Who Pays For Social Time with Women?

[TAG Manager]

Yea but you once again forget that this is the internet where some of us choose to say slightly provocative things with the hope that they will get an impassioned response.

Again, as I've repeated in the past, this kind of activity is not welcome here. Your harsh tones with people, no matter who it's directed at, drives people away from TAG. Please cut it out... I don't want to make a habit of globally muting people. You can change your approach on topics to not be so harsh or even outlandish.

 

[Wwanderer]

To me the crucial issue is intent, much more than exactly what is said or how it is said. Some are offended by people expressing opinions very different from their own, some by honest criticism, some by crude language, some by evident passion or anger, some by spelling/grammar/punctuation errors etc. None of those bothers me. But I do object to anyone writing with the deliberate intention of being unpleasant and/or making others feel bad, especially when they do it consistently.

Anyway, @TAG Manager has given his response which, like the umpire’s opinion in baseball, is the only one that matters, so I will bow out of this discussion now.

-Ww

 

[warubuta]

I wil bow out now too. With one last word. WW, If the crucial issue for you is intent, then that means you will try to understand a man’s intent behind his actions and judge him thus. Well I am glad you are not a judge. Because fair and just law is all about NOT trying to guess the intent, and is all about judging purely by actions. Punish the action, not the person is one of the first principles you learn in law school. And that is why the famous statute of justice is blind. In ancient times they judged the man. In enlightened times they judged the action. But I guess since you know perfectly what is in each mans mind, you are comfortable judging people based on what you think might be their intent. You are a wizard after all.....

 

[akasam]

There is a line - not necessarily too fine a line - between stirring the pot and being a troll. Generally, it is defined by one's use of tact.

I like the tone of your post, but I agree with WW that trolling is more about intent.

You can be obnoxious and blunt, totally without tact and still intend to have a serious discussion. I do it all the time (and am often called a troll for it). I do like pointing out people's hypocrisy, but I challenge them to point out mine as well. Sometimes, albeit not as often as I get older, it forces me to reevaluate my own choices and opinions.

 

[akasam]

WW, If the crucial issue for you is intent, then that means you will try to understand a man’s intent behind his actions and judge him thus....

Um, I don't know where you got any of this from, but your description does not reflect the ideals of the American justice system (and I suspect that of most Western countries). You've misinterpreted just about every principle of the law in this one paragraph. But you're done, so we needn't go into details.

 

[akasam]

Do you really have such a hard time understanding how (100s of millions of) other men feel differently than you about things like money, social life, recreation etc?

One of the greatest features of TAG, IMO, is that this site has the rare quality (perhaps unique) among such sites of typically not being judgy about personal preferences, fetishes or experience. To an astounding degree people can post reviews or questions and are more likely to get a "hey, that's not for me, but thanks for the review" rather than "eww, what is wrong with you dude?".

 

[Frenchy]

One of the greatest features of TAG, IMO, is that this site has the rare quality (perhaps unique) among such sites of typically not being judgy about personal preferences, fetishes or experience. To an astounding degree people can post reviews or questions and are more likely to get a "hey, that's not for me, but thanks for the review" rather than "eww, what is wrong with you dude?".

Totally agreed. For example on the opposite I would not spend even 10k for a lousy massage with FS by an average-at-best Chinese lady in a Gotanda joint. Would rather go to a girls bar instead. Or give to charity. Or buy a good bottle of wine. But thats just me and I understand the rationale of those who do.

 

[warubuta]

Um, I don't know where you got any of this from, but your description does not reflect the ideals of the American justice system (and I suspect that of most Western countries). You've misinterpreted just about every principle of the law in this one paragraph. But you're done, so we needn't go into details.

Then why is Justice blind? And why is there a huge debate over hate crime legislation? Just answer those two questions and then we will be done. And don’t be aggressive, dismissive and insulting, please. It’s not appreciated.

 

[akasam]

Then why is Justice blind? And why is there a huge debate over hate crime legislation? Just answer those two questions and then we will be done. And don’t be aggressive, dismissive and insulting, please. It’s not appreciated.

"Justice is blind" is just a rough phrase, not a rigid legal doctrine.

What it typically means in America is that the law should not play favorites. A prosecutor or judge shouldn't be lenient to someone who shares the same race, religion, politics, class, etc. If the facts are the same, you don't impose a different ruling or penalty just because "he looks like a decent fellow" (code for he looks like me). One of the (several) things you're missing is that intent is one of those factors, even if it isn't easy to prove. Shooting a gun in the air in celebration is far different than pointing it at your wife's lover and pulling the trigger even if the result is death.

The debate on hate crimes is complex and I really doubt you want to have a serious adult conversation about it. However, the fact that even you called it a "debate" should indicate that your previous statements about how the law ignores intent are completely false.

 

[warubuta]

"Justice is blind" is just a rough phrase, not a rigid legal doctrine.

What it typically means in America is that the law should not play favorites. A prosecutor or judge shouldn't be lenient to someone who shares the same race, religion, politics, class, etc. If the facts are the same, you don't impose a different ruling or penalty just because "he looks like a decent fellow" (code for he looks like me). One of the (several) things you're missing is that intent is one of those factors, even if it isn't easy to prove. Shooting a gun in the air in celebration is far different than pointing it at your wife's lover and pulling the trigger even if the result is death.

The debate on hate crimes is complex and I really doubt you want to have a serious adult conversation about it. However, the fact that even you called it a "debate" should indicate that your previous statements about how the law ignores intent are completely false.

Please. I am an adult and I can handle complexity. No need to insult. Have I insulted you? It is not appreciated on this site. I was just reacting to the comment by someone that 'intent' is what is important. My reaction is that nobody can really know what someones 'intent' is or was, and that we get on a slippery slope when we try to guess someones intent.

 

[akasam]

Have I insulted you?

You've certainly tried. It didn't stick.

Nobody can really know someone's intent, uh sure.

Kinda like nobody can really know whether the defendant actually committed the crime he was accused of. Is that him on tape? Possibly not. Was he overheard telling the victim he was going to kill him? The witness can't remember every word exactly, can they? Is that his DNA, only 99.99% certain.

Why bother even having a trial? Can't be sure, have to let them go.

I hope you are smart enough not to defend yourself in court.

 

[TAG Manager]

/sigh....