an interesting thought they conjured themselves without exuding or feeling arrogance. Until you brought it up it didn't even pass my mind, and now you have me thinking that is what /you/ would be doing if you came up with an original idea since an assumption of another's motive is only a reflection of yourself.

I take joy in sharing a fun idea. If your immediate thought is that I'm attention-whoring on an anonymous board, you need to take a look at yourself and ask yourself from where such a thought came so quickly to mind.. Maybe the fact that it is a facet of yourself?

I was really hoping 7chan was smarter than this. Moments ago I was trying to reason with somebody in /phi/ who actually thinks Evolution is not true. Your baseless assumptions are of the same order as hers or his.


>>
Teenage Girl 17/09/26(Tue)06:01 No. 21643 ID: fe9887

>>21636
Yes, homosexuality existing among other species came to mind before posting this, but I readily dismissed it under the premise that we cannot assume the motives of another species (let alone our own; see the reply after yours) especially when the topic at hand is one as obscure and difficult to rationalize as sexuality.


>>
Teenage Girl 17/09/26(Tue)08:03 No. 21644 ID: fbe3c3

>>21643
>we cannot assume the motives of another species
Mammals are all wired up basically the same, body and brain alike. We all crave interpersonal physical affection and warmth and touch and sexual stimulation of our genitals and anus. The largest difference is that humans are the only species which have systematically devised complex and even murderous social stigmas regarding when and with whom these behaviors should be practiced, which is irrational.

Animals do not do this. They do not care which body they cuddle to for affection, or which warm hole they stick their penis into to achieve orgasm. If you could ask a dog whether he would prefer to mount a male or a female, he would have no opinion; it simply does not matter because he gets the same fulfillment of his needs either way. If you ask him whether he would prefer an anus or a vagina, it would be the same answer (at least if his partner is a dog; a human vagina has no ring of muscle to hold his knot, so he would prefer the anus simply as a matter of utility). As for the other way around, while being mounted is a submissive (read: vulnerable) position few male animals will allow themselves to take, recall the near-identical physiology. Basically all mammals can and will experience some degree of pleasurable sensations from anal stimulation/penetration, due to the convergence of nerves in the pelvic area and positioning of the prostate and other accessory glands. Of course, the fact that this type of thing is "homosexual" does not factor into it; they only know it feels good.


The simplest solution to your initial question "How can men be attracted to women?" is easy: "Because they are told to." Just look at how universal the attraction to breasts are. Breasts are not sex-organs, and looking at primitive tribes you will see that the females do/did not even bother covering them, even when they wear loincloths. There is nothing sexual about breasts; it's an entirely socially-created mainstream fetish (and here I use "fetish" in its only correct definition: sexual attraction to an object or part of the body that is not a sex organ). There is no evolutionary or biological impetuous to be attracted to breasts, yet even very young boys all over the world will become aroused if they see a pair. Why? Because they are told to. Because it has been socially implanted into their mind as a fetish; because they are told that "this is a characteristic of the thing you're supposed to want to have sex with". Same with other "feminine" things, like long hair, flowery perfumes, high-heels, and jewelry.

Personally, I identify as gay for convenience, but at least in a physical sense I'm more like the dog in my previous example than anything else. I've sampled anal and vaginal sex (and a variety of toys which replicate the internal structure of both) and found little difference. Certainly, my penis doesn't care; it's fine even with just my hand. I prefer men because of their personality, and I prefer men with penises because receptive anal stimulation is also quite enjoyable. If I desired a biological progeny, obviously I would need someone with a functioning vagina and womb, and I SUPPOSE I would prefer the rest of the body to look like a man than society's current interpretation of a woman, but it's largely irrelevant. From my perspective of extreme cynicism (as shall be exemplified in the following section) perpetuation of this species is something I cannot support; elimination of the illogical biological is the only reasonable course of action for the future of this species, and inorganic life-forms would not require any genitals, and would have a wide range of physical form only to support a wide range of functions.



As for your previous post, you are largely wasting your time here. It should be completely obvious that anyone who can only debate by name-calling about tipping fedoras is a mental kindergartner. The vast, vast majority of people are the same, just less obvious about it. They cannot be swayed except by a position that they have already decided to believe. I've essentially given up trying to argue with human beings. There is only one logical way to win any sort of debate with — ie: win against — an illogical being, and that is to kill them. Hence why violence or the threat of violence is the primary method of conflict resolution throughout human history. Nobody ever comes to a consensus, here; they only come to a realization that they cannot kill the other party, and so give up.


>>
Teenage Girl 17/09/27(Wed)23:59 No. 21645 ID: a870df

>>21642
>I was telling him for months I'm an aspie
He didn't ignore it. He just wanted to piss you off as badly as you piss off everyone you encounter on a daily basis.


>>
Teenage Girl 17/09/28(Thu)01:56 No. 21646 ID: fe9887

>>21645
The doctor said I might have a social anxiety disorder but the psychologist immediately dismissed it. I'm sure the doc wouldn't jeopardize his credibility to fool or anger someone--not that it would anyway, I already knew I was an aspie.

Their anger to anything I say is no one's fault but their own. My intent is to provoke thought, not anger. Maybe you get angry because you don't want to think? I see how this might anger you actually. What I say somehow damages your ego, and regardless if it's true or not you hold firmly to your persona and beliefs as the post before yours even said). Here's a quality I have that you never will have: I can admit when I'm wrong without any guilt or damage to self-worth whatsoever. Did that piss you off even more?

>>21644
That was a beautiful read. Some things you said I question, though. Something being shoved up my rear is not very stimulating. I tried it and absolutely hated it.


>>
highlights Teenage Girl 17/09/30(Sat)07:02 No. 21649 ID: 8c9c8a

>I'm proposing a unique idea that has never been said before
>I'm not condemning you, but
>Don't let this be a punch to your ego
>yes, get over it
>One can self-declare an interesting thought they conjured themselves without exuding or feeling arrogance
>I was really hoping 7chan was smarter than this
>Maybe you get angry because you don't want to think?

My favorite:
>There is only one logical way to win any sort of debate with — ie: win against — an illogical being, and that is to kill them


>>
Teenage Girl 17/10/01(Sun)04:58 No. 21650 ID: fe9887

>>21649
It is just an idea and with an idea like this one comes an emotional response from others, so the disclaimers for the egoistic offense that might ensue from the conclusions drawn from the idea were necessary (for example: I'm not condemning you, but [a phrase which to one whose ego has been hurt would seem as a condemnation]; yes, get over it [it = your hurt ego)

However, the following were not to cater to the emotion of others, more-so a reflection of truthful observance:
>One can self-declare an interesting thought they conjured themselves without exuding or feeling arrogance
Such as very scientist or philosopher who thought up an idea.
>I was really hoping 7chan was smarter than this
Read some of the threads on /phi/. Misinterpretations everywhere, why would it change here?
>Maybe you get angry because you don't want to think?
>Maybe
The real reason you get angry is something I'll probably never intuitively understand, so don't assume a guess as a basis of fact, it's simply a guess.

I hope I have made clear some of your confusions.


>>
Teenage Girl 17/10/02(Mon)15:05 No. 21651 ID: a4d6dc

>>21650
>The real reason you get angry is something I'll probably never intuitively understand
You are hilarious. How often do you get punched in the face?


>>
Teenage Girl 17/10/02(Mon)23:35 No. 21652 ID: a870df

>>21651
He gets shoved into lockers by choice.


>>
Teenage Girl 17/10/06(Fri)08:26 No. 21662 ID: fe9887

>>21651
Do you believe or disbelieve me? So little I understand you, in fact, that I'm not even sure if you're being sarcastic with a mix of sincerity or if it is a joke altogether. No, I haven't been punched in the face, nor have I been physically assaulted before. I usually show people my YouTube video of a game I've mastered (ranking #1 competitively in the world, miles ahead of #2 (do not confuse truth with conceit)) and people generally understand the kind of person I am as well as the magnitude with which I experience my self-identifiying attributes: obsession with details and thought--to the extent that I've lost touch with the "off switch"; my brain simply doesn't stop--and extremely-high-functioning autism.

Answer my question to the best of your ability and I will return the favour of responding to you to the best of my ability if you have any questions about the theory or personal life:

Why do you get so angry about an idea? What about it made you angry? Is it possible for you to recognize that it is just an idea and whether it's true or not should have no effect on your self-worth (or whatever reason it made you angry)?


EDIT:
For example, you have no idea how many times I've edited this entire post. I have to word it just right to avoid the slightest ambiguity in my message so that I can walk away knowing my reader fully understood my message. If I notice even the slightest ambiguity, I'm forced to delete and repost it.


>>
Teenage Girl 17/10/06(Fri)16:57 No. 21663 ID: 9fe361

>>21662
>do not confuse truth with conceit
Please, moar liek this.

>I can walk away knowing my reader fully understood my message
In fact I do that myself fairly often--for the same ridiculous reason--but I usually end up cutting down my posts to the minimal words necessary to make my point, even if it sends my point careening across the information highway with no brakes. The thing you have to understand is that no words, no matter how well chosen, are guaranteed to be interpreted as you intend them to be. What can go wrong will, particularly with language--and most especially in your fantastically strawberried aspie dialect.

I (>>21651, >>21649) am not the poster who was angry, but this is /rnb/, and you seem to have the baww covered, so...


>>
Teenage Girl 17/10/07(Sat)09:14 No. 21671 ID: fe9887

>>21663
Aspie dialect? Again, I'm confused. My sentences follow an algorithm; formulaic in execution so that each sentence has the same structure. I've even devised my own terminologies I frequently employ in my writing (body, append, multiplier...). By default you should not assume the reader understands implicit language, therefore you must explicitly state everything to avoid confusion.

It's difficult to narrow down a thought concisely without the ambiguities. In my experience, the more concise you are, the more you are misunderstood. Hence I do not understand you usually. Especially being as misunderstood as I am, I'm forced to append adjectives to almost every noun that I consider to be subject to misinterpretation and conditions to every object by the use of commas amid the subjects and predicates. If you were more clear in your expression, maybe the ambiguities I notice in your "dialect", rife with idioms and figures of speech, might help me to better understand why you get angry among other things you might not be aware of. Again, don't assume I'm similar to you and that we are on the same "wavelength" to understand each other implicitly; I'm not. Therefore, I cannot simply say "gays have brains that are ahead of their bodies due to the change of the environment which has men and women playing similar roles" because it would be vastly misunderstood if I did not explain myself thoroughly. Just because my style of writing might be overly detailed to you, that doesn't excuse the fact that it's coherent, follows an algorithm of grammar, and that the trail of thought flows tangentially. You seem to pay more attention to the style of writing than the content of the message. That is extremely problematic. Might this have more to do with your preoccupation with "appearing" a certain way?

For example, if I was in your position, and knew the person I was speaking to resembles nothing close to myself, I would take immense effort to explain why "no words are guaranteed to be interpreted as you intend them to be", even the tiny nuances to facilitate the understanding process, because you should know that it's likely I won't understand it. And guess what? I don't. If you abide by the definitions of each word, remain grammatically coherent, and explain everything down to their roots (sacrificing concise language) then the message becomes objective/understandable even to people who bear no resemblance to you.


>>
Teenage Girl 17/10/07(Sat)11:17 No. 21672 ID: cab8d4
21672

File 150736782151.jpg - (49.01KB , 512x384 , The First Step.jpg )

>>21671
>I've even devised my own terminologies
...
>I can walk away knowing my reader fully understood my message
In the future historians will write of the Eight Wonders of the World.

The Temple of Artemis, The Colossus of Rhodes, The Alexandria Lighthouse, The Great Pyramid, The Halicarnassus Mausoleum, The Hanging Gardens of Babylon, The Great Statue of Zeus, and... you.


>>
Teenage Girl 17/10/07(Sat)17:55 No. 21674 ID: fe9887

>>21672
Again, another misunderstanding..
By terminologies I mean terminologies describing the effects of structural grammar that I employ in my writing. That isn't to say you won't understand it. They are already in effect but I use my own words to describe them. Do you see why I must be so careful in detail?

Let me reword the entire sentence to remove all ambiguity:

>I've even devised my own terminologies which describe various effects of speech and sentence structure when conveying a message that I frequently employ in my writing (body, append, multiplier...)

For example a multiplier to me is:
>Women today are unable to reason through even the slightest of intellect, full of emotion, and still given the right to vote and bring the entire world down from the resulting chaos.

Dissected:

>multiplier[Women today are] unable to reason through even the slightest of intellect, [women today are] full of emotion, and [women today are] still given the right to vote and bring the entire world down from the resulting chaos.

The element is "added" to each unit describing women. Instead of repeating the phrase, remove all of them in the sentence and let them derive from one multiplier. This is nothing new in English, but since childhood I've devised my own terms of this and similar effects.

I hope this perfect example shows you why I need to be as verbose as possible. You couldn't have made my point any better.


>>
Teenage Girl 17/10/08(Sun)04:56 No. 21676 ID: fdc294

>>21674
>a multiplier to me is
A fantastically strawberried construction existing only in your aspie dialect.

>Dissected:
You mean 'deconstructed'.

>multiplier[Women today are] unable to reason through even the slightest of intellect, [women today are] full of emotion, and [women today are] still given the right to vote and bring the entire world down from the resulting chaos.

"Women today are" is not a 'multiplier', if you really need to make up words to describe English grammar (there's a whole field of study on the matter if you'd like to take some classes, already full of terms for every little thing). It is multiplied, through the use of commas and a coordinating conjunction. Even in math your use of the term is incorrect, a 'multiplier' is not the thing being multiplied (ie, in 4x, 4 is the multiplier and x is "Women today are").

Your cancerous sentence, metastasized:
>[Subject] [Linking Verb] [Complement], [Complement], [Coordinating Conjunction] [Complement with an additional, ambiguous coordinating conjunction inside it]

I could make dozens of detailed diagrams demonstrating how your sentence construction--which is by no means consistent--only contributes to other people not hearing what you have to say, but I'd rather do that for paying customers.

You seem to be aware that you are frequently misunderstood. Your grammar and diction are a significant part of the problem. Your attempts to correct the situation by being more explicit and contriving "new" grammatical concepts are making it worse. Furthermore, it is not so much how you say it, but what you say that is going to get you punched in the face.

>don't assume I'm similar to you and that we are on the same "wavelength" to understand each other implicitly
>gays have brains that are ahead of their bodies
>the trail of thought flows tangentially


>>
Teenage Girl 17/10/08(Sun)10:13 No. 21677 ID: cab8d4

>>21674
>Again, another misunderstanding
How can there be any misunderstanding if you've agonized over what you've written to the point that
>I can walk away knowing my reader fully understood my message


>>
Teenage Girl 17/10/09(Mon)08:44 No. 21694 ID: fe9887

>>21676
You know when someone nitpicks any detail they consider to be remotely flawed when in fact there is nothing wrong with it that there is nothing left of an argument but residual anger for no reason. I'll return some corrections back to you and conclude our discussion.

By dissecting a sentence, you are focussing on its structure by picking it apart to basic elements, examining it, and revealing hidden details for the purpose of understanding.

The reason I chose the term "multiplier" is because it reminded me of the multiplier used in mathemathics.
3 x 5 = 15
5 (and) 5 (and) 5 = 15
Women today are ... , and women today are ..., and women today are .... = What women are today.

It's how I interpreted it. From what I can see you have interpreted almost everything I have said differently from what they were intended to be, which is ultimately my fault because I should be able to communicate to everyone even if they understand in polar opposite ways than I do. This is only an incentive to be more clear and detailed. A good lesson today is to not use verbs that take shortcuts to general actions. Therefore it is recommended to use "focus on its structure by picking it apart to basic elements, examining it, and revealing hidden details for the purpose of understanding" instead of "dissect" next time, since its figurative use doesn't match the literal use you were used to in school with material items like frogs and such despite the similarity in processes.

Let's say it this way: If everyone wrote/spoke with precision and description, we would never misunderstand each other's message.


>>21677
That was a mistake. Only if I think there exists potential confusion I edit. If I had known that that would have been misinterpreted (after using the verb "employ" which suggests an effect put into use), I would have worded it better. My point was revealed clearly with an example you could relate to. This was a good reminder for me to explain myself in detail instead of "concise" verbs describing general actions, even on a matter not particularly relevant to the discussion to prove that I follow an algorithm when writing.


>>
Teenage Girl 17/10/09(Mon)13:07 No. 21695 ID: 6a271f

>>21694
>focus on its structure by picking it apart to basic elements, examining it, and revealing hidden details for the purpose of understanding
Or, perhaps, 'deconstruct' is the word you are looking for.

If your language contains hidden details that can only be revealed by deconstructing your sentences, this is yet another reason why no one understands you. Keep in mind I don't mean no one understands what you have to say; your words are sufficiently clear. I mean no one is going to make an effort to understand you, because of your attitude and general aspie idiocy.


>>
Teenage Girl 17/10/09(Mon)20:34 No. 21700 ID: fe9887

>>21695
dissect
verb (used with object)
to examine minutely part by part; analyze:
to dissect an idea.

Let's not forget that "women today are" is omitted several times, meaning it is a detail literally hidden from you but easily deducible. I cannot believe you are arguing over a word you think is better suited for it when both serve their definition equally well. You also have an attitude but of a different kind. The fact that you are even arguing this should make /you/ wonder if you are an "idiot", but of course it won't. I've misunderstood you plenty of times in this discussion--let this be a lesson to you that your "concise language" is not sufficient, or don't. Best of luck to you.


>>
Teenage Girl 17/10/09(Mon)23:19 No. 21701 ID: a870df

>>21700
>easily deducible
Not everyone is an aspie.

Actually, now that I think about it, even aspies have trouble understanding other aspies. Its a symptom of your disease.


>>
Teenage Girl 17/10/24(Tue)01:08 No. 21712 ID: 56a99c

>>21590
I'm going to ignore the fact that you are a literal autist and answer all your questions very simply: homosexuality is the truth, and the preservance of a species is a troglodyte need.



[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason