Why don't girls like short guys?

[Anonymous]

I don't know how tall I am but I'm no where near 5'9. I'm probably somewhere around 5'3-5'6.

I don't understand the big deal though. I can't get taller and what if I want a tall girl? Or a girl that's average height? Why should I have to settle for a girl that's shorter than me?

I don't want to see any comments about "protection" and "security" because there are some tall guys that are cream puffs and some short guys that are cream puffs. There are tall guys who can defend themselves and their girl and short guys who can defend themselves and their girl. Height has absolutely zero to do with that.

I mean do girls think short guys can't protect them? Not only would I protect them but any girl if I saw her being abused by another guy, even if I didn't know them. Height has nothing to do with weakness. There are some weak tall guys out there. JS.

Even though I said all that I know I'll probably get stupid comments about nature and genetics. BS.

Updates

+1 y

I realize I may have picked a crazy answer for most helpful. I should have waited for better answers. Honestly everyone's answers should be considered most helpful.

Updates

+1 y

This was my first time asking a question. Sorry.

[Bvroon]

I too am a short man, and like you I have often wondered about this. However also like yourself, I have realized there is really nothing I can do about my height. I used to really worry about these sorts of things, and the best answer I can give you is to: One not worry about is so much; Two learn to relax about it; Three understand that it's kind of a numbers game, in the sense that if you are single, and looking the more you circulate the more likely it is you will find somebody who accepts you for WHO you are as opposed to how tall you are, how much money you make, if you are right or left handed etc... My point is you are more than the sum of your parts, you sound reasonably intelligent, and I'm sure there are many other qualities about you that go into making you WHO you are. I have emphasized WHO a number of times because if you think about it, this is really what makes you desirable, both as boyfriend/husband/friend material than your physical characteristics. Lastly you will, I'm sure as I have meet people who are hung up about these sorts of things, and quite frankly you are better off without those sorts of people in your life. People by in large are products of their environment, as such you have a choice on not only who you associate with, but how you interact with people, and it is from this basis that others will make decisions about you. I know my answer doesn't go into why some women like taller men, well it is a socialization issue, which can make for a whole other lecture, ultimately if the population you live in is composed of taller people and you are shorter than average (like me) then you fall out of that average (not always a bad thing) if you were say in Southeast Asia where the average height is lower then there would be less emphasis on your height. I hope this helps you and that this not so brief message finds you well. Just remember your height should not dictate how tall you are as a man ;-)

[Asker]

Best answer on here.

[skippertod1]

cos they are shallow. and the taller their BF , the more they feel other men will respect them. they dont care for finding a nice guy they click with , just a tall asshat.

[Willow4]

I don't think that's really very fair. Men have their preferences just like women do. Yes I prefer a tall, strong, well built bear type guy but so long as they are taller than I am and not obese I'm willing to compromise on my 'ideal' list, we all have to sometimes and we can be better off for it meeting great people.

[skippertod1]

fair enuff, but a lot of girls go for some lanky ugly guy just cos he is tall. that is lame

[Willow4]

Yeah well that is, and that is a prime example that height isn't everything. I've always preferred more meat on a guy than a beansprout. I would rather a shorter bigger guy than a tall lanky one lol.

[Asker]

I agree.

[Asker]

@Willow4 I'll date a girl of any race, any ethnicity, any age up to 10 years older than me (no one under 18 though), and any shape or size (except overly fat girls who can change that by working out). Yet girls want a guy who's tall? Something they can't change?

[Willow4]

It does seem unfair when you say it like that, I don't understand girls who refuse to date a guy who isn't over a certain height. It's shallow to not consider a person as a whole, to disregard personality and their other physical attributes because of their height bewilders me. I'm certainly not stunningly beautiful enough to think I had enough men after me to be able to pick and choose so offhandedly. My only no go areas are obesity and shortness as in below my own height, but being that I'm petite myself I don't find that I would have any grounds to refuse anybody immediately, and rightly so.

[Anon0001]

Jeesh... You found bitter!

[ocicatlover]

skippertod i couldnt agree more with you

[Asker]

@Anon0001 *sound

[guitar94]

Yeah, that's really going to get women to like you. Go around saying that...

[16charger]

Willow4 what's wrong with obese?

[JohnWhilkins]

Cool. What a bunch of marys.

[Insaan]

Lol someone spoke the truth and girls got defensive. Anyways..it's their preference that cannot be challenged... But yeah we cannot generalize.

[misupanda]

This is completely an overgeneralization, as not all women are like that, and most aren't. Men are allowed to have preferences, so why can't women? I've been turned down because I'm not blonde, because I'm too short, and because I'm not promiscuous enough. Men are just as shallow, if this is the case.

[Asker]

It's also a overgeneralization to say there aren't many charismatic short guys. I'm not shallow I like all types of girls. And if I don't like something about a girl it's probably something she can change.

[TheOneTurv]

i like how you got no up-votes from any girl. Down voted to hell man lol. But i do agree with you. I hope my +1 helped lol

[Asker]

LMAO!!! y'all crazy.

[candyaurora]

Just like all men are shallow going for women with big "assets" they don't care for finding a nice girl they click with?

[Asker]

@candyaurora yeah guys can be shallow too. Some just one girls who are shorter than them on the flip side of this.

[Asker]

*Some just want

[shacodraco]

Because if a guy is tall that automatically makes him an asshat because he got the girl right? Typical "nice guy" mentality

[Awsdrd1990]

Says the guy with the shallow looking douche bag as his profile pic LOL

#ihopethatsnotyou lol

[Asker]

LOL!! Dang girl.

[Le_Franglais]

Opinion asker you're so shallow and full of yourself.

[Asker]

No it's the opposite. I'm too open minded.

[Imagirl___]

Men are idiots!

[Asker]

Not all men.

[Imagirl___]

Ok MOST

[Asker]

I'm a genius. :)

[Keyspirits]

Truth be told lel

[Anonymous]

Why does anyone like any physical trait in a partner? Were attracted to it, what it looks like, what it represents, how it makes us feel, social messages around it, etc. Why should a girl have to settle for a guy of below average height, since you dont want to "settle" for a specific type of girl either? how is that fair - if you dont want to settle on your preferences why should anyone else?

I find taller men more attractive, physically and in how they feel standing next to me. I know for me personally, anything less than average height (which is 5'10 here in america for men) isn't preferable, but I can tolerate like 5'8. I prefer much taller men so its not my ideal but 5'8 is okay if I really really like him. Its also where I draw the line unless something about a guy seems crazy exceptional. I've never dated anyone under 5'10 so far though.

I'm 5'4 and I personally probably wouldn't ever date a guy this short. I just dont see it happening. But I have met a couple guys that I would go for, given the right time, place and mutual interest, who are like 5'6. Thats just so short for a man though...But if I fell for someone I could try to ignore it.

tallness is seen as a masculine trait as well. of course women will like it.

But enough women date short guys. you should be fine, if you're putting your best foot forward and being a confident, chill person. if you're not even trying much and obsess over your height...well, then you probably will have issues with dating.

[Opinion Owner]

I agree with the others, 5'3 to 5'6 looks much more different than it sounds. I'm 5'4.5'' technically, basically 5'5. I look much taller than my friend who is 5'1. She always comments like "oh its such a difference". Actually, it is lol Just like someone 5'8 is noticeably taller than I am, even though its only a few inches

[Asker]

Why should a girl have to settle for a guy of below average height, since you dont want to "settle" for a specific type of girl either?

Like I've been saying to others I really wish I could have stated the question differently. In my personal experiences height hasn't been a problem, but I guess because I'm short and deviant I can empathize with the short guys who do struggle. I meant "settle" as in why does a short guy HAVE to have a shorter girl? What if he wants a taller girl? Girls don't HAVE to have a short guy. Like I was telling others if they end up with a tall guy then cool. I'm saying don't let height alone determine whether you think the guy is attractive because if so then his qualities (be it a tall or short guy) shouldn't matter.

Also like I was telling others MY preferences change either day to day and or because I want them to. It has nothing to do with social norms as again I am deviant. The only...

[Asker]

social norms in terms of attraction is which I am one dimensional like some girls is overly big girls and anorexic girls. Other than that I am open to all types of girls. Just because she has a big butt doesn't make me want her and some days I don't like girls with big butts and some days I do. Again social norms don't determine me. I guess I'm one of the few people who are like that though. The only thing that doesn't change when it comes to such attractions is my sexuality. I for some reason am still heterosexual which leads me to believe that sexuality is also a choice but again I just may be different than others.

Also tallness doesn't define MY masculinity. I'm around 5'3 or 5'4 and girls taller than me were still attracted to me. It's society and how some girls conform to it even if it's subconsciously that I see as wrong.

I also told others that a short guy shouldn't have to "make personality" a strong suit. The girl should...

[Asker]

view his full profile (all qualities) without him having to "force" his full profile onto her. Yeah some girls don't care. I'm a confident person in what I believe in but I'm don't "force" anything on to her. She either likes me or she doesn't. However that still doesn't mean that I can't think that it's wrong or not for a girl to stop at first base (height). I'm not obsessed with my height. I love my height. I think my height is part of who I am and some girls love it. I was just trying to understand why other girls don't love it and trying to tell them why I believe they don't.

[Asker]

I agree with the others, 5'3 to 5'6 looks much more different than it sounds. I'm 5'4.5'' technically, basically 5'5. I look much taller than my friend who is 5'1. She always comments like "oh its such a difference". Actually, it is lol Just like someone 5'8 is noticeably taller than I am, even though its only a few inches

Some people must have lied about their height because when I stood next to them and could see them eye to eye they said they were 5'6. I really believe I'm 5'3 or 5'4 but I don't know for sure.

[loveisbeautiful]

I'm gonna make answer brief. I don't why women make such a big deal out of this, but I can see why there's so many single people in the world. Because, if height is your biggest consideration factor for dating someone. Then you need to reshift your focus.

Also, this question as been asked on here a million times before and I don't even have to look at the women's answers, because I know what stupid ass reasons there gonna give. And, it's actually quite funny. I just have to say, there is never gonna come a day were I pair my shoes with my man. If I want to wear heels, then I'll wear heals, whether I look taller then him or not! That seriously has to be the stupidest reason, to not date someone.

Also, I know guys who are really short and guys who are super tall. And, guys who all the heights in the middle. And, I could really care a less about there height. I like people for who they are, not how tall they are. And, I'd date someone I had a great connection or chemistry. Not because are heights are compatible. I just don't work like that.

[Asker]

The point of the heels from what other women have said is that they want to feel taller and have authority. Yet then they don't want a guy who is shorter than them. *shrugs* I mean I could get specific too, can't we all? Can't we all say so and so has to be this and that?

[Asker]

It's a choice not for me to be that way though.

[loveisbeautiful]

Well, I wear heels because I'm in the mood to and it looks good with my outfit. I don't wear them to be taller or have authority.

Also, safety for me is more about the guy himself and less about his height. I could feel safe with a short guy or a tall guy. Because, it's about the feeling of knowing that person cares about you enough to defend you, if he had to. Height has nothing to do with that.

[loveisbeautiful]

I saw a girl say here "she wouldn't want to bend down to kiss her boyfriend? And, a girl having to stand on her tip toes and bend her neck all the way back to kiss her boyfriend, is so much better? *she say's sarcastically* Whether you have to bend down or look up, it's gonna be a pain in the ass to kiss the person. But, if you really want to kiss him and you care very deeply for him. Then you'll shut up and kiss him.

[loveisbeautiful]

I'm not trying to be mean, I just get tired of hearing about this height thing. It's just a stupid concept to me.

[Asker]

Yeah and a tall guy has to bend down to kiss their short asses. I doubt they think about that though. Truth is unless they are the same height or close to it then there is going to be a minor or major struggle for someone in the relationship.

Your not being mean. It is a stupid concept but society encourages such concept.

[loveisbeautiful]

I suppose it does. It's actually kinda sad. I guess nobody wants to be with someone for the right reasons, they seem to want to be with them for all the wrong ones.

[COCOCHANEL]

i don't require my lover to take the role of bodyguard and never understood the ”protecter” thing. i have dated boys my height and i'm open to dating shorter. height doesn't matter to me. at. all.
shorter boys turn my head just as often as those of average and taller heights.

[Asker]

^^^^ A real girl ^^^^

[DutchAtheist]

It is culturally dictated.
Men are "supposed" to be taller than women.
Look at our movies or cartoons: the men are huge in comparison to the women. The only time when a couple is depicted as tall woman/short man is for comedic effect.

It is funny because it "isn't supposed to be that way".

There is a biological aspect of tall being a sign of health and wealth as well but to be honest we live in times where those things aren't that important anymore.

We are programmed this way. By culture. By media.

Being fat was once a sign of health and wealth, now it is a sign of poverty and being unhealthy.

Being tan was once a sign of poverty, now it means you are healthy.

Really frustrating and silly in case you are a short guy, for sure.
But what doesn't help is whining about it. I mean: "I usually don't date short guys but because he said that I was a stuck up superficial bitch if I wouldn't, we are now together" said no woman ever.

[nooriginality]

oh my goodness preach brother!!!
i wish i could that mentality. for me alone honestly.

[biggie90]

There is a biological aspect of tall being a sign of health and wealth as well but to be honest we live in times where those things aren't that important anymore.

Just because they aren't important doesn't mean they aren't present in the brain females are biologically wired to be more interested in taller men. Take a neuroscience course buddy.

[DutchAtheist]

I think I know more about neuroscience than you and what's with the hostility? We now live in times where we can overrule our primitive insticts. Glasses are cute, whereas they are a sign of bad genes. That is just us culturally defying biology. Like you can learn not to flinch, you can also learn to prefer different physical traits. Studies with young animals being placed in nests with a different subspecies have shown that they model their future partner to their foster parents rather than millions of years of hard wiring.

[Asker]

True. You know what man? I'm just going to find and keep the girls who don't care about height. All the rest can go fuck themselves.

[biggie90]

It doesn't matter Dutch tall guys have and will always be in style. Sean Connery was over 6 feet tall. All James Bonds have been tall even though times have changed. Women like tall men and I don't understand why you think so.

[DutchAtheist]

As well you should. If it makes you feel any better: I'm 6'4" and hardly ever go on dates. The grass seems always greener but if you look closely it rarily is.

[DutchAtheist]

Biggie: I'm tall myself.

[biggie90]

Well you should have lots of good chances with ladies...

[Anon0001]

Actually this is been fazed out sorta...now it mean you get wrinkles faster and risk skin cancer...,"Being tan was once a sign of poverty, now it means you are healthy."

[Asker]

@biggie90 I have lots of good chances with ladies and I'm short.

[DutchAtheist]

Then why are you complaining?

[Asker]

Empathy.

[David_Aspegren]

Each person has certain preferences that are unique to that individual, yet there are also instinctual and cultural influences on us as well. Although height can fall into any one of those three parameters (or maybe others), I would have to say that women's fondness for height is more related to instincts usually. For example, men generally love women with wide hips and big breasts. Although that can be a man's individual preference, we can't completely ignore instinctual reasons why men generally find those characteristics attractive.

So concerning height, it doesn't do any good to argue against it, to tell women that it's illogical, that it shouldn't matter. Because to say that, you would also have to agree that mens' tastes are also illogical (which they are) and that they shouldn't matter. All a person can do is strive to develop those traits that hopefully others will find attractive. I will say, however, that men are in the unfortunate predicament of not being able to do anything about his height, while women have many ways of altering her appearance and making her more attractive to men. Again though, men just have go with it. There's nothing men can do about it at this time. Just accept it and change what a man can.

[Asker]

Hips can be altered. I like big hips I like little hips. I like big breasts I like little breasts. Most girls like tall guys and not short guys. In other words most girls are not as open minded as a guy like me is. That's the truth.

I don't plan on developing anything to fit others attractions. I'm going to be myself and that's it. I'm changing nothing. I just want accept the girls who are narrow minded. Plain and simple. They just want be able to have me.

[Asker]

*Wont accept

[kovalinkie19]

It's mostly because women are programmed by images and the media. Supposedly a taller guy is more able to protect them, which we all know is not true.

Don't listen to the women saying that the same thing applies to men wanting women who aren't overweight as that's something an extent that can be changed unlike height. Also don't listen to girls saying shorter guys have insecurity issues as they're the reason why shorter guys have them.

It sounds difficult but make your height become less important by bringing your personality to attention.

[Asker]

Yeah but the key to that is to only stick with girls who are unshallow.

[Asker]

If they are unshallow then you don't even have to bring personality to it.

[jeanbean]

I typically have a preference for guys taller than me, I don't know why. Probably the same reason why I have a thing for Asian dudes, I just happen to be that way. Although, despite my preference, I've never been able to date a guy taller than me. I've always ended up with shorter guys and I'm surprisingly okay with that.

I do get curious what it would be like to be with a tall guy though, something about having a guy be able to casually throw his arm around my shoulders without it being awkward appeals to me.

[Mesonfielde]

If they're shorter, they can throw it around your waist for similar effect.

[jeanbean]

I do like that. Even more so than the shoulder thing, I guess I'm just curious about dating a tall guy.

[Asker]

I'm ok with that. I mean look I realize I got the short end of the stick (well in some ways no but in terms of height yes). Nothing wrong with prefering tall guys over short guys. I'm cool with that. That's fine. However to say "If he's not such and such height I won't date him" how is that not discrimination? by the way were you in the service? I'd like to say thank you for serving.

[Asker]

@Jeanbean = real chick.

[jeanbean]

Yeah, no I don't have a "set height" that's stupid. Most of the time the guys I choose to date are sexy enough to make up for the height anyway. It's not a public thing either, I'm less self conscious about holding hands with a short guy than my boyfriend is about being the short guy.

And yes, I'm in the Air Force. :)

[udolipixie]

Why don't girls like short guys?
Likely the same reason it seems guys generally don't like fat gals, older gals, or when he's 30s+ gals his own age. That reason being physical attraction and emotional correlations to the trait.

I can't get taller and what if I want a tall girl? Or a girl that's average height?
Then it seems your options are limited. No different than other people who have trait (s) unappealing to the general population.

Why should I have to settle for a girl that's shorter than me?
I don't do should/shouldn't unless it pertains to harming children/animals. You don't have to settle as you can opt out if shorter gals are what you're solely/mainly getting.

However this question ironic as you're seemingly portraying having a shorter gals as 'settling' yet you question why gals don't like short guys...o.O

[Asker]

I like big girls. I like MILFs LOL!!! I'm not 30 but I doubt I'd want a young girl at that stage in my life.

I asked the"settling" for short girls question because while some girls who are taller than me find me attractive even if It's by a inch or two. I'm saying society as a whole don't think short guys are attractive. I'm saying I want all my options and I want my options to want me. Why can't I have a pale girl? Or a Dark skinned girl? Or a tan girl? Or a Muslim girl? Or a Christian girl? Or like I stated here a tall girl? Or a short girl? I want all my options. Not to say there aren't some girls who are taller than me who don't find me attractive. I'm just saying most girls initially have that mindset that short guys are not attractive.

[udolipixie]

Your tastes doesn't exclude that it seems generally those types are undesirable.

"I'm saying I want all my options"
This is a non issue to me as it's understandable to want everything available in terms of romantic and sexual options.

"I want my options to want me. "
This is an issue to me as it's quite self-centered demanding entitled thinking in my opinion. In otherwords it seems you want to dictate what others find attractive and appealing.

You can want all your options however all your options can also not want you. It seems you're trying to diminish free will and choice so you can get what you want. In which case it seems that any gal that is an option for you has a sh*t deal as you seemingly don't care what she likes/wants.

There's nothing 'wrong' in my opinion for gals to find short guys unattractive, unappealing, etc. People will and can like what they like in my opinion.

[Asker]

They are generally desirable in other places.

I want people to not discriminate. Saying you want a guy with muscles is one thing saying you want a tall guy is whole other animal. I just think people should have preferences that can be changed. I don't say "well I only like natural blondes so if your not a blonde I don't want you." That's a form of discrimination it's not a preference. Preference means you'll happy with any or most types of girls but you prefer such and such.

I'm not diminishing free will, I'm pointing out discrimiation and showing that there is no logically good reason why girls like tall guys. That whole protection argument is ridiculous and the preference argument just shows that people don't know what preference means.

I want a girl who likes me for me. One who doesn't care about height, or skin color, or religion, etc. One who likes personality more. Girls are always talking about how they like personality.

[Asker]

Saying there's nothing wrong with girls not liking short guys is like saying you don't like someone because of their race, or natural hair color, or ethnic group. It's discrimination.

[Asker]

And if y'all are going to support yall's discrimination based on looks then I don't want hear y'all saying that y'all like guys with personality. I don't want to hear y'all say that guys only like appearance because y'all are in the same boat.

[udolipixie]

When it comes to romantic/sexual partners being generally desirable in other places is irrelevant to most it seems. Unless the person is interested in a sexless relationship.

Egh in my opinion attraction is discrimination. It seems you want to pick and choose and call it discrimination and 'different' when it's a trait you have that's undesirable.

You are diminishing free will by seemingly trying to control others attraction and shaming them for it by calling it discrimination

There is a logically good reason why gals like tall guys- they are attracted to them.

Egh gals talking about personality doesn't necessarily equate to appearance being irrelevant. That's some logic leaping in my opinion.

[udolipixie]

Again in my opinion attraction is discrimination as I find most people are not attracted to everyone.

"And if y'all are going to support yall's discrimination based on looks then I don't want hear y'all saying that y'all like guys with personality."
It seems you're unaware that a gal can seek attraction and personality. A gal wanting attraction doesn't mean she doesn't like guys with personality. No different than a gal wanting personality doesn't mean she doesn't want attraction.

"I don't want to hear y'all say that guys only like appearance because y'all are in the same boat."
As well as there's quite a difference between "only like appearance" and "like appearance and personality".

[Asker]

Right I have a trait that's undesirable. Since it's part of my physical makeup that I can't change it's a form of discrimination. It's like skin color.

I'm not diminishing free will. If all you just so happen to date is tall guys that's fine. I have a problem with girls saying that only tall guys are attractive. That makes no sense and there reasoning is BS like security when that isn't determined by height. That's just facts not opinion.

Well I'm a different bred then. A rare bred, because everybody else cares about what's attrated to them. You know what attracts me? A girl with long legs, a girl with short legs, a tall girl, a short girl, a middle height girl, a girl with girl black, blonde, brown, red, or even dyed hair, a girl of any race, a girl of any size (except overly big), etc.

99% of girls say personality is more important and that all guys care about is appearance. Now I could go into a rant about that aspect but I wont.

[udolipixie]

Again attraction is discrimination. Whether it's changeable or not is irrelevant to attraction.

Also again personality being more important doesn't equate to appearance being unimportant. Some may find love is more important than money however that doesn't mean money isn't important at all.

If gals are saying that only tall guys are attractive to her I see no problem as that's seemingly a fact for her.

You are likely a rare breed as I find most people care about appearance and personality. It seems most people want a romantic/sexual partner they are sexually attracted to who they like. While it seems for you simply being a gal is enough of a sexual attraction to you.

[Asker]

So attraction doesn't bother me? Some girls see money as the only thing, but not all.

Why does gals see only tall guys as attractive? What is it? I've already explained the protect thing over and over again here.

I mean like I said I don't want a obese girl but a average build girl or a little over average is ok. I wouldn't want a anorexic girl because that's unhealthy (so is obesity). Idk. Would you date a short guy? Or a black person? or a Hispanic? or a Asian? Or a Indian?

[udolipixie]

I'm unsure what you mean by 'So attraction doesn't bother me? ' if that is an actual question.

It depends on the gal why see only sees tall guys as attractive it could be the body shape, bone structure, build, etc.

No I would not date a short guy, black guy, hispanic guy, Asian guy, or Indian guy. I'm not attracted to them and I date what I find attractive.

[Asker]

:( I've noticed a lot of girls only date within their nationality and race too. I'm done arguing. It's no use in trying to reason with madness.

[udolipixie]

I'm not seeing how it's madness to be attracted to one's nationality and race...o.O

What's madness in my opinion is trying to 'argue' that someone to be attracted to others.

[Asker]

I don't want to talk about it anymore. That's so wrong to be that way. I never said you shouldn't be attracted to your own race and nationality. I like American black girls but I also like girls of other nations and races.

[udolipixie]

It's 'so wrong' for me to be attracted to something specific..o.o

It seems like it's only 'so wrong' because my attraction eliminates others. I'm unsure why you seemingly have an issue with the notion that people don't have to be attracted to everyone.

[Asker]

You don't find discrimination as wrong then?

[udolipixie]

I don't find discrimination as 'wrong' when in choosing a romantic/sexual partner. Discrimination in my opinion is 'wrong' when it takes away other's right and is unjust treatment.

It's not taking away someone's right to not be attracted to them as there is no right that everyone has to be attracted to everyone.

It's not unjust treatment for someone to not be attracted to another or want to date another.

[Asker]

So it's ok to be a racist and nationalist just so long you don't take away anyone's rights? It's still wrong no matter how you cut it. I'll be a racist and nationalist and we'll see how far that goes. Let's see how many people are ok with that.

[udolipixie]

Your question is illogical and suggesting emotional reaction rather than reason.

I was talking about discrimination as in attraction in choosing a romantic/sexual partner. That's not being a racist or nationalist.

A racist is defined as 'a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.' It's not being a racist to not be attracted to another race.

A nationalist is defined as 'a person who advocates political independence for a country.' It's not being a nationalist to be not be attracted to another nationality.

Likely many people would be okay with someone who is attracted to their own race and nationality.

[Asker]

It's still in the category of discrimination. Discrimination doesn't discriminate. LOL!! I mean really if you pick a category as the only category you'll accept then your excluding all the other categories and therefore discriminating. You've even said it yourself. If attraction is discrimination then it's in the same box as racism and nationalism because it's all still discrimination. What if I said it's ok to be a racist because it's not as bad as being a nationalist or only liking tall guys and excluding short guys? I mean those two are much worst so it's ok to be racist. I guess the argument is not if attraction is discrimination but only if it's wrong or not. Discrimination should always be wrong especially when it comes to romantic/sexual partners because that reflects other forms of discrimination. I mean why wouldn't you like someone who is a different color? You don't like their skin color? Why doesn't it attract you?

[udolipixie]

I'm unsure why you're telling me it's still in the category of discrimination as nowhere did I state it didn't...o.O

I'm stating is that this discrimination isn't racist or nationalist as it's not about believing one is superior.

You are aware that racism and nationalism are forms of discrimination but that doesn't mean that discrimination is racist or nationalist.

It's like how cars and trains are forms of transportation but that doesn't mean all transportation are cars and trains.

[udolipixie]

*edit
"You are aware that racism and nationalism are forms of discrimination but that doesn't mean that discrimination is racist or nationalist?"

[udolipixie]

I'm not unsure why you think discrimination should always be wrong especially when it comes to romantic/sexual partners because that reflects other forms of discrimination.

Your extremist absolutist statement shows skewed reasoning in my opinion. Not dating other races can stem from racist beliefs or it can stem from lack of attraction. To seemingly equate it to always being racist is illogical.

This discrimination should always be wrong notion is what I'm talking about when I state you're trying to diminish free will.

Again it seems your issue is that you don't like rejection not that this is discrimination is 'wrong'. It appears that you don't like that gals don't have to be attracted to you and can reject you possibly on things you have no control over such as hair color, skin color, race so you want to label it as 'wrong'.

[Asker]

Yeah I get it. I'm just saying all discrimination is wrong. Just like trains and cars are both still vehicles. I'm not even upset anymore. People are going to believe what they want even though it's wrong. Many people who have a discriminating mindset don't think they are wrong. It's all good. I'm getting irritated now.

[Asker]

Every girl I've talked to thinks I'm cute but w/e. There are many sheep and few wolves.

[udolipixie]

If all discrimination is wrong then you are against free will. A person is being discriminating if they want someone intelligent, someone nice, someone funny, someone (insert whatever).

Trains and cars are both still transportation but not all transportation are trains and cars. That is the skewed reasoning in calling it racist/nationalist to not be attracted to another race/nationality.

Possibly you're getting irritated because I may be right about my guess that this isn't about discrimination being 'wrong' but you not liking rejection and how gals don't have to be attracted to you and can reject you possibly on things you have no control over such as hair color, skin color, race so you want to label it as 'wrong'.

[udolipixie]

*edit
If all discrimination is wrong then you are against free will in my opinion.

"Every girl I've talked to thinks I'm cute but w/e. There are many sheep and few wolves."
Yet does every gal you've talked to want you as a romantic/sexual partner. If they did then I doubt you'd be asking why don't girls like short guys.

Perhaps it's suited to think that people will like what they like. Rather than try to dictate what people should like and seemingly shame them for not being attracted to you.

[Asker]

Free will comes with a price. We are susceptible to wrong doing it still doesn't make it right. Yes we have free will. Why not have free will to kill? I mean that's restricting our free will isn't it? Why can't I sit into a celebrity's house? You can't give someone total free will either. Yes it's wrong to kill but by having laws that restrict killing they are restricting my free will. However attraction can be helped. You can change that. I wasn't always accepting of girls of different types but I've learned not to discriminate. Maybe others need that learning too?

I'm probably irritated because I feel like my point is valid but not going through your head at all.

I never said that it's racist or being a nationalist. I said it's in the same category. Sure there are other things that fit in transportation but cars and trains are in there are they not? And again what we are comparing it to can be helped.

I've only been rejected once...

[Asker]

And that was to a black girl who still liked me but said she didn't like how I approached her. I didn't like her to begin with but I was young, stupid, and peer pressured into it. Later people told me she still wanted to talk. However, I do like black girls so I wasn't discriminating. Besides that no girl has rejected me.

I don't want romance at this point in my life. I ask the question because I see it happen. I'm the person who sees the world's faults and speak on it. Even if it doesn't apply to me. Guys want short girls. This is wrong and a problem too.

[udolipixie]

It's not 'wrong doing' to not be attracted to someone or to not date someone. Free will to be attracted to whoever you want and date whoever you want (excluding children) is nowhere near the same as actions that violates other's privacy like sitting in their home or acts of violence like killing.

Your response seems quite illogical and based on emotional ploys rather than reason.

I don't think others 'need' to learn to be more accepting in regards to attraction as no one is entitled to have everyone be attracted to them. No different than no one is entitled to have everyone want to be their friend or everyone like them.

Likely you learned to be accepting as you have a trait seemingly generally seen as undesirable so to increase your chances it was suited for you to be more accepting.

[udolipixie]

" I'm the person who sees the world's faults and speak on it."
If not being attracted to someone is a world fault to you then it's quite odd in my opinion how you're not going on and on about child abuse, domestic violence against women, sexual assault against gals. Those matters are far more severe in my opinion than someone not wanting someone else.

"Guys want short girls. This is wrong and a problem too."
It's not 'wrong' to want someone or to not want someone. It's not unjust as it's not a moral or fairness issue to reject someone. Rather it'd be a moral and fairness issue to dictate others pursue those they're not attracted to.

It seems it's only a 'problem' to those that feel entitled to have everyone attracted to them or have everyone consider them regardless of what the other person wants.

[Asker]

Wait why is wrong to date children? What if I wanted a 12 year old? What's wrong with marrying her if I love her? It's free will right? I don't want my free will taken. Can I marry a dog? What if I'm in love with the dog? It's free will right? Girly the truth is that nobody has FULL free will. Nobody.

Your trying to reason discrimination. That's illogical to me. My emotions are sparked by false reasoning.

I never said everyone should be attracted to me. When did I say that?

Your last sentence is incorrect. Height has never really been a problem for me. I saw another question somewhere on here and decided to post this one. I see and hear guys getting discriminated against by females but guys do it too. It hasn't happened to me because girls for some reason see past it in most cases. Probably because I'm at their height or taller. So I don't see the connection there. It's a reasonable accusation. Not true but I'll give you credit.

[udolipixie]

"I never said that it's racist or being a nationalist"
You implied it by responding to me saying it's alright to be racist and nationalist when I stated discrimination isn't wrong to me when it's about attraction.

I thought my implication was correct seeing as in other discussions when someone states they're not attracted to another race/nationality you respond with it's racism or nationalism.

Such as " You'd never date a Indian? I'm not Indian but now that's racism...or nationalism"

"I said it's in the same category. "
You stated that after I called you out on your skewed reasoning. I was working on what your words implied.

[udolipixie]

"I'm probably irritated because I feel like my point is valid but not going through your head at all."
Other than having entitlement issues I'm not seeing how it's a valid point to seemingly deem it wrong if people don't find everyone attractive.

Attraction tends to be subjective in my opinion as people are individuals and tend to vary on tastes. Using your logic it's discriminating and 'wrong' for a gal to want an intelligent guy, a guy to want a compassionate gal as they're discriminating based on traits that excludes others.

I do understand that you are seemingly working on feelings not reason considering how you went to racism/nationalism when it wasn't relevant as those are about thinking one is superior to another.

[udolipixie]

"Wait why is wrong to date children?"
Don't be obtuse with this bs. Children are not at the same emotional and mental maturity and capacity as they are still developing so it portrays a predator-prey relationship. As well as dating often involves sex and adults having sex with children can injure them permanently.

[udolipixie]

"Girly the truth is that nobody has FULL free will."
Nowhere did I make any statements, suggestions, implications, or mentions about full free will. I did talk about the free will to be attracted to and date whoever a person wants.

Rather than twist things and evade stick at the topic at hand.

This full free will bs is just that bs as nowhere does my talk of free will mention harming, maiming, killing, or violating the rights of others.

To you the free will to be attracted to and date whoever a person wants may be equated to the free will to kill however that's not the reasonable case.

[Asker]

I said they are in the same group.

Discrimination
Racism
Nationalism
Heightism
Discrimination against the disabled
Religious discrimination
Linguist-ism

I'll stop there. I said one leads to the other. Discrimination against height is not racist or nationalist. Discrimination against race is racist. Plain and simple. If in your heart you don't want someone because of their color then that's racist. How is that not racist?

If you don't like someone because they are from Indian you are a Nationalist. Where they live should not have anything to do with how attractive they are to you. That's what I'm saying. Your implications are like putting words in my mouth just to justify what's wrong.

[Asker]

Discrimination Group:
Racism
Nationalism
Heightism
Discrimination against the disabled
Religious discrimination
Linguist-ism

[udolipixie]

"Your trying to reason discrimination."
Discrimination in regards to choosing a romantic/sexual partner is reasonable. If a gal wants an intelligent partner it's reasonable to discriminate and exclude non intelligent people.

"That's illogical to me."
It's illogical to you that people find certain traits attractive and want a partner with these traits (?)

"My emotions are sparked by false reasoning."
There's no false reasoning in that it's not 'wrong' to not be attracted to someone and to not date someone.

"I never said everyone should be attracted to me. When did I say that?"
I didn't state you said everyone should be attracted to you so I'm unsure why you're asking me when did you say that.

I was talking about your "Discrimination should always be wrong especially when it comes to romantic/sexual partners " notion

[udolipixie]

" Discrimination against race is racist. Plain and simple. If in your heart you don't want someone because of their color then that's racist. How is that not racist?"
It's not racist unless the reason is because the person believes the race is inferior to them.

A racist is defined as 'a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.' It's not being a racist to not be attracted to another race.

"If you don't like someone because they are from Indian you are a Nationalist. Where they live should not have anything to do with how attractive they are to you."
It may have plenty to do with how appealing they are as a partner as there is such a factor like culture conflicts and clashes.

[Asker]

I deem it wrong because I (and you) deem it discrimination.

I have my own tastes but accept others. You do not. Personality is something that changes. I grow everyday. The guy I was years ago I'm not now. I'm probably smarter now than I was before. My height? While I have grown I am still short. My intelligence continues to grow.

First of all it's not Racism/nationalism it's racism and nationalism. They are different but they are both discrimination. They are relevant because or really racism is relevant because it also has to do with appearance. To some degree Nationalism does too. Some people don't like the Japanese because they think everyone who is Japanese is Asian. I work on emotions but my emotions come from my strong reasoning and the foolishness of false logic.

[udolipixie]

"Your implications are like putting words in my mouth just to justify what's wrong."
I didn't put any words in your mouth. In fact you just proved my implications right by calling it racist and nationalist.

I stated you implied it's racist and nationalist.

You now stated it's racist and nationalist.

Do tell though what words am I putting in your mouth? o.O

I'm not trying to justify what's wrong as it's not 'wrong'/racist/nationalist to not be attracted in another race or nationality as a romantic/sexual partner. If the reason why is because s/he believes they're superior then it's 'wrong'/racist/nationalist.

[Asker]

No no no I should have the right to marry a child right? I thought we wanted free will? You started talking about intelligence (which is a mental trait that's different from a physical trait but w/e) let's talk about those who marry 12 years at 40 years old. Is that wrong? No because it's free will according to you. What if the little girl attracts him? Why can't he be attracted to whoever he wants to be attracted to? Again keep in mind this is your logic. Who even said anything about sex? Or ok how about 15 year olds? They've hit puberty haven't they?

[udolipixie]

Discrimination is not always wrong. If a person has any criteria for a partner that excludes others they are discriminating. That doesn't necessarily and automatically make it 'wrong'.

First of all '/' is another way of saying: 'and' 'or'. So 'racism/nationalism' means 'racism and nationalism' or 'racism or nationalism' depending on the sentence.

In my opinion if you were working on strong reasoning and the foolishness of false logic then you'd comprehend what racism is. Racism is thinking one race is superior to another race. Not being attracted to a race is not racism.

[Asker]

Your whole argument is on full free will.

"If all discrimination is wrong then you are against free will in my opinion." Well why is marrying a child wrong? What if they both love each other and are attracted to each other? If can't dictate what's free will then you can't either.

[Asker]

*If I can't dictate what's free will then you can't either.

[udolipixie]

Nowhere did I state that free will included marrying children in fact I clearly excluded that:
"Free will to be attracted to whoever you want and date whoever you want (excluding children)"

"let's talk about those who marry 12 years at 40 years old. Is that wrong? No because it's free will according to you. "
Yes it is wrong and it's not free will according to me as I clearly excluded children from free will.

"Again keep in mind this is your logic"
It's not my logic. Show me where my logic stated marrying children or being attracted to children
...
...
...
oh that's right you can't because I didn't.

Again this free will bs stance of yours is showing your weak reasoning and foolishness of your false logic.

How did you get it's not wrong for a 12 year old to marry a 40 year old because it's free will when I clearly stated the free will excludes children? LMFAO

[udolipixie]

"Your whole argument is on full free will. "
No it does not. My whole argument is on the free will to be attracted to and date whoever a person wants (excluding children).

So either you're a liar or you're severely lacking in reading comprehension.

Nowhere did I talk about full free will. You're the only one who has used those words.

[udolipixie]

"If all discrimination is wrong then you are against free will in my opinion." Well why is marrying a child wrong? What if they both love each other and are attracted to each other? If can't dictate what's free will then you can't either."
I wasn't dictating free will. So your "if I can't you can't" game is a massive fail that doesn't apply.

My argument was by telling people what they should do you're diminishing the free will to be attracted to and date whoever a person wants (excluding children).

My argument wasn't about full free will (a term only you used).

My argument wasn't about dictating what is free will.

My argument was about your notions diminish a certain free will people have.

[Asker]

"Discrimination in regards to choosing a romantic/sexual partner is reasonable. If a gal wants an intelligent partner it's reasonable to discriminate and exclude non intelligent people."

Again you bring up a personality trait when I was talking physical. So since you did that even though it's unrelated to the topic then why can't I bring up racism and nationalism? At least those are physical discrimination. o.O

"It's illogical to you that people find certain traits attractive and want a partner with these traits" Nope. Misinterpretation.

"There's no false reasoning in that it's not 'wrong' to not be attracted to someone and to not date someone"

Never said it was wrong to not be attracted to someone I'm saying it's wrong to discriminate because of height and not other things like intelligence (since you want to mention that).

[Asker]

"Possibly you're getting irritated because I may be right about my guess that this isn't about discrimination being 'wrong' but you not liking rejection and how gals don't have to be attracted to you and can reject you possibly on things you have no control over such as hair color, skin color, race so you want to label it as 'wrong'"

"Likely you learned to be accepting as you have a trait seemingly generally seen as undesirable so to increase your chances it was suited for you to be more accepting."

[Asker]

You "implied" that I believe that everyone should be attracted to me.

[udolipixie]

I bring up a personality trait because I'm showing your lacking reasoning in calling it 'wrong' to discriminate in regards to choosing a romantic/sexual partner this 'wrong'. It's not unrelated as i's discrimination since it excludes others. What happened to discriminating is discriminating?

You can bring up racism and nationalism however it's unrelated unless you can prove that not being attracted to a race/nationality is because one thinks they are superior to it.

Then what is illogical as it seems the scenario is about gals being attracted to tall guys and wanting a tall guy?

Attraction is discrimination and it's not 'wrong' as no one is entitled to find everyone attractive or consider everyone as a romantic/sexual partner. It seems you're under the impression that if one excludes others it's 'wrong'.

[Asker]

"It's not racist unless the reason is because the person believes the race is inferior to them.

A racist is defined as 'a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.' It's not being a racist to not be attracted to another race."

Read number 2 on your Google search LOL!!! Smh.

It may have plenty to do with how appealing they are as a partner as there is such a factor like culture conflicts and clashes." That key word is may. Let me ask you does everyone in America practice the same culture and traditions? I know I don't. Saying you don't like any of them despite that is Nationalism.

"I didn't put any words in your mouth. In fact you just proved my implications right by calling it racist and nationalist." Even that statement was putting words in my mouth so to speak.

[udolipixie]

Discriminating is how one chooses their partner and again it seems you want to dictate what people can like.seek/want in a partner.

If a gal wants a tall guy then she can discriminate on height and it's not 'wrong'.

If a gal wants a smart and tall guy she can discriminate on height and intelligence and it's not 'wrong'.

Some people are concerned about appearance, some about personality, and it seems most about appearance and personality.

[udolipixie]

You "implied" that I believe that everyone should be attracted to me.
You really reached for that implication it seems.

Unsure how 'I'm guessing you don't like rejection and especially don't like that gals can reject you based on things you can't change' =
'I'm implying you believe that everyone should be attracted to you'. O.O

[biggie90]

Size does matter to women — when it comes to height. We’ve long known that women are more attracted to taller men, and a new study from the University of Utah explains that it’s actually evolutionary.

[Asker]

"I'm not trying to justify what's wrong as it's not 'wrong'/racist/nationalist to not be attracted in another race or nationality as a romantic/sexual partner. If the reason why is because s/he believes they're superior then it's 'wrong'/racist/nationalist." I see a bunch of dashes that shouldn't be there.

"Discrimination is not always wrong. If a person has any criteria for a partner that excludes others they are discriminating. That doesn't necessarily and automatically make it 'wrong'." If it's something they can't help how does that make it right? I could give examples but you'd get mad so nah.

"First of all '/' is another way of saying: 'and' 'or'. So 'racism/nationalism' means 'racism and nationalism' or 'racism or nationalism' depending on the sentence" o.O

[Asker]

"In my opinion if you were working on strong reasoning and the foolishness of false logic then you'd comprehend what racism is. Racism is thinking one race is superior to another race. Not being attracted to a race is not racism." Excluding a race is a form of racism.

[udolipixie]

"Read number 2 on your Google search LOL!!! Smh."
The racist definition on my Google search are the same. None say not being attracted to a race means one is a racist.

1. noun
a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

2. adjective
having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another.

www.google.com/search

[biggie90]

udolipixie its biological admit it.

[udolipixie]

"That key word is may. Let me ask you does everyone in America practice the same culture and traditions? I know I don't. Saying you don't like any of them despite that is Nationalism."
It's likely easier to find an American that practices the same culture and tradition then someone in another nation.

Again it seems you don't know what nationalism is. Not being attracted to a nationality isn't nationalism. Nationalism would be thinking one is superior to that nationality.

[udolipixie]

" Even that statement was putting words in my mouth so to speak."
No it wasn't.

I stated you implied it was racist. You proved my implication correct by stating:
"Discrimination against race is racist."

I stated you implied it was nationalist. You proved my implication correct by stating:
"If you don't like someone because they are from Indian you are a Nationalist."

[udolipixie]

Again do tell what words am I putting in your mouth? If I'm putting words in your mouth then you're not stating discrimination based on race is racist and discrimination based on nationality is nationalism.

[Asker]

Nowhere did I state that free will included marrying children in fact I clearly excluded that:
"Free will to be attracted to whoever you want and date whoever you want (excluding children)"
-Yeah I know. That’s my point.

"let's talk about those who marry 12 years at 40 years old. Is that wrong? No because it's free will according to you. "
Yes it is wrong and it's not free will according to me as I clearly excluded children from free will.
-Ok. So it’s wrong to YOU then? Yet people do it legally.

"Again keep in mind this is your logic"
It's not my logic. Show me where my logic stated marrying children or being attracted to children
oh that's right you can't because I didn't.
-Exactly. You’ve made my point. It just went over your head.

How did you get it's not wrong for a 12 year old to marry a 40 year old because it's free will when I clearly stated the free will excludes children? LMFAO

-Feel that wind above your head?

[udolipixie]

Excluding a race is not a form of racism according to the definition. If the exclusion is due to belief of superiority then it's a form of racism.

The trait being something they can't help doesn't make it 'wrong'. If a person is attracted to brunettes it's not 'wrong' because ravens, reds, and blondes can't help their hair color. If a person wants to date 20 year olds it's not 'wrong' because others can't control their age.

It seems you thinl that if they are being judged on something they can't help it's 'wrong' which is skewed reasoning in my opinion. As whether it's 'wrong' would more reasonably depend on if it's unjust or unfair treatment.

It's not unjust or unfair treatment not to be attracted to someone or to not date someone for not having a desired trait.

[Asker]

No it does not. My whole argument is on the free will to be attracted to and date whoever a person wants (excluding children).
- Why exclude children? Some others don’t.

So either you're a liar or you're severely lacking in reading comprehension.
-How am I a liar? Aren’t you the one who said anybody should date whoever they want even if they exclude people? You’ve been preaching that this whole time then you said “excluding children”. What happened to anyone can date who they want? Where’s that attitude at?
Nowhere did I talk about full free will. You're the only one who has used those words.
-So we don’t have full free will? Therefore people shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate because they already don’t have full free will and you even said discrimination is bad.

[udolipixie]

Nice job turning around your massive fail.

Rather than admit you skewed and twisted arguing against a claim I didn't make you try to portray it as if the 'point' went over my head.

It didn't. You got called on your bs of arguing against 'full free will' something I didn't even mention.

[Asker]

"If all discrimination is wrong then you are against free will in my opinion." Well why is marrying a child wrong? What if they both love each other and are attracted to each other? If can't dictate what's free will then you can't either."
I wasn't dictating free will. So your "if I can't you can't" game is a massive fail that doesn't apply.
-Yeah you were. That’s your whole argument. You think people should have the free will to date whoever they want even if it’s discriminating. Or did you forget in your anger? Oh wait I forgot excluding children. LOL!!

[Asker]

My argument was by telling people what they should do you're diminishing the free will to be attracted to and date whoever a person wants (excluding children).
-I’m not telling them to do anything but be considerate. You’re saying wrongful discrimination is ok.

My argument wasn't about full free will (a term only you used).
- “You can want all your options however all your options can also not want you. It seems you're trying to diminish free will and choice so you can get what you want. In which case it seems that any gal that is an option for you has a sh*t deal as you seemingly don't care what she likes/wants.” This is your second reply to me and the first time free will is used in our argument.

[Asker]

My argument was about your notions diminish a certain free will people have.
-Yet it’s not free will to want to marry a child?

[udolipixie]

The attitude is still the same don't bs as if I changed stance. I overestimated your intelligence and reason to get that in romantic/sexual contexts the exclusion of children was a given.

When I saw how irrational and prone to logic leaps you were I found it suited for me to clearly state (excluding children) as I find you are prone to using emotional ploys rather than.

One doesn't have to have full free will to discriminate.

The free will to be attracted to and date whoever one wants (excluding children) allows them to discriminate.

"and you even said discrimination is bad."
That's a lie. A search on this page will show I never stated that discrimination is bad.

In fact my argument has been the opposite that discrimination in regards to romantic/sexual partners is not 'wrong'.

[udolipixie]

Again instead of telling me what my argument is try reading it.

I'm stating that your notion is diminishing a certain free will of people. This is a free will people already have.

I'm not stating people should have this free will as they already have it.

I'm stating that your notion is diminishing it.
Perhaps try rereading until you comprehend. LMFAO

[udolipixie]

"This is your second reply to me and the first time free will is used in our argument."
Yet nowhere does it state full free will which you went on and on about. Again that's a term only you used.

[Asker]

I bring up a personality trait because I'm showing your lacking reasoning in calling it 'wrong' to discriminate in regards to choosing a romantic/sexual partner this 'wrong'. It's not unrelated as i's discrimination since it excludes others. What happened to discriminating is discriminating?
-You said it was wrong to discriminate but people should have free will to do it. Discriminating is discriminating but intelligence again can be helped. You can get smarter, you can’t get taller.

[udolipixie]

"I’m not telling them to do anything but be considerate."
Considerate doesn't apply here as being a romantic/sexual partner is not an act of courtesy.

"You’re saying wrongful discrimination is ok."
It's not 'wrongful' unless you're stating it's not fair for a person to choose who they want as a romantic/sexual partner. That is a skewed outlook in my opinion.

[Asker]

You can bring up racism and nationalism however it's unrelated unless you can prove that not being attracted to a race/nationality is because one thinks they are superior to it.

Racism
n.noun

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

From Yahoo sorry.

[Asker]

Attraction is discrimination and it's not 'wrong' as no one is entitled to find everyone attractive or consider everyone as a romantic/sexual partner. It seems you're under the impression that if one excludes others it's 'wrong'.
-Heightism is wrong, along with racism. You think marrying a child is wrong yet others don’t. Yes I am under the impression that if one excludes another person because of height it’s wrong.

[udolipixie]

I didn't state it was wrong...o.O

"I'm showing your lacking reasoning in calling it 'wrong' to discriminate " is me saying you said it was 'wrong'.

Again whether the trait can be changed or helped is irrelevant. It doesn't make it 'wrong' that it can't be helped or changed.

[Asker]

Discriminating is how one chooses their partner and again it seems you want to dictate what people can like.seek/want in a partner.
-Discriminating against someone’s height is wrong just like you think a grown man marrying a child is wrong. What more you want?

If a gal wants a tall guy then she can discriminate on height and it's not 'wrong'.
-Yes it is.
If a gal wants a smart and tall guy she can discriminate on height and intelligence and it's not 'wrong'.
-Yes it is.
Some people are concerned about appearance, some about personality, and it seems most about appearance and personality.
-Yeah I know.

[Asker]

You "implied" that I believe that everyone should be attracted to me.
You really reached for that implication it seems.
Unsure how 'I'm guessing you don't like rejection and especially don't like that gals can reject you based on things you can't change' =
'I'm implying you believe that everyone should be attracted to you'. O.O
-I never said I don’t like rejection nor did I say I get rejected. Nor did I say that I get discriminated against because of my height. You imply stuff to me when I never did. That’s your problem here.

[Asker]

“Read number 2 on your Google search LOL!!! Smh."
The racist definition on my Google search are the same. None say not being attracted to a race means one is a racist.
1. noun
a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
2. adjective
having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another.
-Yeah I meant Yahoo but w/e.

[Asker]

"That key word is may. Let me ask you does everyone in America practice the same culture and traditions? I know I don't. Saying you don't like any of them despite that is Nationalism."
It's likely easier to find an American that practices the same culture and tradition then someone in another nation.
Again it seems you don't know what nationalism is. Not being attracted to a nationality isn't nationalism. Nationalism would be thinking one is superior to that nationality.
-If this statement is based on what you think racism is then you should re-evaluate that.

[udolipixie]

"From Yahoo sorry."
That's okay I guessed you tend to make mistakes such as stating it was from Google.

Since you are using Yahoo definitions the yahoo definition of 'discrimination' seems to be the:
1. The act of discriminating.
2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice:

The Yahoo prejudice is about suspicious, hatred, and unreasonable opinions which isn't applicable here.

So it seems in regards to racism in discriminating based on race it isn't 'wrong' as it's consideration as a romantic/sexual partner based on race.

[Asker]

" Even that statement was putting words in my mouth so to speak."
No it wasn't.
I stated you implied it was racist. You proved my implication correct by stating:
"Discrimination against race is racist."
-Discrimination against race IS racist. Discrimination against height isn’t. You thought I said it was for w/e reason.
I stated you implied it was nationalist. You proved my implication correct by stating:
"If you don't like someone because they are from Indian you are a Nationalist."
-Again Discrimination against a Nation is Nationalist. Discrimination against height isn’t.

[Asker]

Again do tell what words am I putting in your mouth? If I'm putting words in your mouth then you're not stating discrimination based on race is racist and discrimination based on nationality is nationalism.
-That is what I’m saying.

[udolipixie]

So your 'wrong' notion is based on exclusion not well-being of another as in the case of marrying a child.

"Discriminating against someone’s height is wrong just like you think a grown man marrying a child is wrong."
No it's not just like what I think is wrong as a grown man marrying a child isn't a form of discrimination...o.O

Again it seems you're really reaching trying to do some emotional ploy for agreement. There is a difference between not being attracted to someone because of their height and possibly preying and harming a child.

[Asker]

Excluding a race is not a form of racism according to the definition. If the exclusion is due to belief of superiority then it's a form of racism.
-Let me ask you this why would you exclude someone because of race? Because you are not attracted to them? Then why are you not attracted to them? Just because? Why because of their color? Why? Because you don’t like their color? Why? Because you think a different color is better? Is that not a sense of superiority?

[udolipixie]

"-That is what I’m saying."
So you admit that I'm not putting words in your mouth.

You on the other hand are putting words in my mouth or in my mind by claiming: "You thought I said it was for w/e reason."

No I did not. Perhaps try not to tell me what I thought/think.

I clearly stated you said it was racist because they were being discriminated by race. I also said I though that was illogical:
"Your extremist absolutist statement shows skewed reasoning in my opinion. Not dating other races can stem from racist beliefs or it can stem from lack of attraction. To seemingly equate it to always being racist is illogical."

[Asker]

The trait being something they can't help doesn't make it 'wrong'. If a person is attracted to brunettes it's not 'wrong' because ravens, reds, and blondes can't help their hair color. If a person wants to date 20 year olds it's not 'wrong' because others can't control their age.
-It does make it wrong if they are excluding the others completely.
It seems you thinl that if they are being judged on something they can't help it's 'wrong' which is skewed reasoning in my opinion. As whether it's 'wrong' would more reasonably depend on if it's unjust or unfair treatment.

[udolipixie]

"Let me ask you this why would you exclude someone because of race?"
Likely appearance. I'm guessing you are aware that races tend to look different right?

"Because you are not attracted to them? Then why are you not attracted to them?"
Again likely appearance.

"Just because? Why because of their color? Why? Because you don’t like their color? Why? Because you think a different color is better?
This is a slippery slope to me as likely I find it's about facial features and build. However on color in my opinion finding a certain color more attractive doesn't equate to thinking it's 'better'.

[Asker]

-*think. It is unfair.
It's not unjust or unfair treatment not to be attracted to someone or to not date someone for not having a desired trait.
-To a degree it is. You even said it’s wrong.

[udolipixie]

"It does make it wrong if they are excluding the others completely."
No it doesn't as it's not 'wrong' to not be attracted to or not date others.

"You even said it’s wrong."
Again you're lying. I didn't say it was wrong.

[Asker]

Nice job turning around your massive fail.
Rather than admit you skewed and twisted arguing against a claim I didn't make you try to portray it as if the 'point' went over my head.
It didn't. You got called on your bs of arguing against 'full free will' something I didn't even mention.
-But you did mention free will first. And you mentioned that people should be attracted to whoever they want to be attracted to. And that I shouldn’t try to change that. Then I said no one has full free will. Therefore it's not "twisted" for me to say that people shouldn't judge on height alone.

[udolipixie]

I have been repeatedly stating discrimination in regards to romantic/sexual partners is not wrong.

You keep stating I even said discrimination was wrong. Show me where I said such.

[Asker]

The attitude is still the same don't bs as if I changed stance. I overestimated your intelligence and reason to get that in romantic/sexual contexts the exclusion of children was a given.
-You do change stance. If it’s height it doesn’t matter but if it’s a child getting married it matters. Why? Why do you think that is wrong? How do you know if I’m smart or not based on a debate on GAG? All this is opinion to begin with. Your opinion is just illogical.

[Asker]

When I saw how irrational and prone to logic leaps you were I found it suited for me to clearly state (excluding children) as I find you are prone to using emotional ploys rather than.
-You seem pretty emotional. Kettle calling the pot black here?
One doesn't have to have full free will to discriminate.
-Ok. What free will they do have should they use for discrimination?

[Asker]

The free will to be attracted to and date whoever one wants (excluding children) allows them to discriminate.
-Yes and so should they have that free will?
"and you even said discrimination is bad."
That's a lie. A search on this page will show I never stated that discrimination is bad.
-You said it was wrong my bad. Same thing.

[udolipixie]

'But you did mention free will first.'
There's no but. I didn't mention full free will which is what you were arguing about. A certain free will /= full free will.

I didn't state it was twisting for you to say people shouldn't judge on height alone.

I stated it was twisting for you to go on and on about full free will acting as if my logic was people could do whatever they wanted- kill and violate others privacy. When I talking about the free will to be attracted to whoever and date whoever (excluding children).

[Asker]

In fact my argument has been the opposite that discrimination in regards to romantic/sexual partners is not 'wrong'.

[Asker]

In fact my argument has been the opposite that discrimination in regards to romantic/sexual partners is not 'wrong'.
-Yeah now you say that. You contradicted yourself.

[udolipixie]

FYI do stop saying I said people 'should' do something. I don't use should or shouldn't words outside of the context of harming children/animals.

You're the one seemingly trying to dictate what people should do. Not me.

The only time I've used the words should is when quoting your notion that discrimination should always be wrong. Or when calling your bs that I said people should do something.

[udolipixie]

I haven't contradicted myself.

My argument has always been that discriminationin regards to romantic/sexual partners is not 'wrong'.

You've repeatedly quoted me saying such.
"I don't find discrimination as 'wrong' when in choosing a romantic/sexual partner. Discrimination in my opinion is 'wrong' when it takes away other's right and is unjust treatment. "

[Asker]

"This is your second reply to me and the first time free will is used in our argument."
Yet nowhere does it state full free will which you went on and on about. Again that's a term only you used.
-Ok. Your point being what? I wouldn’t have said anything about free will until you brought it up. Regardless of free will wrong is wrong. Free will doesn’t justify wrong.

[udolipixie]

Again you keep saying I agreed that discrimination is wrong. Show me where I did that and contradicted myself.

Don't bs as if I'm now just saying discrimination for romantic/sexual partners is not 'wrong'.

[Asker]

Again instead of telling me what my argument is try reading it.
I'm stating that your notion is diminishing a certain free will of people. This is a free will people already have.
I'm not stating people should have this free will as they already have it.
-Oh so they shouldn’t have this free will? Ok.

[udolipixie]

I've stated my point repeatedly- you were arguing against something I never mentioned.

It's not 'wrong' to not be attracted to someone or to date someone unless you're under the notion that everyone is obligated to be attracted to everyone and date others regardless of their own desires.

[udolipixie]

"Oh so they shouldn’t have this free will? Ok."
I'm not stating they shouldn't have this free will.

Again you're showing you're lacking reading comprehension as I just stated I don't do should or shouldn't unless it pertains to harming children/animals.

To me it's suited for people to have this free will that way they can more effectively and efficiently choose a desirable partner.

[Asker]

I'm stating that your notion is diminishing it.
Perhaps try rereading until you comprehend. LMFAO
-My notion hasn’t diminished anything. Your statement is incorrect. Well you contradict yourself and put words into my mouth so to speak. Kind of hard to comprehend when you’re saying when you say discrimination is wrong at first and then saying some BS about free will and now saying that you never said it’s wrong to have free will even though you said I shouldn’t take it. Are you just trying to sound smart? Smh.

[udolipixie]

Your notion of what people should do does diminish a certain free will people have. My statement isn't incorrect as your notion goes against people being attracted to who they want and dating who they want.

I didn't contradict myself. Despite repeated requests you can't even show me where.

I didn't put words in your mouth. I stated you implied it was racist and nationalist. You stated it was racist and nationalist. That's not putting words in your mouth as you proved me right.

"Kind of hard to comprehend when you’re saying when when you’re saying when you say discrimination is wrong at first"
No I did not.

Again show me where I stated discrimination is wrong at first.

[Asker]

"I’m not telling them to do anything but be considerate."
Considerate doesn't apply here as being a romantic/sexual partner is not an act of courtesy.
-Height shouldn’t apply either as being a romantic/sexual partner is not an act of height. It doesn’t depend of height just like courtesy doesn’t. I meant you should consider all options, not feel sorry for them.

[Asker]

"You’re saying wrongful discrimination is ok."
It's not 'wrongful' unless you're stating it's not fair for a person to choose who they want as a romantic/sexual partner. That is a skewed outlook in my opinion.
-It’s not fair for a person to choose someone solely because that person is taller. Your opinion is skewed. And based on your logic that would also make it wrongful.

[udolipixie]

Show me where I stated discrimination is wrong at first. My first response to you showed I didn't think it was wrong:
"There's nothing 'wrong' in my opinion for gals to find short guys unattractive, unappealing, etc. People will and can like what they like in my opinion."

[Asker]

I didn't state it was wrong...o.O
"I'm showing your lacking reasoning in calling it 'wrong' to discriminate " is me saying you said it was 'wrong'.
-No that’s not what I’m talking about.

[Asker]

Again whether the trait can be changed or helped is irrelevant. It doesn't make it 'wrong' that it can't be helped or changed.
-Yes it does.

[udolipixie]

"even though you said I shouldn’t take it"
No I did not as again I don't use should or shouldn't unless it pertains to harming children/animals.

I said you are diminishing a certain free will. I didn't state you should or shouldn't take it.

Again perhaps try not projecting onto me just because it seems you're prone to telling people what they should and shouldn't do.

[udolipixie]

"Height shouldn’t apply either as being a romantic/sexual partner is not an act of height."
That's a fail turnaround as height is a part of them and it may be a factor for sexual/physical attraction for others.

It's unreasonable to state height a factor that is a part of the person and may affect sexual/physical attraction shouldn't apply to being a romantic/sexual partner.

[udolipixie]

"-No that’s not what I’m talking about."
So what are you talking about? Where did I state it was wrong to discriminate and contradicted myself?

I have asked you this at least 6 times and still no answer...likely because I haven't done such as my argument from the get-go is that it's not 'wrong'

[udolipixie]

"-Yes it does."
Explain with your supposed 'strong reasoning' why it's wrong as in unjust and immoral to discriminate on a trait that can't be changed or helped.

It excluding others doesn't make it unjust or immoral as again attraction isn't about everyone having to be attracted to everyone and wanting to date them.

[udolipixie]

"It’s not fair for a person to choose someone solely because that person is taller."
It is fair as the person is attracted to them. Fairness when it comes to attraction is about mutual attraction.

"Your opinion is skewed."
It's not a skewed opinion to find it suited for people to choose a person they are attracted to and want to date.

"And based on your logic that would also make it wrongful."
It doesn't make it 'wrongful' to not date someone or not be attracted to them.

[udolipixie]

Considering that you have repeatedly lied and haven't provided evidence that I stated what you claim it seems suited to end this.

You find it 'wrong' to choose a partner based on appearance because those traits can't be helped or changed. I find that illogical reason as to why it's 'wrong' in my opinion.

It seems we're set to agree to disagree.

[Asker]

Are you done? Got all that anger out? I'm a selfish guy right? I'm the bad guy right? Look at me the villian. Sometimes I realize that despite how correct I am people have to come to their own conclusions. If everybody believed in the truth like I do then no one would be different.

[Asker]

You win I'm the bad guy. Put me in jail. LOL!!!

[Asker]

If your as passionate about sex as you are this...

[udolipixie]

Egh...I'm not angry...o.O I've been quite amused by your lacking reasoning, irrational claims, and logic leaping.

LMFAO is an expression of amusement not anger...o.O

You're the one who seems to be angry since you keep talking about anger and how irritated you are.

Just because it's true to you doesn't make it the truth. LOL

[Asker]

This chick. Smh. God have mercy on your soul.

[Asker]

"Just because it's true to you doesn't make it the truth." Yeah I know. Yet you think your right.

[Asker]

I'm not saying your right, your still wrong. I'm just tired of arguing. I've chose to be the better person and I said I'M the bad person. Not you. I was being sarcastic but still.

[udolipixie]

Seems you don't know as you think you're right. LMFAO

"God have mercy on your soul."...for what? o.O

[Asker]

"So they can point their fingers and say that's the bad guy."

[Asker]

We both think we're right. God doesn't discriminate does he? Does he? o.O

[udolipixie]

"I'm not saying your right, your still wrong." Again just because you say so doesn't make it true.

Saying you're the bad person doesn't make you the bigger person as we weren't arguing about who is 'bad'...o.O.

[udolipixie]

Egh the Bible shows that God does discriminate considering the whole notion of heaven and hell. LMFAO

I'm unsure why you're quoting "So they can point their fingers and say that's the bad guy."...o.O

[Asker]

Well...just because you think I'm wrong doesn't make me wrong. And I'm right. You wouldn't date someone who is short or a different race or nationality. With that type of tunnel mindset I don't see how you could understand. You could never understand. Ever.

Nah nah nah I'm the bad person here. I'm a hater right? And you don't even like guys like me. So go ahead and point your fingers. I'm the bad guy. I mean there's a stereotype one could put to this that you probably believe in anyway.

[Asker]

*finger.

[Asker]

Does he discriminate based on color or height? Or does he discriminate on wrong doing? Or on those who discriminate against others? Or people who exclude him altogether? o.O

Just never mind. Forget it.

[udolipixie]

"And I'm right." Just because you think I'm wrong doesn't make me wrong. LMFAO

It's not a tunnel mindset to not date someone I don't find attractive. I find attraction to be important. Different tastes.

Egh nowhere was I stating you're bad person or a hater...o.O. Again it seems you're making up arguments again.

Irrelevant how he discriminates as 'discriminating is discriminating'. It's your bias that makes one form 'wrong' and another not. LMFAO

[Asker]

No answer?

[udolipixie]

First 'Just never mind. Forget it' now... 'No answer' Can't make up your mind it seems...LOL

[udolipixie]

So this has been amusing. Your lies (saying I said discrimination is wrong), mind reading (telling me what I thought...o.O), and skewed reasoning like it's wrong to judge on physical traits as it can't be changed rather than it being wrong for any sense of actual injustice, unfairness, or mistreatment.

So it seems we're suited to agree to disagree.

[Asker]

Just because you think I'M wrong doesn't make me wrong either. "LMFAO"

Your interpretation of what is wrongful discrimination doesn't make it right.

Tell why don't you like other "tastes".

It's a tunnel mindset to only

[Asker]

It's a tunnel mindset to only have one taste without trying others.

[Asker]

Tell me what is it you hate or dislike about other "tastes". You can't say. All you'll say is one attracts me more. Why though? What specific reason why?

[Asker]

"Just because I'm naturally attracted to such and such". LOL!!!

[udolipixie]

Your interpretation of what is wrongful discrimination doesn't make it wrong. LMFAO

It's not necessarily a tunnel mindset as many don't have to try others to know that they won't like it. Especially when it comes to attraction.

If a gal is not attracted to short guys she doesn't have to try to date one to know she's not attracted to short guys.

[Asker]

I meant never mind the stereotype and reference.

[udolipixie]

Tell me what is it you hate or dislike about other "tastes". You can't say.

I can't say because nowhere did I state, suggest, imply, or mention that I hate or dislike these other tastes. I stated I'm not attracted to them.

I gave a specific reason in my answer besides physical attraction that reason being 'emotional correlations to the trait'.

Though in my opinion in regards to attraction one doesn't really 'need' a specific reason besides attraction.

[udolipixie]

I'm unsure why you're quoting this:
"Just because I'm naturally attracted to such and such".

As if I said that or as if that's my mindset/logic.

It seems rather than read what is there you create these claims to argue against...o.O

[Asker]

You did say discrimination is wrong, You apparently know my life (thinking that because I'm short that I get rejected or have the potential of getting rejected when neither is true I just realize that it happens to other guys), and that some how some physical discrimination is ok when clearly it is not.

We agree to disagree.

[Asker]

It's not necessarily a tunnel mindset as many don't have to try others to know that they won't like it. Especially when it comes to attraction.

I beg to differ. LOL!!! Especially...nevermind. Yeah yeah your right. LMAO!!!

[udolipixie]

No I did not say discrimination is wrong. My argument has been it's not wrong. You have kept lying that I did and have never shown me where I did this despite how many times I asked you to.

Nowhere did I claim to know your life. Yet you continuously claim to know my thoughts as nowhere did I state I think because you're short that you get rejected.

The only mention of rejection and you I've stated is that you don't like that gals can rejected you/anyone based on factors that can't be controlled. You don't considering how you label it racist, nationalist, wrong, etc.

[udolipixie]

I agree to disagree.

As for this: "You did say discrimination is wrong"
Are you going to continue to lie, admit you lied, or will you finally provide evidence of where I said such.

[Asker]

"I can't say because nowhere did I state, suggest, imply, or mention that I hate or dislike these other tastes. I stated I'm not attracted to them."

Why?

[udolipixie]

You have continuously lied and portrayed as if I changed my argument and am contradicting myself.

Show me where I stated discrimination is wrong in regards to romantic/sexual partners and am now contradicting myself as you claimed.

My argument has been the that discrimination in regards to romantic/sexual partners is not 'wrong'. I've shown that in my first response to you: "There's nothing 'wrong' in my opinion for gals to find short guys unattractive, unappealing, etc. "

[udolipixie]

I'm no longer answering anymore of your questions until you finally answer the question where I stated discrimination is wrong in regards to romantic/sexual partners.

You have been lying about this for quite some time and have ignored my numerous requests to show me where.

If you want any more answers then show me where I said discrimination is wrong in this regard.

[Asker]

Though in my opinion in regards to attraction one doesn't really 'need' a specific reason besides attraction.

Yet girls like tall guys because:

"I think it falls back on the feeling of protection."

"as a tall girl, yea i guess protection and security is instinctive, i may be silly, but i also think of us dancing together, standing together, or me wearing heels on a fancy night out, sometimes its nothing personal about the guy being short, but its rather about the girl herself."

"I can wear heels as high as I want.
Not really sure why, but I feel feminine when stood by a tall guy."

"Maybe it's because of this social ideal that a guy should be taller and bigger than his girlfriend."

I know you said one doesn't need a reason yet these reasons ARE why they think the way they do. In other countries it's different.

[Asker]

"Just because I'm naturally attracted to such and such"

That's not the claim I created. That's the claim females make. I'm saying I don't want to read that coming from you. That's not a logical reason because I feel that too yet I still am willing to date other types.

[udolipixie]

So it seems you're going to ignore again the request to provide proof of your lie that I said discrimination in this regard is wrong.

While you ignore this you're going to list irrelevant information...okay then...o.O

[Asker]

I never labeled heightism as being racism or nationalist. I only compared their similarities while admitting they are different but under the same category. Red, green, and blue are different but still colors. Racism, nationalism, and heightism are different but they are still discrimination.

[Asker]

You should re-read your statements.

[Asker]

I did prove evidence. Scroll down.

[udolipixie]

I didn't state it was a claim you created. I stated it's a claim you created to argue against meaning you're spewing bs I haven't even mentioned and arguing against it.

If what you meant was you don't want to read that from me then perhaps try saying it instead of putting:
"Just because I'm naturally attracted to such and such". LOL!!!

In my opinion attraction is a logical reason to date someone as physical and sexual attraction seem to be important for sex and romantic partners.

Just because you're willing to date other types you may not be attracted to doesn't make it a less logical reason.

[Asker]

Actually I know why you think I'm lying. It's because you don't think discrimination is wrong. That's the whole problem.

[udolipixie]

I think you're lying because you stated I said something I didn't. You've lied by saying I said discrimination is wrong.

"I did prove evidence. Scroll down."
No you didn't.

This isn't evidence: "In fact my argument has been the opposite that discrimination in regards to romantic/sexual partners is not 'wrong'."

That's stating my argument has been the opposite of discrimination is wrong. That it's being that discrimination is not wrong.

[udolipixie]

It seems more suited for you to reread my statements.

I'm unsure why you're still telling me that you never labeled heightism as being racism or nationalist. AGAIN nowhere did I state that you labeled heightism as being racism or nationalist.

[Asker]

You don't want to answer because there's no logical reasoning. The reason you like guys of your own race and nationality is because you just "find them attractive". The reason why is because it's subconscious.

[udolipixie]

Don't try to bs. I've stated why I'm not answering. I've been answering several of your questions despite how you've repeatedly lied and ignored my requests to provide proof for your lie. I'm not doing that anymore.

If you want an answer then show me where I said discrimination is wrong in this regard.

[Asker]

It was in quotes because it's what other girls say. Just because you didn't say it doesn't mean I shouldn't put in quotes.

[udolipixie]

Yet you're still ignoring the request to show me where I said discrimination in this regard is wrong. Don't further lie by saying you provided evidence as you didn't.

Because I didn't say it is why I state you seem prone to pulling/creating claims to argue against rather than read what is there.

[Asker]

"Just because you're willing to date other types you may not be attracted to doesn't make it a less logical reason."

I have a specific preference. One that probably 95(I may be wrong)% of girls don't fit.

[Asker]

I guess I didn't post evidence but you can still scroll down to see that you believe attraction is discrimination. Discrimination is wrong but you say it isn't. Even if you don't think it is wrong it is. I don't even see how that's debatable.

[Asker]

Again you should scroll down. You kept saying I was comparing them. And I was saying they are all under discrimination, not that they are the same. And you still didn't answer why you only like guys of your race and nationality.

[Asker]

Why are you so mad? I just said that discrimination IS wrong. You look at all the categories I listed (you can find those or do I need to baby feed you those?) and none of those are good. Again you think discrimination is ok because if you didn't you'd think it was wrong. Since I think it's wrong and since you said attraction is discrimination then obviously discrimination is wrong. You did say that not all discrimination is wrong (implying that some of it must be wrong or you'd say none of discrimination is wrong).

[Asker]

We've talked about the "discrimination is wrong" thing long enough. Why don't we talk about why specifically you don't like...I mean not attracted (being technical LOL!!) to guys who are outside your race and nationality.

Is that something that's you just don't think about? It's automatic? You came out the womb not liking guys of other races and nations?

[Asker]

And I see they type of...stuff you like. Smh. That's sad you missing out and don't even know it.

[Asker]

The type of stuff you like and the stuff you believe (not even talking about what me and you were talking about). Smh. Bad kitty. LOL!!!

[udolipixie]

So you admit you lied by saying I stated that discrimination in this regard is wrong.

"I guess I didn't post evidence but you can still scroll down to see that you believe attraction is discrimination. Discrimination is wrong but you say it isn't. Even if you don't think it is wrong it is. "I don't even see how that's debatable.
Discrimination in this regard isn't 'wrong' because it's not unjust or unfair treatment. It's not 'wrong', unjust, or unfair to not be attracted to everyone.

It's debateable because it's not 'wrong', unjust, or unfair to not be attracted to or to date everyone.

Choosing a romantic/sexual partner is about finding a person who fits certain criteria. By having criteria at all one is discriminating against others by excluding them. Excluding others is not automatically 'wrong', unjust, or unfair.

[udolipixie]

Again scroll down. I didn't kept saying you were comparing height to racism/nationalism.

I clearly stated you implied discrimination against race is racist and discrimination against nationality is nationalist.

You proved my implication correct by stating such. I'm unsure why you keep lying when there is proof.

[udolipixie]

Egh I'm not so mad much less mad. I'm amused.

Again you're showing your lacking reading comprehension. I've already told you I'm not mad so why do you keep asking why I'm mad. shown is amusement by laughing at your irrationality.

If anyone is mad it seems to be you as you stated you're irritated and you keep bringing up being angry/mad. LMFAO

[udolipixie]

I know what you said and I just said I disagreed. Disagreeing with you doesn't mean I'm mad.

Your response however suggests you are mad. You've stated you are irritated seemingly because I disagree.

You've insisted you are right and what you speak is the truth.

You've been condescending- girly, do I need to baby feed you those, feel that wind above your head. (Which I find amusing considering you were lying and arguing against a claim I didn't make)

You've been holier than thou feeling 'sad' because I don't live in the manner you state I should and telling me may God have mercy on my soul.

You however went on and on about how you're right/I'm wrong. How discrimination in regards to attraction is a world fault that you speak up about it.

So I think the more suited question is why are you so mad? LMFAO

[udolipixie]

"Why don't we talk about why specifically you don't like...I mean not attracted (being technical LOL!!) to guys who are outside your race and nationality. "
Unsure why you're LOL at being technical.

I find it's suited for you to be technical and reasonable as it seems you're prone to logic leaping and emotional reacting. It seems to you not being attracted to a race equates to not liking them which is skewed in my opinion. A person can like someone without being attracted to them and a person can be attracted to someone without liking them.

I'm not attracted to guys of other races because I don't find their facial features and general build to be attractive. It is likely automatic. I'm not seeing cultural/environment conditioning seeing as I've traveled and lived in many countries. If anything considering my enjoyment of Asia/Japan/Korea it'd stand to reason if there was conditioning it'd be towards Asians/Japanese/Koreans.

[udolipixie]

On being technical I stated I'm not attracted to guys outside my race. I stated I don't find guys of other nationalities appealing as a romantic/sexual partner. The reason for that is compatibility in regards to culture conflicts/clashes (something I talked about earlier).

Again it seems you often don't read I type but have this argument you project onto me that you're arguing against. Shown by how you keep bringing in things other gals have said to argue against.

Also shown by you're prone to quoting statements as I said them. Such as when you said:
The reason you like guys of your own race and nationality is because you just "find them attractive"

Nowhere did I state the reason is because I just "find them attractive". A search on this page will show you're the only one to use those words.

[udolipixie]

"And I see they type of...stuff you like. Smh. That's sad you missing out and don't even know it."

That's amusing that you think I'm missing out by not pursuing/seeking things I don't want. LMFAO

In my opinion if someone doesn't want broccoli and wants carrots instead they're not missing out by not eating broccoli.

[udolipixie]

For someone who seemingly talks about others having a tunnel mindset you seem to have it in spades.

Seemingly thinking you know best/what is more suited for others and what they should and shouldn't do.

Seemingly equating having criteria that excludes others for a romantic/sexual partner as being 'wrong' because it's discrimination. Not wrong because it's unjust, unfair, or immoral but solely based on it excluding others. In which case heterosexuals excluding the same gender is 'wrong'. LMFAO

I find it suited to agree to disagree especially as it seems you continuously bring in preconceived notions into this such as projecting other gals reasoning onto me.

You admitted one of your lies even though you still tried to twist it by saying since I said "attraction is discrimination" that means I'm saying discrimination is wrong since you think discrimination is wrong...o.O Not because I think it's wroong but because you think it's wrong that means I'm saying it's wrong. LMFAO

[Asker]

Damn it girl you wrote a book. I'm sorry but I can't read all that. It shows you care though. That in itself is amusing.

Yeah it's automatic because it's subconscious. It's typically easier to change for people with the right type of personality and more difficult for others.

Yes your missing out. In your analogy it's like wanting broccoli but refusing to get it because it's in a different container than the broccoli you've been eating. Where are you from exactly? What state?

I'm done reading your angry rants. I've only read some of it. I agree to disagree which means that everything you've said isn't necessarily right.

[Asker]

I know what you like I know what you like. LOL!!! JEMD

[udolipixie]

You had 7 responses and I had 8 responses but I wrote a book...o.O

You're the one who seems to care so much as you're calling it a world fault and 'wrongful'. That in itself is amusing. LMFAO

It's not automatic or subconscious for me but nice telling me why I'm attracted rather than reading why.

I'm not missing out on not by not getting what I don't want..o.O

Your broccoli analogy is illogical as the person doesn't want broccoli. It's not the container but broccoli itself.

I'm not angry or ranting. I'm unsure why you keep telling me I'm angry when I've been amused. You're the one saying he's irritated and talking about anger...not me. LMFAO

Telling how disagreeing with you is seemingly suddenly ranting. LOL

[udolipixie]

I know what I like and it's not missing out for me to not pursue what I don't like. LMFAO

Again it has been really amusing listening to your seeming angry rants about this 'wrongful' world fault. The injustice and immorality of people deciding who they want to date based on attraction and appeal and those decisions excluding others. LOL

So nice on you agreeing to disagree. Which means that everything you've said isn't right.

Though I doubt you really mean it and will likely continue posting your seeming angry rants.

[Asker]

It's not about how many post you made it's about how much you wrote. You actually counted for me? Awww. I feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

What you want is the same thing but it has a different color (container) so you don't want it. Guys of other nations and races have the same qualities guys of your nation and race have they just look different (typically) and may do things differently but it would be a generalization to say they ALL do different things culturally. Just like it would be a generalization for me to say all girls don't like short guys. This is not true.

(As to the broccoli thing) So guys who are of different race or nation are a different species then?

Well your amusement amuses me. The fact that you think this is amusing is funny. It's like laughing at someone's laugh.

[Asker]

And again JEMD!! LOL!!

[udolipixie]

Egh I didn't count for you. I responded to each of your posts so clearly I would recall how many there are.

I have pretty good memory unlike you it seems who lies about what others say. LMFAO

What I want isn't the same thing. Just like carrots are not the same as broccoli.

It's amusing how you continue to tell me what I want. It's really amusing how you seem to dehumanize guys but seemingly portraying them as interchangeable.

Guys of other nations and races likely don't have the same qualities guys of my nation and race have. Even guys of my nation and race likely don't have the same qualities as each other. I find quality wise guys are not interchangeable.

The only one generalizing is you. Nowhere did I state the all do different things culturally. Unlike you I don't use absolutes and extremes. LMFAO

As to the broccoli thing guys of a different race or nation are different. Broccoli and carrots are vegetables but they're not the same vegetables.

[Asker]

Oh now I'm angry? LOL!! You stay angry. In ALL your posts (not just on this question). You think your always right. Difficult "know it all" girls like you can be funny and fun.

[udolipixie]

More the broccoli thing you're seemingly really reaching to get a negative by getting different species from an analogy where both are vegetables. Perhaps your angry rant mode to speak up against the 'wrongful' world fault isn't over. LMFAO

[udolipixie]

Meh you do seem to be angry. You stated repeatedly you're irritated and keep bringing up being angry and mad.

LOL @ you continuing to tell me what I think and feel.

LMFAO @ you calling me a know it all considering you're insisting that you're right and you speak the truth.t

Do tell me how do you know what I think and what I feel? Where have I stated that I'm always right?

[Asker]

Ohhh you felt it was important to count as you go? Ok.

I remember being the bad guy aka the liar. LOL!!! I mean of course I can't equal up to your greatness can I? LOL!! All mighty wise one...never forgets anything. Do you have a alter in which people pray to?

So like carrots are a different species than broccoli a guy that's Asian is a different species than a guy that's white? How's that work? I mean I'm the dumb one right? Enlighten me. LOL!!

Oh I'm dehumanizing them even though you compared them to veggies? Ok all mighty one.

So now you admit every guy is unique and that you shouldn't generalize? Go head and correct me. I'm just a peasant. LOL!!!

Ohhhh I get it. So even though every guy is unique and different you still think guys of a particular race and nation taste the same so to speak? I'm still confused on the veggie analogy. I mean are you saying that veggies = species and carrots = all the other races and broccoli = white Americans? o.O

[Asker]

Nah I just don't understand the analogy but read my other post.

[Asker]

I said I was irritated once. Or am I being a liar again? I get irritated when I'm tired. I know I didn't say that all mighty wise one. LOL!!!

So your not right?

[udolipixie]

I didn't feel it was important...o.O. You are aware that just because people do something doesn't mean they feel it was important?

I didn't state you were a bad guy. I did state you lied and you admitted it.

You're showing your lacking reading comprehension I didn't state carrots are a different species than broccoli. In fact I stated they're both vegetables just different vegetables.

I didn't compare guys to veggies. I used a vegetable analogy to counter your 'missing out' claim. That was to show a person isn't missing out by not getting something they don't want.

I didn't admit anything as nowhere did I state guys aren't unique or generalized..o.O

"you still think guys of a particular race and nation taste the same so to speak?"
I can't still think something that I didn't think.
Again instead of telling me what I think try reading it.

Show me where I stated guys of a particular race and nation are the same...oh that's right you can't because I didn't. LMFAO

[udolipixie]

"I mean are you saying that veggies = species and carrots = all the other races and broccoli = white Americans? "
What I'm saying is your 'missing out' claim is bs as a person isn't missing out by not getting something they don't want. I'm unsure how you didn't get that from:
"That's amusing that you think I'm missing out by not pursuing/seeking things I don't want. LMFAO

In my opinion if someone doesn't want broccoli and wants carrots instead they're not missing out by not eating broccoli."

Again this shows that you're not the one comparing guys to veggies...not me. LOL

[udolipixie]

"I said I was irritated once. Or am I being a liar again?"
You are being a liar again:
"I'm getting irritated now."
"I'm probably irritated because"
(explaining your irritation)

You also admitted that you were upset: "I'm not even upset anymore."

In my opinion considering this it's odd that you keep telling me what I feel and that I feel angry/mad. Especially when I've been laughing at you and your reasoning repeatedly showing such ala LOL and LMFAO.

[Asker]

So you didn't feel it was important but you counted anyway? o.O ok LOL!! Count Von count.

So I'm a good guy? Oh thank you. That means a lot coming from you. Or am I a neutral guy? Mysterious? o.O LOL!!!

Ok ok ok I got. Veggies = same species. Broccoli = white male Americans. Carrots = all the other guys. Is that right enlightened one?

Guys are unique then? So if they are unique why are they all broccoli or carrots? Where are the other veggies? LOL!! What about other food what's that equal animals?

I'm reading but your not explaining. Instead your just trying to refute what I'm saying. Try explaining what your saying first.

The great one speaks again. I must listen LOL!!

[udolipixie]

I counted because I was responding to each of your replies so clearly I would recall how many there are.

If I'm replying to two responses I'll recall there are two responses. It's not something difficult.

Perhaps it is for you hence why you are seemingly so shocked and find it oh so important. Is your memory recall stunted? o.O

[udolipixie]

"Ok ok ok I got. Veggies = same species. Broccoli = white male Americans. Carrots = all the other guys. Is that right enlightened one?"
No it's not right and you haven't got it.

You're really showing your lacking reading comprehension as I just explained that the broccoli/carrot analogy wasn't about race or nationality.

The analogy was addressing your claim that one is missing out by not seeking what they don't want. The analogy wasn't about guys of different races or nationalities yet you still try to make it about it.

"I'm reading but your not explaining. Instead your just trying to refute what I'm saying. Try explaining what your saying first."
I am explaining you're the one who is not reading and comprehending.

I address your claim about missing out by not getting what one doesn't want and you leap onto race and nationality.

You're just trying to refute what I'm saying. Try reading what I'm saying first rather than trying to find something to argue and refute.

[udolipixie]

The response was:
"That's amusing that you think I'm missing out by not pursuing/seeking things I don't want. LMFAO

In my opinion if someone doesn't want broccoli and wants carrots instead they're not missing out by not eating broccoli."

How did you get that the broccoli/carrot analogy was about race and nationality from?

How did you get that broccoli = white male Americans when I didn't even mention which race or which nationality is desirable to me? o.O

While you're seemingly fixated on race and nationality trying to find something to refute/argue can you perhaps pause your angry rant mode and see I'm stating that it's not missing out to not seek what you don't want?

[Asker]

So you don't want carrots just broccoli? Even though they are the same species and even though humans are more than veggies and veggies don't have brains or hearts or personalities? Ok. I'm learning LOL!!

You don't want them because they look different? You could care less about the rest. And since they are different types of veggies you think broccoli taste better? Or am I reaching? Come cut me down again then. LOL!!! The peasant getting ahead of himself again LOL! smh. I mean after all your the intelligence one.

So wait guys aren't veggies? Which is it? Are they or are they not veggies?

How many times did I say I was irritated Count Von count? Is that 2? Do the upset things count as irritation after I explained where the irritation came from? You ever felt irritated when your sleepy even when your not doing anything? That's how I felt but I'm wrong and a liar. LOL!! You know more about me then I do I guess :/.

You amuse me. Keep going all mighty one.

[Asker]

JEMD

[udolipixie]

No you're not learning as I didn't apply the carrot/broccoli analogy to humans. YOU DID and also made it about race and nationality.

I applied the analogy to your concept that one is missing out by not seeking what they don't want.

In the context of romantic/sexual partners in my opinion if a person finds sexual/physical attraction important especially for sex not wanting them due to appearance is a suitable reason. The rest is likely irrelevant to such a person since the other can't fill an important area of a partner. Generally I find people one likes without attraction are called friends.

[udolipixie]

Meh you can backtrack/bs/explain/whatever about your irritation and upset statements. In my opinion that you stated you're irritated, that you were upset, and keep bringing up anger and mad suggests you were angry. It was telling to me how you kept telling me I'm angry when I've been amused and shown it that seemed like projection in my opinion.

Yes you are a liar. You lied saying I said discrimination in this regard is wrong. You even admitted it..even though you tried twisting it by saying since I said attraction is discrimination that means I'm saying discrimination is wrong...o.O

[Asker]

So because you were responding to my replies you kept count? Ok. Count Von Count. You don't have to explain that.

Ok so your saying your not missing out dating a guy of a different race and nationality but it has nothing to do with race and nationality? I love how you try to explain things.

I'm trying!!! LOL!!! I can't breath.

Ok how bout we start this over. I said your missing out. Why? Because I think other guys of other races and nations have the same qualities (physically and mentally and depending on who we are talking about culturally). That was the point of what I was saying. Now you said you wanted broccoli and not carrots. Therefore your not missing out. Right? Or am I lying again? LOL!! I'ma fall asleep with all this lying I'm doing. LMAO!!

[Asker]

But why did you use the analogy to begin with? To refute what I'm saying as you've been doing this whole time. What I was saying had to do with race and nationality. Or did I not specify that? Intelligent people like yourself have to have specifics don't they? Smh. I'ma have to do better. LOL!

Ok you've stated your opinion. Anything else great goddess?

[Asker]

Oh so your opinion on how I feel trumps how I actually feel? Ok. You'd know about me more than I would.

I'm a bad person. Such a shame. No wonder you don't like people like me...I mean no wonder your not ATTRACTED to people like me. *Wink* Gotta be politically correct.

[Asker]

I don't see how lies equal misinterpretations buuut *shurgs* w/e.

[Asker]

Or to be politically correct how misinterpretations equal lies.

[udolipixie]

I'm saying the broccoli/carrot analogy applied to your concept a person is missing out by not getting something they don't want.

I'm also saying I'm not missing out dating a guy of a different race and nationality because that's not what I want and don't find them attractive or appealing.

Perhaps I overestimated your intelligence to understand different responses to different statements. LMFAO

The broccoli/carrot analogy addressed your general concept that one is missing out by not getting something they don't want.

My personal statement of not missing out addressed your specific statement that I'm missing out by not dating guys of different races and nationalities.

[udolipixie]

I've repeatedly told you why I used the analogy to refute your general concept that one is missing out by not getting something they don't want. I even told you so why I stated the analogy. Your lacking reading comprehension is showing again. LMFAO o.O

[udolipixie]

Egh I didn't state or suggest my opinion on how you feel trumps how you actually feel. I stated why to me it seems you're angry.

Don't bs as you're the one who has been telling me how I feel despite me stating otherwise. Recall how you kept insisting I was angry and mad. LMFAO

It's not about being political correct in my opinion. Again it seems you have some skewed reasoning where not being attracted to a trait equates to not liking those that trait. A person can like someone without being attracted to them and a person can be attracted to someone without liking them. Either way at least it seems you grasp that.

[Asker]

Ok great. Thank you. Nah I underestimated you because I thought since what we are talking about is discrimination and you have pointed out time and time again that I have brought race and nationality into it that you'd know that when I said your missing out that I meant that your missing out by not going with a guy of a different race or nationality. Especially since you have said that there are cultural conflicts which I also said don't have to necessarily do with race and nationality. I underestimated you. I'm sorry. LOL!!!

Ok so here's the new lesson from you.

The broccoli/carrot analogy = my general concept of saying your missing out

You saying your not missing out addressing my statement that your missing out by not dating guys of different races and nations.

Forgive me for putting one and one together...or really for give me for acknowledging you putting your two statements to my one statement. I again underestimated your intelligence all smart one. LOL!!

[udolipixie]

"I don't see how lies equal misinterpretations buuut *shurgs* w/e."
"Or to be politically correct how misinterpretations equal lies."
Stating I said something I didn't is a lie.

You misinterpreting what I said doesn't mean it's not a lie to claim I said what you misinterpreted. Can you grasp that?

[udolipixie]

"you'd know that when I said your missing out that I meant that your missing out by not going with a guy of a different race or nationality."

I did know what you meant hence why I made a personal statement that I'm not missing out.

I then use the analogy to address the logic behind your concept one is missing out by not seeking what they don't want. An analogy I separated from myself by using 'a person'.

Seems addressing your claim and then addressing the logic confuses you. No worries as I won't be overestimating your intelligence again. LMFAO

[Asker]

To you I seem angry even though I said I get irritated when I'm sleepy and your amusement amuses me?

I really don't care if your mad or not. I think this is fun. If I didn't I'd stop. I like talking the all mighty intelligent one. LOL!!

Oh ok so you do like broccoli and carrots? LOL!! I'm joking. So you do like guys of different races and nationalities. You just don't like the way they look? Oh wait you said you think there may be cultural problems? I technically practice a different culture...well I don't know if you could call it culture but it's different than most Americans so I don't see your point even with the culture thing.

[Asker]

*talking to

[Asker]

You misinterpreting what I said doesn't mean it's not a lie to claim I said what you misinterpreted. Can you grasp that?

Well we agree on something.

[Asker]

So what was the point in trying to argue to me that they were not the same when clearly they are? You can't say they are different and the same at the same time especially if your trying to refute logic. But again you know everything.

[Asker]

You understood that my statement was saying that your missing out on guys of other races and nationalities. Yet you then say that both your statements are different and that the Veggie analogy has nothing to do with it? How's that work. If the Veggie analogy has nothing to do with it then neither does your statement that your not missing out since the point of the Veggie analogy was to point out that your not missing out.

[Asker]

This would give me further belief that you are only trying to refute what I say.

[udolipixie]

Yeah you seem angry to me. Just like you told me I was mad/angry despite me being amused and laughing at you.

Again you're showing your lacking reading comprehension as I've answered these questions already...repeatedly. LMFAO

At least you've grasp that appearance is why I'm not attracted to guys of different races.

I don't find guys of different nationalities appealing as romantic/sexual partners because there may be culture conflicts/clashes.

You don't see my point about culture when you practice a different culture that may conflict/clash with mine...okay then.

[udolipixie]

I didn't use attraction when personally talking about guys of different nationalities...something I've told you..and no surprise you still haven't listened. LOL
"On being technical I stated I'm not attracted to guys outside my race. I stated I don't find guys of other nationalities appealing as a romantic/sexual partner. The reason for that is compatibility in regards to culture conflicts/clashes (something I talked about earlier)."

[biggie90]

udolipixie - girls are primarily attracted to men not women and they like taller and bigger guys. Its a freakin fact ok?

[udolipixie]

They aren't the same.

My personal statement addresses your claim that I'm missing out not dating guys of a different race/nationality.

The vegetable analogy addresses the logic behind your claim. The logic being it's missing out to not seek what you don't want.

"You can't say they are different and the same at the same time especially if your trying to refute logic."
That's not what I'm doing. I clearly stated they are addressing different things. You're the one still trying to make them be about the same thing.

There is a difference between addressing a claim and addressing the logic of a claim.

If you claimed all gals do X. I can address that it's false because all gals don't do that.

If the reason you claimed it was because all the gals in your experience did that. It's a different thing for me to address the logic of using personal experience to generalize others.

[udolipixie]

Again.

My personal statement is about your claim I'm not missing out by not dating guys of a different race/nationality.

The vegetable analogy is about your logic that it's missing out to not seek what you don't want.

They're not the same. Note how one is personal addressing your specific claim and the other is general addressing your logic. The analogy even uses 'a person' and applies it to another area of life- food.

[Asker]

So if I laugh at you and say your amusement amuses me and that my irritation was because I'm sleepy your saying that I'm angry? In that case so are you.

I've answered your accusations repeatedly yet you still said or say I'm angry and a liar.

You never said it was appearance and if it's appearance that you don't like then there's no need left to argue about that. That tells me all I need to know about you. Again all I NEED to know. Not that I know everything about you. You're the one who knows everything. LOL!! And Yes I know you didn't say you know everything but I'm saying you do since you know if I'm angry or not even when I say I'm not.

I get the culture part, but here in America people practice all kinds of cultures. That's not defined by nations, or if it is not everyone in that nation practices the culture that is known there.

[Asker]

And culture can be changed.

[Asker]

You again give me the impression that you think because someone is from a particular nation that means they practice a particular culture. This is not always the case. And culture isn't defined by color either.

[Asker]

I'm a wrong liar though. LOL!!!

[udolipixie]

@biggie90
"udolipixie - girls are primarily attracted to men not women and they like taller and bigger guys. Its a freakin fact ok?"
And this has what relevance to me stating it's not 'wrong' in my opinion to have criteria that excludes others as romantic/sexual partners? o.O

I'm unsure why you continue to post statements as if I've said the opposite and/or I'm arguing against what you stated...o.O

[udolipixie]

"So if I laugh at you and say your amusement amuses me and that my irritation was because I'm sleepy your saying that I'm angry?"
I'm saying you seem angry to me. Telling how you didn't state the reason of your irritation or that my amusement amuses you until after my opinion.

" In that case so are you.""
Not really as I haven't said I'm irritated. LMFAO

It seems you're overlooking that you already repeatedly told me I'm angry and mad.

It's odd how affront you seem to be when I state you seem angry to me. Considering how you told me I'm angry and so mad.

[Asker]

Ok if they are not the same then I still say your missing out because you don't want guys of a different race and or nation and you say your not missing out. It's a I say yes you say no thing now.

Where did I say all girls do something? Correct me almighty Queen. LOL!!

Where did I say girls in my past have done this? Matter of fact read my other comments to other people.

[Asker]

Ok so the veggie thing was pointless.

[Asker]

Since it didn't address that you are missing out for not dating guys of different race and nationality.

[udolipixie]

I say you seem angry to me at least unlike you I'm not telling you what you feel. You've repeatedly told me I'm angry and mad. So it's an issue when I state what you seem to be yet you telling me my feelings is overlooked? LMFAO

You are a liar. You even admitted it.

You're lying again as I did state it was appearance:
"I'm not attracted to guys of other races because I don't find their facial features and general build to be attractive."--- this was hours ago.

[udolipixie]

It seems your impressions are based on preconceived notions gotten from others shown by how you kept bringing in what other gals said.

Nowhere did I make any statements or suggestions that I think because someone is from a particular nation that means they practice a particular culture

I clearly stated there MAY BE culture conflicts/clashes. Then again it seems you tend to lack reading comprehension no matter how often it's repeated.

Unsure why you're telling me culture isn't defined by color as nowhere did I state it was. Then again it seems you tend to argue/refute things I didn't state or mention.

[udolipixie]

The veggie analogy isn't pointless as it addressed the logic behind your claim that I'm missing out.

Nowhere did I state you said all gals do something or that gals in your past have done this...o.O

I was showing you that there is a difference between addressing a claim and the logic by creating a new scenario. Hmmm seems I really am suited to lower the bar of my guess on your intelligence.

[udolipixie]

"There is a difference between addressing a claim and addressing the logic of a claim.

If you claimed all gals do X. I can address that it's false because all gals don't do that.

If the reason you claimed it was because all the gals in your experience did that. It's a different thing for me to address the logic of using personal experience to generalize others."

This wasn't saying you said all gals do something. This was creating a scenario to show you the difference between addressing a claim and addressing the logic. Do you grasp that now?

[Asker]

Your saying I seem angry I'm saying I'm not angry. I should know how I feel better than you would but again you know better than I do.

Again you think laughter and irritation (from being sleepy) means anger. Your laughter doesn't mean your angry but mine does I guess. Smh.

Yeah I said you were angry and you said it was amusement. You then said that my irritation meant I was angry and I said it's because I get irritated when I'm sleepy. I also said you amuse me. So I guess my amusement means anger and yours doesn't? O.o

[udolipixie]

You not being angry doesn't mean that it can't seem like you're angry to me.

"I should know how I feel better than you would but again you know better than I do." doesn't apply here as I'm not telling you what you feel. I'm stating what you seem to me.

You were the only one telling others what they feel. Amusing how right after such a comment you tell me what I think. LMFAO

[Asker]

Did I say that in your head or something? It's been established that you Madam are...amused. LOL!!! That's established. So now I'm angry because I'm irritated due to being sleepy right? Smh.

When sarcasm equals admittance. I said I misinterpreted what you said. That doesn't make me a liar.

Oh really? Ok. So you think every guy of a different race than you has different facial features than guys that are your race? How does the different nations fall into this? Explain that one again. Culture? LOL!!

[udolipixie]

Don't try to bs as if I'm playing double standards.

I'm stating what you seem to me based on you stating you were irritated and upset (which you much later claimed because of being sleepy) and how you kept bringing up being angry and mad.

You were stating what I feel as in I'm so mad and angry.

[udolipixie]

" I said I misinterpreted what you said. That doesn't make me a liar."
It does make you a liar as you claimed I said something I didn't. Just because you misinterpreted doesn't mean it's not lying to say I said something I didn't.

" So you think every guy of a different race than you has different facial features than guys that are your race? How does the different nations fall into this? Explain that one again. "
At least your asking me what I think and if I think this rather telling me. As well as seemingly admitting that you lack reading comprehension by how you want an explanation I already gave.

[Metal189]

qa, there's no use in trying to fight udol on this. udol, is, well, udol, after all

[Asker]

It seems it seems it seems. You REALLY need to read my other statements to other people. Wow. LOL!!

But since someone who is from a different nation can practice (and some do) a different culture or is a part of a different culture then they may be practice the same culture or be a part of a culture that's the same as yours. So what's the problem? You grasp the fact that it has nothing to do with color. So why don't you like guys of a particular nation then? In other words you don't. Or if you do then that would mean you "seem" to believe that it has to do with color or that everyone practices the same culture.

[udolipixie]

No I do not think every guy of a different race has different facial features than guys of the same race. Nowhere did I state such.

I do think it's far more common for different race guys to have different facial features than same race guys. As well as there are facial features that are more common in different race guys that I don't find attractive.

Guys of different nations don't fall into facial features and nowhere did I state they did. I stated due to how there may be culture conflicts/clashes they aren't appealing as a romantic/sexual partner to me.

[Asker]

The problem is I never said all girls do X and I never claimed all girls in my experience do X. If I did then I guess I "lied". Or maybe you don't understand that the word experience depends on context.

[Asker]

Ok well you can pretend I'm angry then LOL!!!

I was the only one telling others how they feel? It's funny you say that after I've read the stuff you post. Smh.

[Asker]

I brought it up you kept it up...O.o that sounded weird.

[udolipixie]

Amusing how you seemingly have such an issue with me telling you that it seems you're angry when you've repeatedly told me that I'm angry and so mad. LMFAO

"So what's the problem?"
I've already stated the 'problem' repeatedly.

"You grasp the fact that it has nothing to do with color."
There's nothing to grasp as nowhere did I state it had anything to do with color.

Again your lacking reading comprehension is showing.

[Asker]

No I said you said something you didn't say because I misinterpreted what you said and seeing as how you have trouble explaining yourself (like the veggies mess) it's no reason I misinterpreted what you said. Still doesn't make me a liar. A liar is someone who lies purposefully. If you lie but didn't know it was a lie then how does that make you a liar when you thought you were telling the truth?

[udolipixie]

Actually you kept it up by bringing it up multiple times. It's not really keeping it up for me to now make mention of something you have done as a reason for an opinion I hold of you.

[Asker]

No you never explained how someone of a different race has different facial features than someone who is your race.

[udolipixie]

The problem is I never said all girls do X and I never claimed all girls in my experience do X. If I did then I guess I "lied". Or maybe you don't understand that the word experience depends on context.
It's not a problem as I never stated you said all gals do X.

You're the one not understanding. I created the scenario to further show there's a difference between addressing a claim and addressing the logic. Something I did for when you said I was missing out.

[Asker]

@metal She's one of those girls who thinks she's always right. I like lobotomy.

[udolipixie]

Again I'm not saying you said all gals do X.

I'm saying my personal statement and the vegetable analogy addressing different things.
- The personal statement addressed your claim I was missing out.
- The analogy addressed the logic behind your claim being it's missing out to not seek what you don't want.

I created the scenario to show the difference between addressing a claim and the logic.
- A refute that all gals aren't X is addressing the claim that all gals are X.
- A statement that it's illogical to use personal experience to generalize is addressing the logic behind the claim being since a person experienced all gals being X that means all gals are X.

[Asker]

"No I do not think every guy of a different race has different facial features than guys of the same race. Nowhere did I state such."

So your attraction is based on generalizations and not the individual?

Well of course it's far more common I mean it's more common that a black girl has a big ass does that mean white girls don't? Should a guy only date a white girl because he doesn't like big asses even though not all black girls have big asses?

[udolipixie]

"@metal She's one of those girls who thinks she's always right. I like lobotomy."
Amusing how you appear to take an issue with me telling you what you seem to me yet:
you tell me what I feel
you tell me what I think
you tell me what I am

LMFAO. You still haven't shown me where I thought I'm always right.

[Asker]

The culture problem is still individual based, not nationality based.

[Asker]

Your still bringing up anger? LOL!! Let it goooo. Let it gooo.

[udolipixie]

"No I said you said something you didn't say because I misinterpreted what you said and seeing as how you have trouble explaining yourself (like the veggies mess) it's no reason I misinterpreted what you said."
This wasn't a case of me having trouble explaining myself.

I stated "Attraction is discrimination". You misinterpreting that to mean I said discrimination is wrong is you having trouble understanding.

Don't try to bs as if you reasonably misinterpreted me.

"Attraction is discrimination" /= "Discrimination is wrong"

[Asker]

It's not based on my experience. Can't you understand that? Just get that in your head first. Your smart right? You should already know this especially after I've said it over and over. I ever said go to other comments to other people I have made.

[udolipixie]

"No you never explained how someone of a different race has different facial features than someone who is your race."
Actually I did explain how a different race guy can have different facial features. I did this hours and hours ago when I asked about your awareness on how the races tend to look different.

It's amusing to see you lie and tell me what I said and didn't say. Oh wait are you going to say you 'misintrepreted' LMFAO

[Asker]

I'm trying to understand how you feel. Not tell you. Your the one who was telling me everything like the mighty brain you are.

[udolipixie]

"Your still bringing up anger? LOL!! Let it goooo. Let it gooo."
Amusing coming from how you kept bringing up anger. You didn't let it go until I turned it back on you. LMFAO

[Asker]

Yet that doesn't make me a liar like you claimed.

[udolipixie]

"The culture problem is still individual based, not nationality based."
It's more of both in my opinion.

If a certain nationality is most commonly a certain culture it is a nationality based in my opinion. It's also individual as a guy may not be that culture.

However I'm not akin to a 'needle in a haystack' search if most of a nationality is a certain culture I'm not going to do what I see as more effort/waste in looking for the ones not that culture.

[Asker]

No you didn't. That's a question not a explanation. And yes races do look different because of skin color but what does that have to do with facial features?

[Asker]

I'm not going to call you a liar though.

[udolipixie]

Can't you understand that I'm not saying it's based on your experience.

What's suited to get in your head was that I was creating a scenario that means it was hypothetical/imagined/not true. I even used the words 'if' and told you this was a created scenario.

Again I really am suited to lower the bar of your intelligence.

[Asker]

I didn't let it go because you keep talking about it. If you had shut up about it I would have too.

[Asker]

"The culture problem is still individual based, not nationality based."
It's more of both in my opinion.

For the individuals that live in a nation outside of yours but practice similar culture?

[Asker]

If a certain nationality is most commonly a certain culture it is a nationality based in my opinion. It's also individual as a guy may not be that culture.

Your opinion does dispute fact. Nationality is based on land not culture.

[udolipixie]

Yes I did as the question has the explanation. I even further explained the tendency of different appearance with facial features and build.

The races tend to look different for more than skin color...o.O

[Asker]

You feel you shouldn't have to go find someone of a different nation who practices the same culture?

[udolipixie]

"Yet that doesn't make me a liar like you claimed."
Yes it does you claimed I said something I didn't. That's a lie and you told that lie so you're a liar.

"I'm not going to call you a liar though."
Likely because there is no support for it. Though I'm unsure why not seeing as unsupported claims appear to be a tendency of yours.

[udolipixie]

"I'm trying to understand how you feel. Not tell you. Your the one who was telling me everything like the mighty brain you are."
You did tell me how I feel: "You stay angry"

Asking me why I'm so mad, angry, anger as if it's a fact/truth that I feel this way isn't trying to understand how I feel. It's telling me how I feel as it's assuming I feel that way to be questioned why.

Stating it seems you're angry is not telling you how you feel. That's stating my opinion on you.

[Asker]

Ok then why do you keep saying it? Do you seem to think that my opinion is based on my experience?

You can lower the bar by just saying what you believe instead of coming up with stupid scenarios like veggies and my experiences.

[Asker]

Or explaining what you believe. You can't do that without scenarios and analogies?

[Asker]

So I'm unintelligent because I don't believe the same that you do and can't understand you stupid analogies and scenarios? That determines IQ now? LOL!! WTF.

[udolipixie]

I didn't keep saying it. I said it once. Only to show you how addressing a claim and addressing logic can be different.

You keep bringing it up saying I said you claimed all gals are X or your logic is based on experience.

The scenario wasn't 'stupid' what was stupid in my opinion was your logic that one is missing out by not seeking what they don't want. LMFAO

[Asker]

Nah not exactly. Every guy has ears, eyes, a nose, a mouth, etc. I mean sure some may have a deformed part or something but of course that's individual based too. I'm sure you can grasp that. I'm still trying to understand the difference other than skin color. o.O

[udolipixie]

"If a certain nationality is most commonly a certain culture it is a nationality based in my opinion. It's also individual as a guy may not be that culture.

"Your opinion does dispute fact. Nationality is based on land not culture."
My opinion doesn't dispute fact as I wasn't saying culture is based on nationality.

When I stated nationality based I didn't mean 'culture'. I meant the 'culture problem' as in having a guy with a culture that could potentially clash/conflict.

If most of a nationality is a certain culture then it is nationality based in my opinion to have have the culture problem of me with a guy that has a clashing/conflicting conflict.

[udolipixie]

I was responding to you statement about 'the culture problem'. I took that to me the problem of me having a guy with a clashing/conflict culture. Not culture itself.

[udolipixie]

No you lack intelligence in my opinion because you don't understand that creating a hypothetical scenario doesn't mean I stated you're saying the things in the scenario.

By suggesting the reason is because you don't believe the same as me further supports your lacking intelligence. LMFAO

[Asker]

No it was a misinterpretation. Some people (like me) believe that discrimination = wrong. You don't think that. That is a opinion. If I'm lying then that would mean discrimination isn't necessarily wrong and that's based on opinion. A lie would be to say you didn't steal something when in fact you did.

[Asker]

It "seems" you stay angry. And that isn't completely based on this. You established you are "amused". I said your amusement amuses me. Why are you bringing up anger again?

[udolipixie]

"Nah not exactly. Every guy has ears, eyes, a nose, a mouth, etc. I mean sure some may have a deformed part or something but of course that's individual based too. I'm sure you can grasp that."
I'm unsure if you can grasp that both have eyes doesn't mean there aren't racially based ways their eyes commonly differ. It's about the same and there being a common shape among the race.

"I'm still trying to understand the difference other than skin color. o.O"
Perhaps you'll understand the difference in pictorial form.
Asian guy: farm4.staticflickr.com/.../...907_23c6d82436_o.jpg

Black guy:
img.photobucket.com/.../2781.jpg

Is the only difference between the guys to you still skin color? o.O

[Asker]

Your opinion doesn't mean anything to how I actually feel so again why are you bringing up anger?

[udolipixie]

I bring it up because I find it amusing how affronted you seemed by me stating you seem angry after you've repeatedly told me I'm angry and mad. The suggested hypocrisy and your reaction is funny to me.

[Asker]

You said it once then failed to explain it by being more worried about refuting what I say.

[Asker]

What's stupid is comparing veggies and my experiences to this when I never said anything here about my experiences nor about veggies. o.O LOL!!

What's stupid is not liking a nation because the majority practice a different culture. What's stupid is saying guys of your race have different facial features of guys who aren't your race.

[udolipixie]

"No it was a misinterpretation."
No it was a lie as you said I said something I didn't. Just because you thought I said it based on a misinterpretation doesn't mean it's not a lie. That means it's a lie based on misinterpretation.

Though how you misinterpreted "Attraction is discrimination" to mean me saying discrimination is wrong is...wow just wow. LMFAO

"Some people (like me) believe that discrimination = wrong. You don't think that. That is a opinion. If I'm lying then that would mean discrimination isn't necessarily wrong and that's based on opinion. A lie would be to say you didn't steal something when in fact you did."
Your opinion is irrelevant. You're lying because you said I said something I didn't.

[Asker]

Ok then nationality shouldn't matter just their culture.

[udolipixie]

Your words:
"you even said discrimination is bad."
"You said it was wrong"
"You did say discrimination is wrong"

I didn't say that. That makes it a lie and since you said those words that makes you a liar.

[udolipixie]

"Your opinion doesn't mean anything to how I actually feel so again why are you bringing up anger?"
I brought it up since you kept telling me how I feel.

I keep bringing it up because it's amusing to me how you take issue with me stating you seem angry after you've been telling me I'm angry and mad. LMFAO

You opinion doesn't mean anything to how I actually feel yet you kept telling me what I felt...and what I think..and who I am. LMFAO

[Asker]

You can't even explain your hypothetical scenarios. They apply to my comments but at the same time they don't? o.O

[Asker]

So because I don't understand your hypothetical scenarios that makes me un-intelligent? That determines if I have intelligence?

[udolipixie]

"You said it once then failed to explain it by being more worried about refuting what I say."
I brought it up to explain how addressing a claim and addressing the logic is different.

If anything that I brought it up shows I was trying to get you to understand not that I was worried about refuting what you said.

It seems you're the one more worried about refuting what I say. I created a hypothetical scenario to show how addressing a claim and the logic is different and you go to arguing how you didn't say that.

[Asker]

Some black guys have Asian eyes though. Certain traits can be pasted down. Like for example I know some black people with blue and green eyes. That again is not determined by race but by what genetics are passed down.

[Asker]

*passed

[Asker]

There are some black guys with hair like that too.

[udolipixie]

"What's stupid is comparing veggies and my experiences to this when I never said anything here about my experiences nor about veggies. o.O LOL!!"
LOL what's stupid is that you don't grasp the analogies. Your logic is it's missing out to not pursue what one doesn't want. It's suited not stupid to use a vegetable analogy that if someone doesn't want broccoli and wants carrots instead they're not missing out by not eating broccoli.

"What's stupid is not liking a nation because the majority practice a different culture."
What's stupid is you bringing this up when nowhere did I state such.

"What's stupid is saying guys of your race have different facial features of guys who aren't your race."
That's not stupid as studies have show there is facial differentiation between the races. There are common facial features among certain races.

[Asker]

I told you I wasn't angry and that if I was I'd stop. I even explained the irritation thing. I even said your amusement amuses me.

[udolipixie]

"Ok then nationality shouldn't matter just their culture."
When most of a nationality is a certain culture then it does matter to me as I'm about odds.

I'd use an analogy however I don't find it suited to overestimate your intelligence to get that it's an analogy not comparing nationality/culture to something or accusing you of saying something. LOL

[Asker]

Since I believed the lie based on misinterpretation I don't see how that makes me a liar. If I were to say your American if your from Indian and I know your from Indian then that's a liar. If I thought you were from America and your from Indian then how does that make me a liar? I didn't know the truth to lie on it. o.O

[Asker]

You still bringing up the anger thing? I just don't get it. Did we not establish that I'm amused at your amusement?

[udolipixie]

"I told you I wasn't angry and that if I was I'd stop. I even explained the irritation thing. I even said your amusement amuses me."
So? You still seem angry to me. Especially with how you seem to take issue with me saying you seem angry after you've repeatedly told me I was angry.

At least I'm stating you seem angry instead of telling you that you're angry.

[udolipixie]

"Some black guys have Asian eyes though. Certain traits can be pasted down. Like for example I know some black people with blue and green eyes. That again is not determined by race but by what genetics are passed down."
Keyword: some. I clearly stated what is common meaning that I'm aware some features of one race may be present in another race.

Again I'm about odds in this regard. If most of a group has something I don't want I don't find it reasonable to pursue a member of that group.

[Asker]

All I'm seeing is you saying that I said your angry when you said the same thing. Then you said you are amused by me and I said I'm amused by your amusement. We are beating a dead horse. Again let it go.

[Asker]

Or I mean you said I "seem" angry. LOL!!

[Asker]

However I said I'm not. You told me you are in fact amused. Ok, got it. I'm amused by your amusement. How many times do I have to say this?

[udolipixie]

"All I'm seeing is you saying that I said your angry when you said the same thing."
I didn't say the same thing.
You: "You stay angry"
Me: "You seem angry to me"

You're telling me what I feel. I'm telling you what you seem to me.

[Asker]

Yeah you created a hypothetical scenario in which I didn't understand and so then you called me un-intelligent as if my intelligence depends on your scenarios.

[udolipixie]

"Again let it go."
It's amusing that you want me to let this go.

I stated you seem angry as a response to how you continued told me I was angry.

You didn't let it go on telling me I was angry. You seem fine beating that dead horse and even escalated telling me I'm 'so mad'.

Now you want me to let go on something I said as a counter to what you didn't let go? LMFAO

[Asker]

I'm refuting what your saying because you keep bringing up stuff just to refute what I'm saying such as the anger thing. I elect to let it go you don't. Yet I will not say you are angry. Your "amused".

[Asker]

I'm suppose to grasp your analogies about vegetables? And that determines my intelligence? Ok got it.

[Asker]

So you do like other nations but not the people who live there? O.o

[Asker]

Or I mean your not "attracted" to the people who live there.

[Asker]

There are common facial features among certain races.

Such as? Maybe I should ask what actual facial do you like? And why do you like them? Because they are a different color?

[udolipixie]

"Yeah you created a hypothetical scenario in which I didn't understand and so then you called me un-intelligent as if my intelligence depends on your scenarios."
No I called you lacking in intelligence because you insisted and told me that my analogy is saying you based your opinion on experiences. When it doesn't and I've explained it doesn't.

It's a sign of lacking intelligence in my opinion to insist the meaning of another's words and not listen to what they say.

[Asker]

Let me guess (again a GUESS!!!) you like guys with green and blue eyes? Yet not all white people have green and blue eyes and some people of other races do.

[Asker]

Or maybe to be politically correct people who are the same race as you. LOL!!

[udolipixie]

"I'm refuting what your saying because you keep bringing up stuff just to refute what I'm saying such as the anger thing."
I brought up that you seem angry because you kept telling me I was angry.
"I'm not angry or ranting. I'm unsure why you keep telling me I'm angry when I've been amused. You're the one saying he's irritated and talking about anger...not me. LMFAO"

"I elect to let it go you don't. Yet I will not say you are angry. Your "amused"."
You seemingly only want to let it go now because I've turned it around on you and you don't like it.

You didn't let it go when you were telling me I was angry, mad, and so mad. I see no reason to do what you didn't do for me.

[Asker]

Your about odds? So your about generalizations?

[Asker]

I want you to let go something that I let ago a long time ago but you didn't.

[udolipixie]

"So you do like other nations but not the people who live there? O.o"
I'm basically indifferent to other nations. I like most of Japanese/Asian/Korean culture.

"Or I mean your not "attracted" to the people who live there."
That doesn't apply here as I stated when it comes to nationality it's about the person's appeal as a romantic/sexual partner not attraction. Again you still don't seem to have read what I typed.

[Asker]

Oh so now I'm just "lacking intelligence" because I don't understand your veggie analogy? Again so you determine my intelligence? You beat around the bush but when I try to get your point you act like that isn't it. What else is it?

[udolipixie]

"Such as?"
There's lots of research in facial feature differentation among race. Here's one:
www.internetlooks.com/humandifferentiation.html

I'm unsure if you're obtuse or really unaware that different races tend to look different.

[Asker]

Again your opinion. My opinion says that intelligence is not based on not understanding someone's opinion. Especially when they have trouble explaining it.

[udolipixie]

*edit
"I'm basically indifferent to other nations. I like most of Japanese/Asian/Korean culture and the nations themselves."

[Asker]

No no no. I said the veggie thing is where you based my intelligence off of. The experiences part was because you said that my experiences seem to have something to do with my opinion and I said they don't.

[udolipixie]

"Oh so now I'm just "lacking intelligence" because I don't understand your veggie analogy?"
No and that you suggest such further supports your lacking intelligence. I just told you why and it wasn't because you don't understand the analogy.

"Again so you determine my intelligence?"
Just like you determine I think I'm always right.

"You beat around the bush but when I try to get your point you act like that isn't it. What else is it?"
What bush have I beat around.

I addressed your claim: I'm not missing out by not dating guys of a different race as I'm not attracted to them and I'm not missing out by not dating guys of a different nationality as I don't find them appealing.

I addressed the logic of your claim: It's not missing out to not seek something a person doesn't want.

[Asker]

Ohhhhhh are their not people of other races in Japan/Asia/Korea who practice their culture?

[Asker]

Why didn't you just say that the first time?

[udolipixie]

"Again your opinion. My opinion says that intelligence is not based on not understanding someone's opinion. Especially when they have trouble explaining it."

Amusing when I state something about you it's 'opinion'.

Yet you state things about me like it's a fact such as: "@metal She's one of those girls who thinks she's always right."

You really don't seem to enjoy when I do to you what you've repeatedly done to me. LMFAO

[Asker]

All that beating around the bush but other races even in the media practice Japanese culture.

[udolipixie]

I didn't have trouble explaining. It seems you had trouble understanding.

That was shown by "Attraction is discrimination" meaning I'm saying discrimination is wrong. LMFAO

[Asker]

What bush have you beat around? Nevermind. If you can't see it it's no need in explaining.

[udolipixie]

"Why didn't you just say that the first time?"
Perhaps because you didn't give me the opportunity seeing as you kept lying about what I said and didn't say. Plus you kept telling me what I think and feel.

"Ohhhhhh are their not people of other races in Japan/Asia/Korea who practice their culture?"
That's irrelevant as I don't find the culture appealing for a romantic/sexual partner. I said I like most of it it not that I find it appealing for a partner.

Amusing that you ask me why I didn't say something the first time when you've continuously show you tend to ignore what I've said.

[Asker]

When did I say I didn't enjoy it? LOL!!

[Asker]

Matter of fact read that post again.

[Asker]

I had trouble understanding because you have trouble explaining. Also I just thought of something really funny. LMAO!!!

[udolipixie]

"The experiences part was because you said that my experiences seem to have something to do with my opinion and I said they don't."
I did not say your experiences seem to have something to do with your opinion. That you insist I did even after I said I didn't and showed I didn't further supports your lacking intelligence.

I created a hypothetical scenario to show the difference between addressing a claim and addressing the logic.
"There is a difference between addressing a claim and addressing the logic of a claim.

If you claimed all gals do X. I can address that it's false because all gals don't do that.

If the reason you claimed it was because all the gals in your experience did that. It's a different thing for me to address the logic of using personal experience to generalize others."

[Asker]

Do you or do you not find that type of culture attractive? o.O

[udolipixie]

"I had trouble understanding because you have trouble explaining. "
Seems more like you had trouble understanding because you weren't reading.

Take how I said "Attraction is discrimination" and you got I'm saying discrimination is wrong. That's on you and your understanding not me having trouble explaining.

[Asker]

I did not say your experiences seem to have something to do with your opinion.

Yeah sure.

Your analogy/analogies are still confusing. Tell me what is my logic then? I mean if your trying to refute my logic then you must first know what my logic is right? What is my logic?

[udolipixie]

"Do you or do you not find that type of culture attractive? o.O"
That you're asking me this further supports it's you having trouble understanding because you don't read.

Nowhere did I mention attraction in regards to culture. I've repeatedly stated it's a matter about being appealing as a romantic/sexual partner as in compatible.

[udolipixie]

" Tell me what is my logic then?"
I've answered when I addressed the logic using the vegetable analogy. I've repeatedly answered this by telling you the vegetable analogy was to address the logic of your claim not race and nationality.

You're showing your lacking reading comprehension again.

[udolipixie]

I've even answered this when I was telling you that I wasn't saying you said all gals do X or that your experiences have something to do with your opinion.

[Asker]

I read and didn't understand but I'll admit you wrote a lot so sometimes I skipped some. But if you'd keep it simple for the one "lacking intelligence" then maybe I'd understand.

[udolipixie]

"I'm saying my personal statement and the vegetable analogy addressing different things.
- The personal statement addressed your claim I was missing out.
- The analogy addressed the logic behind your claim being it's missing out to not seek what you don't want.

I created the scenario to show the difference between addressing a claim and the logic.
- A refute that all gals aren't X is addressing the claim that all gals are X.
- A statement that it's illogical to use personal experience to generalize is addressing the logic behind the claim being since a person experienced all gals being X that means all gals are X."

Reread to get your answer...I supplied numerous times.

[Asker]

You know as much as you keep bringing up intelligence it seems you like intelligent guys. Is that fair to say or am I a LIAR!!! :(

[udolipixie]

Didn't see your new response.

You want it simple due to your lacking intelligence it seems. In which case:
"the logic behind your claim being it's missing out to not seek what you don't want."

[Asker]

*Sigh* Ok let me restate the question. Do you want a romantic/sexual partner to practice a Japanese/Korean/Asian culture?

[udolipixie]

"You know as much as you keep bringing up intelligence it seems you like intelligent guys."
Meh I'm indifferent.

"Is that fair to say or am I a LIAR!!! :("
I'm unsure why it seems you keep bringing up liar as if I unreasonably or incorrectly labeled you a liar.

You claimed I said something I didn't. That's a lie which makes you a liar.

[udolipixie]

"Do you want a romantic/sexual partner to practice a Japanese/Korean/Asian culture?"
I already answered that question. LMFAO

"I don't find the culture appealing for a romantic/sexual partner."

[Asker]

Nah you never said what my logic was. You just kept coming up with stuff to refute things I say like now.

[Asker]

Ahh yeah w/e.

[Asker]

No what is a liar and what isn't a liar is your opinion. I already explained this I'm not doing it again.

[Asker]

You don't find the Japanese/Korean/Asian culture appealing? You make zero sense what so ever. LOL!! WTF.

[Asker]

Do you want a romantic/sexual partner who is Asian or do you not? Do you want a romantic/sexual partner who practices Japanese/Korean/Asian culture or not? If you don't then why did you mention it to begin with? Why did you post a Asian guy? Is that the "facial features" you want in a romantic/sexual partner?

[udolipixie]

"No what is a liar and what isn't a liar is your opinion. "
It's not my opinion. A liar is defined as a person who tells lies or a person who lied.

You said I said something I didn't. That was a lie. This makes you a liar.

Saying something that isn't true is a lie. Being the person that said it makes you a liar.

[Asker]

I've explained this already.

[Asker]

The lie is based on your opinion.

[udolipixie]

"Nah you never said what my logic was."
Yes I did. I just quoted where I did so. I have done this repeatedly.

"You just kept coming up with stuff to refute things I say like now."
No I didn't. I have no issue with what you're saying now so why would I refute it...o.O

[udolipixie]

"Do you want a romantic/sexual partner who is Asian or do you not? Do you want a romantic/sexual partner who practices Japanese/Korean/Asian culture or not?"
I already answered this and I requoted the answer already. I just did this.

[Asker]

Kept does not equal keep.

[udolipixie]

"If you don't then why did you mention it to begin with?"
I mentioned it because you asked me if I like other nations.
You: So you do like other nations but not the people who live there? O.o"
Me: I'm basically indifferent to other nations. I like most of Japanese/Asian/Korean culture.

"Why did you post a Asian guy?"
I also posted a black guy and that was to show there is a difference between the races besides skin color.
You: I'm still trying to understand the difference other than skin color. o.O
Me: Perhaps you'll understand the difference in pictorial form.

[udolipixie]

"You don't find the Japanese/Korean/Asian culture appealing? You make zero sense what so ever."
It makes no sense to you that a person can't find a culture unappealing for a romantic/sexual partner.

Just like it makes zero sense what so ever to me that you seem to think I want an Asian guy seemingly because I posted a picture of one to show you there's generally facial feature differences among the races.

[Asker]

"I don't find the culture appealing for a romantic/sexual partner."

"I'm basically indifferent to other nations. I like most of Japanese/Asian/Korean culture and the nations themselves."

So what do you like then? That's my next question. The question I've been asking.

[Asker]

American culture? Why don't you just say that? That's that beating around the bush.

[Asker]

Instead you'll answer the questions you want to answer but will beat around the bush when I say what do you like and connect it to something you don't like. Avoiding the question altogether.

[udolipixie]

"Kept does not equal keep."
I'm aware of that. The statement still stands I have no issue with what you're saying. Since I have no issue now why would I make up stuff to try to refute.

In fact my statements were relevant to what you were stating. My analogies were countering the logic behind your claim.

[udolipixie]

"The lie is based on your opinion."
The lie is based on you saying something that isn't true.

You said I said something.

I didn't say that.

That makes it a lie.

This makes you a liar.

[udolipixie]

Your words:
"you even said discrimination is bad."
"You said it was wrong"
"You did say discrimination is wrong"

I didn't say that. That makes it a lie and since you said those words that makes you a liar.

[udolipixie]

"So what do you like then?" That's my next question. The question I've been asking."
I've answered that question. You even quoted it in your response: " I like most of Japanese/Asian/Korean culture"

It seems you mean what culture I find appealing for a romantic/sexual partner. Not what do I like.

[Asker]

"If you don't then why did you mention it to begin with?"
I mentioned it because you asked me if I like other nations.
You: So you do like other nations but not the people who live there? O.o"
Me: I'm basically indifferent to other nations. I like most of Japanese/Asian/Korean culture.

So you don't like or don't have interest in other nations but you like Japanese/Korean/Asian culture? So do you like Japan or Korean or Asia? I guess not or do you not live in America?

"Why did you post a Asian guy?"
I also posted a black guy and that was to show there is a difference between the races besides skin color.
You: I'm still trying to understand the difference other than skin color. o.O
Me: Perhaps you'll understand the difference in pictorial form.

Races are only determined by how far you want to go. If the truth is told I'm considered black despite technically genetics wise being Indian, black, and white. This is why race is a problem.

[udolipixie]

"American culture? Why don't you just say that? That's that beating around the bush."
I'm not going to say I like American culture because I don't.

There's no beating around the bush there is it seems you bringing up preconceived notions into this. That was shown by how you logic leapt to the vegetable analogy being about race and nationality and chose white Americans as the desired ones.

[Asker]

Also genetics don't care about skin color other than pigmentation. Pigmentation is a very minute part of the genetic makeup. It means very little. The only thing it changes is eye color (typically) and skin color (typically). While yes certain races seem to have the same jaw bone or w/e when compared to other races this is a case by case basis and not something that should attributed to race. Race is just something to divide people by. Technically we are all mixed.

[Asker]

The problem is you never said what you wanted you just beat around the bush and avoid the question. I mean if you don't want to tell me it's ok.

[udolipixie]

"Instead you'll answer the questions you want to answer"
Don't pull that bs not when you kept saying I said things and I requested you to show me where.

I answered your questions aside from what seemed sarcastic, guesses, and you considering asking (maybe I should ask).

"but will beat around the bush when I say what do you like and connect it to something you don't like. Avoiding the question altogether."
I didn't avoid the question in fact you quoted me giving an answer stating what I like.

It seems you mean what I find appealing for a partner not what I like. I like Judaism but that doesn't mean I find it appealing for a partner.

[Asker]

And I meant to say Native American not Indian.

[Asker]

I just to notions because you'd never answer the questions fully. You'd bring up Asian culture and your opinion. I'd ask what you do like in a romantic/sexual partner and it's on the ring around the rosie train again.

[Asker]

*jumped

[udolipixie]

"The problem is you never said what you wanted you just beat around the bush and avoid the question. I mean if you don't want to tell me it's ok."
That's because you haven't asked me what I wanted in that regard as in what I'm specifically attracted to and find appealing.

The closest you've been it seems was asking me what culture I liked. Right after I've told you that a person can like someone and not find them appealing or attractive.

[Asker]

So you don't like American culture but you do like Asian culture? Ok got it.

[udolipixie]

Don't bs as if this discussion has been you asking me what I wanted and me beating around the bush.

This discussion has been it seems:
- you ranting about attraction being 'wrongful' discrimination
- you telling me what I think
- you telling me what I feel
- you telling me who I am
- you seemingly having an issue when I turn around and tell you what you seem to me
- you telling me I'm missing out
- me disagreeing and addressing the logic of that claim

[Asker]

Yeah now your answering questions. You didn't before.

[udolipixie]

"Yeah now your answering questions. You didn't before".
Don't pull that bs.

You: Would you date a short guy? Or a black person? or a Hispanic? or a Asian? Or a Indian?"
Me: No I would not date a short guy, black guy, hispanic guy, Asian guy, or Indian guy. I'm not attracted to them and I date what I find attractive.

[Asker]

"It seems you mean what I find appealing for a partner not what I like. I like Judaism but that doesn't mean I find it appealing for a partner."

LOL!!! This chick. Pure gold. Why would I care what you like? I meant what do you want in a romantic/sexual partner in terms of culture and race and why does it have to be specific and why does height matter?

[Asker]

You know I like how you state my comments and then build your answers around your opinions.

[udolipixie]

"I just to notions because you'd never answer the questions fully. You'd bring up Asian culture and your opinion."
I did answer fully. You asked me if I liked other nations I stated I'm indifferent.

It seems I didn't answer how you wanted me to. You asked if I like other nations when your intention was asking me what nations do I want in a partner.

Those are different questions. It's not on me that your questions didn't ask what you wanted.

[udolipixie]

"I'd ask what you do like in a romantic/sexual partner and it's on the ring around the rosie train again."
Don't pull that bs as I've answered your questions aside from what seemed sarcastic, guesses, and you considering asking (maybe I should ask).

[Asker]

I didn't need our discussion history lesson. I'm here and your back there. Where is the discussion now? Like right now? What are we talking about right now?

[udolipixie]

"You know I like how you state my comments and then build your answers around your opinions."
Your questions are asking me for my opinion of what I like so reasonably the answer will be around my opinion.

"Why would I care what you like?"
Perhaps because you've been asking me what I like. Recall 'So you do like other nations but not the people who live there?'

"I meant what do you want in a romantic/sexual partner in terms of culture and race and why does it have to be specific and why does height matter?"
What you meant and what you asked appear to be very different.

I want a guy that's the same race as me and has a non conflicting/clashing culture. It's specific as that's what I find appealing in a partner and I find it suitable to have a partner I want to be with. Height matters as height is a factor of physical attractive to me.

[Asker]

You want me to figure out what you find appealing in a romantic/sexual partner without saying what it is. I didn't mean I wanted to know what you like in the terms you are trying to answer me by. I wanted to know what you found appealing in a romantic/sexual partner. If you don't want to tell me that then don't.

[Asker]

Even the thing you quoted was me trying to figure it out without you saying what you do find appealing in a romantic/sexual partner.

[udolipixie]

"I didn't need our discussion history lesson."
It seems you do considering you've been asking me questions I already answered. LMFAO

"Where is the discussion now? Like right now? What are we talking about right now?"
The discussion seems to be you bsing that I'm beating around the bush because you asked questions that didn't say what you meant. Such as you asking me if I like other nations when you seem to mean what nationality do I want in a partner.

[udolipixie]

"You want me to figure out what you find appealing in a romantic/sexual partner without saying what it is. "
No but amusing that you're telling me what I want after you seemed to have such a hissy fit about me stating what you seem to be.

"I wanted to know what you found appealing in a romantic/sexual partner."
I've already stated that.

[Asker]

Oh so I have to be specific right? When I ask you secificly you'll say you already answered that even though you haven't. All you've answered is some of what you like and not what you find appealing to a romantic/sexual partner.

[Asker]

*specifically

[udolipixie]

"Even the thing you quoted was me trying to figure it out without you saying what you do find appealing in a romantic/sexual partner."
So it appears my guess was right that your questions weren't asking what you meant.

You asked "So you do like other nations but not the people who live there?" but it seems you really meant what nationality do I want in a partner.

[udolipixie]

You asked "Would you date a short guy? Or a black person? or a Hispanic? or a Asian? Or a Indian?" and it seems you really meant what kind of guy would I date.

I thought you meant would I date such guys hence why I answered "No I would not date a short guy, black guy, hispanic guy, Asian guy, or Indian guy. I'm not attracted to them and I date what I find attractive."

[Asker]

What do you find appealing in a romantic/sexual partner? If you say you've already answered that you are beating around the bush because you still don't want to answer. Even though you haven't said what you found appealing in a romantic/sexual partner.

[udolipixie]

"Oh so I have to be specific right? When I ask you secificly you'll say you already answered that even though you haven't."
I did.

You asked: "what do you want in a romantic/sexual partner in terms of culture and race and why does it have to be specific and why does height matter?"

I answered: I want a guy that's the same race as me and has a non conflicting/clashing culture. It's specific as that's what I find appealing in a partner and I find it suitable to have a partner I want to be with. Height matters as height is a factor of physical attractive to me.

[Asker]

You asked "So you do like other nations but not the people who live there?" but it seems you really meant what nationality do I want in a partner.

Your not going to answer so what does it matter?

[udolipixie]

" All you've answered is some of what you like and not what you find appealing to a romantic/sexual partner."
I answered what you asked which was about culture, race, and height. If you want more then perhaps ask more I wasn't aware that it seems you want me to list out everything I find appealing for a romantic/sexual partner.

[Asker]

You asked "Would you date a short guy? Or a black person? or a Hispanic? or a Asian? Or a Indian?" and it seems you really meant what kind of guy would I date.

I thought you meant would I date such guys hence why I answered "No I would not date a short guy, black guy, hispanic guy, Asian guy, or Indian guy. I'm not attracted to them and I date what I find attractive."

But you again didn't say what you ARE attracted to. If it's your own race and nation I don't know what that is. You haven't said that.

[Asker]

My questions weren't asking what YOU thought it meant. That's your own confusion.

[udolipixie]

"But you again didn't say what you ARE attracted to."
The question wasn't asking what I was attracted to it was asking if I would date a short guy, black person, hispanic, asian, or Indian.

Again you it's not me beating around the bush to answer your question when you didn't ask what you meant.

[udolipixie]

"My questions weren't asking what YOU thought it meant. That's your own confusion."
Don't pull that bs. "Would you date a short guy?" is asking would you date a short guy. It's not asking what you're attracted to and list what you find appealing in a romantic/sexual partner.

[Asker]

I don't know your race or nation though. So it's kind of hard for me to figure out what you find appealing in a romantic/sexual partner don't you think?

[udolipixie]

The confusion seems to be you thinking that asking a gal "Would you date a short guy?" doesn't mean would she date a short guy.

[Asker]

Ok you've answered that. You don't want a short guy. Anything else?

[udolipixie]

So it's kind of hard for me to figure out what you find appealing in a romantic/sexual partner don't you think?
Not really as I stated it's my own race and nationality.

It makes it hard to find out what race or nation I am. Well kind of as clicking or hovering on my username will show a nationality by stating the country.

That seems to be your question what race or nationality I am.

[udolipixie]

"Anything else?"
So it seems you do want me to list out everything I. That's a bit lengthy so I'll summarize and many are missing as earning same/more than me, attractive, relatively healthy, not a rapist/sexual harasser/sexual assaulter, not a child/animal abuser, responsible, honest, reliable, d*ck size 8'', sexually compatible. There's more but I suppose that's enought.

[Asker]

The confusion seems to be you thinking that asking a gal "Would you date a short guy?" doesn't mean would she date a short guy.

No I know you don't want a short guy.

[Asker]

What? When? When did you tell me? LOL!!! And I'm a liar? I may be "lacking intelligence" but I know you didn't say your nationality and race while talking with me.

[Asker]

I said anything else as meaning is there anything else you wanted to tell me. Apparently you wanted to tell me all that you just told me.

[udolipixie]

"No I know you don't want a short guy."
It appears you know because I told you I don't want a short guy.

If you knew before I answered the question then why did you ask it. Especially if you really meant what kind of guy am I attracted to and find appealing. o.O

[Asker]

by the way race isn't in your profile LOL!!! I still don't see why skin color or height matters in that summary. Please don't talk about particular races not being attractive to you. At least half or more of that stuff describes me. I guess I'm not honest since you called me a liar. LOL!!!

[udolipixie]

"What? When? When did you tell me? What? When? When did you tell me? LOL!!! And I'm a liar? I may be "lacking intelligence" but I know you didn't say your nationality and race while talking with me."
Egh you're lacking reading comprehension is showing again. I didn't state I told you my race or nationality.

I said it's not really hard to find out I find attractive and appealing when I state it's my own race and nationality.

You are a liar. You told a lie.

[Asker]

Less than 2% of girls would fit my true preference.

[udolipixie]

"I said anything else as meaning is there anything else you wanted to tell me. Apparently you wanted to tell me all that you just told me."
Again it's really suited to state your questions asking what you mean.

No I didn't want to. I'm indifferent I thought you were requesting it.

Since you're not requesting additional information it seems this discussion is over. (?)

[udolipixie]

"by the way race isn't in your profile LOL!!!"
I'm unsure why you're LOL as nowhere did I state race is in my profile. I stated "clicking or hovering on my username will show a nationality by stating the country."

"I still don't see why skin color or height matters in that summary. Please don't talk about particular races not being attractive to you. At least half or more of that stuff describes me. I guess I'm not honest since you called me a liar. LOL!!!"
Just because you are seemingly willing to seek those you don't find attractive doesn't mean it doesn't matter to others.

[Asker]

I didn't know until you commented on it. Now I know.

[Asker]

Yeah but still I didn't know what your nation and race was to begin with. So how could I have found what nation and race you find appealing in a romantic/sexual partner if you never say?

[Asker]

That's not a lie.

[Asker]

If you didn't want to then why did you? LMAO!!!

[Asker]

I told you you didn't have to.

[Asker]

"by the way race isn't in your profile LOL!!!"
I'm unsure why you're LOL as nowhere did I state race is in my profile. I stated "clicking or hovering on my username will show a nationality by stating the country."

Ok.

[Asker]

Just because you are seemingly willing to seek those you don't find attractive doesn't mean it doesn't matter to others.

It shouldn't matter. Less than 2% of girls. Less than 2%.

[udolipixie]

"Yeah but still I didn't know what your nation and race was to begin with. So how could I have found what nation and race you find appealing in a romantic/sexual partner if you never say?"
By asking me which/what nation and race I am.

By asking me which/what nation I find appealing and race I find attractive.

Things you did not do it seems. You asked questions however it doesn't seem they meant what you wanted.

Again it's suited to ask state your questions asking what you mean.

[udolipixie]

"If you didn't want to then why did you? LMAO!!!"
I stated why. I am indifferent.

I could care less either way. I don't want to or not want to. It makes no difference to me.

Also again I'm unsure why you're seemingly stuck on me not answering a question you seemingly didn't ask when you seem to tend to ignore my statements.

[udolipixie]

"It shouldn't matter."
Just because it doesn't matter to you doesn't mean it shouldn't matter to others. Again this is quite entitled thinking in my opinion.

"Less than 2% of girls. Less than 2%."
So it doesn't change anything I've stated. It doesn't seem to matter to you to have a gal that fits your preference. The percent doesn't change that.

[Asker]

I think what I thought the questions meant and what you thought the questions are different. Just like if I think certain or all discrimination is wrong and you don't. Still opinions.

What race do you want your romantic/sexual partner to be?

What nationality you want your romantic/sexual partner to be?

Those questions above you'll find a way to not answer. I don't see how they can get plainer than that. You'll probably say that now I want to know when before I said anything else. All about correcting me and not answering the questions for their intention huh?

[Asker]

*meant

[udolipixie]

I'm not seeing any reasonable or logical reason why it shouldn't matter.
You claim it's discrimination...yet any criteria that excludes others is discrimination. So that's a fail in my opinion.

You claim it's 'wrongful'...yet don't supply how it's unfair or unjust not to date someone or not to be attracted to them. So that's a fail in my opinion.

You claim it's 'missing out'...yet I don't see what is being missed out from someone who is unwanted. You also haven't stated what is being missed out on. So that's a fail in my opinion.

[Asker]

Your points don't dispute the percentage of girls that actually fit what I truly find appealing in a romantic/sexual girl.

[Asker]

And I'm saying what if I were like the girls who make a big deal out of height.

[udolipixie]

"I think what I thought the questions meant and what you thought the questions are different. "
Clearly you asked if I would date a black guy and I thought you meant it. Yet you seem to mean your questions to ask which race and nationality I find attractive and appealing.

"Those questions above you'll find a way to not answer."
I've been answering your questions thus far aside from the what seemed sarcasitic, guesses, and theories (maybe I should ask)...yet you pull this bs.

You seemingly took an issue with me telling you what you seem to me yet you still tell me what I'm doing to do.

[Asker]

I think that attraction based on height is wrong and that thought can be changed but isn't because of a number of factors.

It is unfair and unjust for someone to say they will not date someone because of their height because anyone could be extremely picky about things others can't help. That doesn't make it ok.

Most discrimination is wrong. I gave you a list of them. How I define preferences is probably different than how you define it.

I said there the qualities of a man should not be determined by race or height. It should not affect attraction. Yet some females claim it does.

[Asker]

Clearly you asked if I would date a black guy and I thought you meant it. Yet you seem to mean your questions to ask which race and nationality I find attractive and appealing.

Seem like to me that would mean you wouldn't find a romantic/sexual partner who is black as attractive. W/e though.

[Asker]

"Those questions above you'll find a way to not answer."
I've been answering your questions thus far aside from the what seemed sarcasitic, guesses, and theories (maybe I should ask)...yet you pull this bs.

You seemingly took an issue with me telling you what you seem to me yet you still tell me what I'm doing to do.

Haven't answered the race one yet.

[udolipixie]

"Your points don't dispute the percentage of girls that actually fit what I truly find appealing in a romantic/sexual girl."
So...o.O.My points weren't trying to dispute and it's irrelevant how many gals fit your preference.

I'm unsure why you're seemingly portraying it as a negative that my points don't dispute something it wasn't trying to and finds irrelevant.

How many gals you find appealing is irrelevant to my point that just because it doesn't matter to you to find what appeals you doesn't mean it shouldn't matter to others.

[udolipixie]

"And I'm saying what if I were like the girls who make a big deal out of height."
Then it seems you'd be pursuing what appeals to you.

That doesn't slight or diminish my point..o.O

[Asker]

It's not irrelevant. It's pointing out the how wrong it is. Just like I'm pointing out how wrong it is for some girls to only find tall guys as attractive.

[Asker]

What if a lot of guys had the the preference? Only two percent of girls would fit that category.

[Asker]

Then it seems you'd be pursuing what appeals to you.

That doesn't slight or diminish my point..o.O

Ok what if most guys made a big deal out of the preference I'm alluding to (it's not height)? How would you feel about that? You wouldn't be upset?

[udolipixie]

"It is unfair and unjust for someone to say they will not date someone because of their height because anyone could be extremely picky about things others can't help. That doesn't make it ok."
Okay so it seems it's unfair and unjust because it's being 'extremely picky'. In which case it seems we have vastly different opinions on what is unfair and unjust.

In my opinion having criteria no matter how picky isn't unfair or unjust as excluding others is what dating seems to be.

"I said there the qualities of a man should not be determined by race or height."
Egh in this case the qualities of a guy isn't being determined by race or height. Rather they find his qualities don't compensate for the lack of attraction due to his race or height.

"It should not affect attraction. Yet some females claim it does."
It does affect attraction for some. I'm unsure how you can dictate what shouldn't affect attraction as it's about what people like.

[Asker]

You still haven't said your race. I asked that a while ago. In a nice simple fashion.

[Asker]

Here it is.

"What race do you want your romantic/sexual partner to be?"

Directly from my past comment.

[Asker]

We agree on something.

[udolipixie]

"Haven't answered the race one yet."
I won't as I'm not indifferent. Not with that bs you pulled.

It would have been suited for you to ask me the question without pulling that bs again. I ignored it the first time.

I mean I answered your other questions despite your ranting, lying, twisting, and telling me what I think/feel/who I am. All without you acknowledging or admitting besides the anger bit and seemingly only because I turned it on you and you wanted it to stop.

[udolipixie]

"You still haven't said your race. I asked that a while ago. In a nice simple fashion."
No you did not.

[Asker]

Rather they find his qualities don't compensate for the lack of attraction due to his race or height.

Well I believe the qualities of a man. His personality. That's more important and that is also attraction. Do you not think that? I mean after all you do want a guy with at least a 8 incher if it's smaller is that more important than who he is as a person? It's a limit because you don't know if a guy of another race and or height can be a good romantic/sexual partner personality and other inner qualities wise if you stop at race and or height.

[Asker]

*and of short height.

[udolipixie]

"What race do you want your romantic/sexual partner to be?" is not directly from your past comment

A search on this page will show that you did not.

FYI asking me what race I want my partner to be is not asking me what race I am.

[udolipixie]

"It's not irrelevant. It's pointing out the how wrong it is. Just like I'm pointing out how wrong it is for some girls to only find tall guys as attractive."
It is irrelevant as how many you find attractive/appealing is irrelevant to whether it's 'right' or 'wrong' to pursue those you find attractive.

[Asker]

"It should not affect attraction. Yet some females claim it does."
It does affect attraction for some. I'm unsure how you can dictate what shouldn't affect attraction as it's about what people like.

If does not affect attractive for some but it does for others. It is also based on the individual. I get that. Which means it's not something that's genetically coded into most girls. Which means just because they feel they are only attracted to someone of a particular height doesn't mean they have to be.

[udolipixie]

"What if a lot of guys had the the preference? Only two percent of girls would fit that category."
Then a lot of guys would have that preference.

"Ok what if most guys made a big deal out of the preference I'm alluding to (it's not height)? How would you feel about that? You wouldn't be upset?"
I'd be amused if most guys thought they could get the gals they wanted considering it's a very low percentage in my opinion. No I wouldn't be upset.

Considering this line of questioning it seems I was correct in guessing this isn't about 'wrongful' discrimination but emotional reaction.

[Asker]

"Haven't answered the race one yet."
I won't as I'm not indifferent. Not with that bs you pulled.

It would have been suited for you to ask me the question without pulling that bs again. I ignored it the first time.

I mean I answered your other questions despite your ranting, lying, twisting, and telling me what I think/feel/who I am. All without you acknowledging or admitting besides the anger bit and seemingly only because I turned it on you and you wanted it to stop.

*shrugs* Answer it or don't answer it then. Indifference doesn't mean if I piss you off then you won't answer it.

[udolipixie]

Well I believe the qualities of a man. His "personality. That's more important and that is also attraction."
To you it's more important and a part of attraction however that doesn't mean it is for others. For most it seems attraction is equally as important as personality. For many it seems personality isn't also attraction hence why many have friends who have personalities they like but aren't attracted to.

"Do you not think that? I mean after all you do want a guy with at least a 8 incher if it's smaller is that more important than who he is as a person?"
No I don't want a guy with d*ck smaller than 8''. That doesn't mean it's more important than who he is as a person. It means it's just as important to me.

[Asker]

"What race do you want your romantic/sexual partner to be?" is not directly from your past comment

A search on this page will show that you did not.

FYI asking me what race I want my partner to be is not asking me what race I am.

Yet you answered neither.

[udolipixie]

"It's a limit because you don't know if a guy of another race and or height can be a good romantic/sexual partner personality and other inner qualities wise if you stop at race and or height."
It's not a limit for me as I'm not interested in having a partner I'm not attracted to...o.O

If I don't want them then their personality and other qualities is irrelevant.

[Asker]

It is irrelevant as how many you find attractive/appealing is irrelevant to whether it's 'right' or 'wrong' to pursue those you find attractive.

Maybe you should look at my other post? o.O

[udolipixie]

"If does not affect attractive for some but it does for others. It is also based on the individual. I get that. Which means it's not something that's genetically coded into most girls. Which means just because they feel they are only attracted to someone of a particular height doesn't mean they have to be."
It also doesn't mean they have to pursue those outside their attraction.

[udolipixie]

"Answer it or don't answer it then. Indifference doesn't mean if I piss you off then you won't answer it."
I'm aware what indifference means.

I showed that when I stated I'm not indifferent for this question.

I showed that again when I stated I am indifferent for another question.

You are aware you can be indifferent to certain things correct? LMFAO

[Asker]

I'd be amused if most guys thought they could get the gals they wanted considering it's a very low percentage in my opinion. No I wouldn't be upset.

I'd get what I wanted.

[udolipixie]

"Maybe you should look at my other post? o.O"
I did. My point still stands.

How many a person finds attractive/appealing is irrelevant to whether it's 'right' or 'wrong' to pursue those they find attractive.

'Right' or 'wrong' isn't for me based on how many people a person's criteria excludes.

[udolipixie]

"I'd get what I wanted."
My amusement still stands as it doesn't mean most guys would. If most guys want 2% of gals it stands to reason that most will not get what they want. Thus it's funny to me if most guys think they will.

[Asker]

Considering this line of questioning it seems I was correct in guessing this isn't about 'wrongful' discrimination but emotional reaction.

Nah not really. Unless my hate for specific discrimination means a "emotional reaction". It again has nothing to do with my experiences.

[Asker]

To you it's more important and a part of attraction however that doesn't mean it is for others. For most it seems attraction is equally as important as personality. For many it seems personality isn't also attraction hence why many have friends who have personalities they like but aren't attracted to.

Some people like one type of person one day and another the other day. Attraction can change. It's not hard wired to someone. Some people change their attractions. That was the point I was making here.

[udolipixie]

"Nah not really. Unless my hate for specific discrimination means a "emotional reaction". It again has nothing to do with my experiences."

It's not the hatred it's the line of questioning about the hatred. The questioning that is about feelings and feeling upset.

I didn't state it has something to do with your experiences. It's odd how you keep bringing up this doesn't have to do with your experiences...o.O

[Asker]

No I don't want a guy with d*ck smaller than 8''. That doesn't mean it's more important than who he is as a person. It means it's just as important to me.

So would one stop the other? No right? So is height and race more important to you and some girls? Yes. Does it stop them from wanting to know some guys? Yes.

[Asker]

Or maybe I should exclude you from that bottom part with the rhetorical questions.

[Asker]

It's not a limit for me as I'm not interested in having a partner I'm not attracted to...o.O

If I don't want them then their personality and other qualities is irrelevant.

Because you think they are equal to other things? And your other things are specific?

[Asker]

And can change.

[udolipixie]

"Some people like one type of person one day and another the other day. Attraction can change. It's not hard wired to someone. Some people change their attractions. That was the point I was making here."
In regards to liking one type of person one day and another the other day it seems you're talking more about I find to be appeal not attraction.

Either way in this case the change is voluntary/subconscious. While it seems you're suggesting that people go against what they are attracted to in order to change that attraction. (?)

[Asker]

"If does not affect attractive for some but it does for others. It is also based on the individual. I get that. Which means it's not something that's genetically coded into most girls. Which means just because they feel they are only attracted to someone of a particular height doesn't mean they have to be."
It also doesn't mean they have to pursue those outside their attraction.

But it does mean they can change such attraction.

[Asker]

That it's not what HAS to be.

[Asker]

I'm aware what indifference means.

I showed that when I stated I'm not indifferent for this question.

I showed that again when I stated I am indifferent for another question.

You are aware you can be indifferent to certain things correct? LMFAO

Did you not say you are a indifferent person?

[udolipixie]

"Because you think they are equal to other things?"
Yes because for me they are equal. Having a partner who I find attractive and I find appealing is equal for me.

"And your other things are specific?"
"And can change."
My criteria for personality can change as well doesn't mean I'll stop pursuing what I want in personality.

[Asker]

How many a person finds attractive/appealing is irrelevant to whether it's 'right' or 'wrong' to pursue those they find attractive.

'Right' or 'wrong' isn't for me based on how many people a person's criteria excludes.

Right or wrong is not determined by you. That I do know.

[udolipixie]

"But it does mean they can change such attraction."
And it doesn't mean they have to change their attraction to include others.

"That it's not what HAS to be."
What's not what has to be? o.O Do you mean pursing those a person finds attractive is not what has to be?

"Did you not say you are a indifferent person?"
Not I did not state I am a indifferent person.

I did state the reason I answer a certain quite was because I'm indifferent as I don't care either way about answering it. It's not that I want to answer it or that I don't want to answer it.

[udolipixie]

"Right or wrong is not determined by you. That I do know."
Nor is it determined by you. Do you know that?

It seems you don't considering you've stating you're right and speak the truth and have been calling this wrong and wrongful.

[Asker]

"I'd get what I wanted."
My amusement still stands as it doesn't mean most guys would. If most guys want 2% of gals it stands to reason that most will not get what they want. Thus it's funny to me if most guys think they will.

Even if the population of guys was the same amount as girls that fit that specific preference with the rest of the female population remaining the same? You know what don't even answer that. How you answered the other one is good enough for me. LOL!!!

[Asker]

It's not the hatred it's the line of questioning about the hatred. The questioning that is about feelings and feeling upset.

I didn't state it has something to do with your experiences. It's odd how you keep bringing up this doesn't have to do with your experiences...o.O

I'm not upset. Why are you bringing up emotion reactions?

[udolipixie]

"Even if the population of guys was the same amount as girls that fit that specific preference with the rest of the female population remaining the same?"
That's seemingly a mathematical impossibility.

If most guys has a preference that fits 2% of gals the amount of guys can't be the same amount of gals that fit the preference.

[Asker]

In regards to liking one type of person one day and another the other day it seems you're talking more about I find to be appeal not attraction.

Either way in this case the change is voluntary/subconscious. While it seems you're suggesting that people go against what they are attracted to in order to change that attraction.

Attraction is subconscious but subconsciousness can be changed. Yes even day to day. Who says it can't?

[udolipixie]

"I'm not upset. Why are you bringing up emotion reactions?"
I told you why when I brought up emotional reaction- your line of questioning.

I've been questioning why this is 'wrong' and your questions have been about feelings and feeling upset. Recall your words:
""Ok what if most guys made a big deal out of the preference I'm alluding to (it's not height)? How would you feel about that? You wouldn't be upset?""

[Asker]

My criteria for personality can change as well doesn't mean I'll stop pursuing what I want in personality.

Ok.

[Asker]

And it doesn't mean they have to change their attraction to include others.

It doesn't mean they can't either though.

[Asker]

I did state the reason I answer a certain quite was because I'm indifferent as I don't care either way about answering it. It's not that I want to answer it or that I don't want to answer it.

ok.

[udolipixie]

"Attraction is subconscious but subconsciousness can be changed. Yes even day to day. Who says it can't?"
I'm unsure why you're asking me this as nowhere did I state it can't be changed. I did state it doesn't have to.

It seems you're suggesting gals pursue what they're not attracted to because her attraction can change. That to me is skewed.

[Asker]

Nor is it determined by you. Do you know that?

Never said it was. Do you know that? Do you know just because I believe it's wrong doesn't mean others don't?

[Asker]

I say it's wrong you say it isn't.

How are you more right than me?

[udolipixie]

"Never said it was. Do you know that? Do you know just because I believe it's wrong doesn't mean others don't?"
You stated plenty of times this was wrong.

You didn't state you believe it's wrong. You stated it's wrong.

[udolipixie]

"How are you more right than me?"
Egh I didn't state I was more right than you.

You're the one seemingly stating you are more right. Your words:
"And I'm right".
"Sometimes I realize that despite how correct I am people have to come to their own conclusions. If everybody believed in the truth like I do then no one would be different."
"I'm not saying your right, your still wrong."

[Asker]

That's seemingly a mathematical impossibility.

If most guys has a preference that fits 2% of gals the amount of guys can't be the same amount of gals that fit the preference.

No no no that's not what I stated. I'm saying say there were 10 million girls total in the world, 4 million guys in the world, and 4 out of the 10 million girls fit that specific preference that all 4 million guys in the world wanted then would you be upset if you didn't fit that preference?

[udolipixie]

It's amusing that considering you started this discussion stating this is wrong as if it's a fact/absolute/truth that it's seemingly an issue when I state why this isn't wrong to me.

[Asker]

I told you why when I brought up emotional reaction- your line of questioning.

But you implied that I have to be upset to ask you that.

[udolipixie]

"I'm saying say there were 10 million girls total in the world, 4 million guys in the world, and 4 out of the 10 million girls fit that specific preference that all 4 million guys in the world wanted then would you be upset if you didn't fit that preference?"
No I would not be upset.

Again this line of questioning supports my guess that why this is 'wrong' is based on emotional reaction.

Odd how you ask me about feelings in a discussion of why this is 'wrong' and you wonder why I bring up emotional reaction. O.O

[Asker]

I've been questioning why this is 'wrong' and your questions have been about feelings and feeling upset. Recall your words:
""Ok what if most guys made a big deal out of the preference I'm alluding to (it's not height)? How would you feel about that? You wouldn't be upset?""

How does that make me upset again?

[Asker]

I'm unsure why you're asking me this as nowhere did I state it can't be changed. I did state it doesn't have to.

It seems you're suggesting gals pursue what they're not attracted to because her attraction can change. That to me is skewed.

It's not skewed but w/e.

[Asker]

If it can be changed...

[Asker]

You believe it's right therefore from your perceptive it's right. Even though it isn't.

[udolipixie]

"How does that make me upset again?"
Egh I didn't state that makes you upset so I'm unsure why you're asking if it makes you upset again.

I did state I'm guessing your reasoning is really based on emotional reaction.

[Asker]

"How are you more right than me?"
Egh I didn't state I was more right than you.

You're the one seemingly stating you are more right. Your words:
"And I'm right".
"Sometimes I realize that despite how correct I am people have to come to their own conclusions. If everybody believed in the truth like I do then no one would be different."
"I'm not saying your right, your still wrong."

So you admit that your not right?

[Asker]

It's amusing that considering you started this discussion stating this is wrong as if it's a fact/absolute/truth that it's seemingly an issue when I state why this isn't wrong to me.

Because it is the truth but of course from your perceptive it isn't. Just because something is the truth doesn't mean you have to believe it. Some people wont.

[Asker]

"I'm saying say there were 10 million girls total in the world, 4 million guys in the world, and 4 out of the 10 million girls fit that specific preference that all 4 million guys in the world wanted then would you be upset if you didn't fit that preference?"
No I would not be upset.

Again this line of questioning supports my guess that why this is 'wrong' is based on emotional reaction.

Odd how you ask me about feelings in a discussion of why this is 'wrong' and you wonder why I bring up emotional reaction. O.O

You said I was upset. I said I wasn't.

[udolipixie]

"It's not skewed but w/e."
It's not skewed to you.

It's skewed to me to propose that a gal's attraction can change so she should go after what she isn't attracted to. Especially as it's not even based on that it will change just that it can.

Basically you're saying it seems 'Since your attraction can change it shouldn't matter that you find me hideous or unattractive'. The me is a general me as in a hypothetical person not you. LMFAO

[Asker]

"How does that make me upset again?"
Egh I didn't state that makes you upset so I'm unsure why you're asking if it makes you upset again.

Well you did but ok. Why does me expecting a "emotion reaction" to you mean I have a emotion reaction? That makes not sense.

I did state I'm guessing your reasoning is really based on emotional reaction.

[Asker]

*no sense

[udolipixie]

"Because it is the truth but of course from your perceptive it isn't. Just because something is the truth doesn't mean you have to believe it. Some people wont.
Because it is the truth but of course from your perceptive it isn't. Just because something is the truth doesn't mean you have to believe it. Some people wont."
Ironically you're the one telling me I think I'm always right and asking how am I more right than you.

Again just because you say it's the truth doesn't make it so. You do know that right?

[Asker]

It's not based on a emotional reaction unless that means that I think it's wrong. You think it's right therefore would you not also have a emotional reaction with such logic?

[Asker]

Or because I think it's wrong that means I automatically have a emotion reaction? I guess if you think it's right you don't have a emotion reaction right? Smh.

[udolipixie]

"You said I was upset. I said I wasn't."
Again you lie. I didn't state you were upset.

Show me where I said you were upset.

Telling how you jumped from "you implied that I have to be upset to ask you that." to "You said I was upset".

[Asker]

JEMD!

[udolipixie]

It's not stating you are upset to state "considering this line of questioning it seems I was correct in guessing this isn't about 'wrongful' discrimination but emotional reaction."

Nowhere in there do I tell you that you're upset.

[Asker]

I did state I'm guessing your reasoning is really based on emotional reaction.

It's just a guess.

[Asker]

It's skewed to me to propose that a gal's attraction can change so she should go after what she isn't attracted to. Especially as it's not even based on that it will change just that it can.

Basically you're saying it seems 'Since your attraction can change it shouldn't matter that you find me hideous or unattractive'. The me is a general me as in a hypothetical person not you. LMFAO

I'm saying one shouldn't hold to height only as a determining factor. It's not hypocritical.

[udolipixie]

"Well you did but ok."
No I did not. Again you show yourself to be a liar.

"Why does me expecting a "emotion reaction" to you mean I have a emotion reaction? That makes not sense."
This question makes no sense as nowhere did I state I expect you to have an "emotion reaction" I didn't even use such a term.

I stated emotional reaction and I didn't state I expect you to have one.

[Asker]

Ironically you're the one telling me I think I'm always right and asking how am I more right than you.

Again just because you say it's the truth doesn't make it so. You do know that right?

Again if I think it's true then to me I think it's right. If not then wouldn't that be hypocritical? LOL!!

[udolipixie]

"Or because I think it's wrong that means I automatically have a emotion reaction?"
Nowhere did I state you automatically have an emotional reaction.

I did state I'm guessing the reasoning is emotional reaction because in a discussion of why discriminating in regards to romantic/sexual partners is wrong your questioning is feelings and being upset.

"I guess if you think it's right you don't have a emotion reaction right?"
No.

To me if when discussing why something is wrong you don't go on about feelings and being upset it suggests it's not based on emotional reaction.

[Asker]

Telling how you jumped from "you implied that I have to be upset to ask you that." to "You said I was upset".

You did both. The emotional reaction you'd think I would get from this is anger or sadness. I have neither.

[udolipixie]

"It's just a guess."
Which I stated.

Something I didn't state is that you was upset. So are you going to admit your newest lie?

[Asker]

It's not stating you are upset to state "considering this line of questioning it seems I was correct in guessing this isn't about 'wrongful' discrimination but emotional reaction."

Nowhere in there do I tell you that you're upset.

Ok.

[Asker]

No I did not. Again you show yourself to be a liar.

"Why does me expecting a "emotion reaction" to you mean I have a emotion reaction? That makes not sense."
This question makes no sense as nowhere did I state I expect you to have an "emotion reaction" I didn't even use such a term.

I stated emotional reaction and I didn't state I expect you to have one.

Do you have a emotion reaction? It seems you do.

[udolipixie]

"I'm saying one shouldn't hold to height only as a determining factor. It's not hypocritical."
Egh I didn't state it was hypocritical. You're the one who first used that word not me.

"Again if I think it's true then to me I think it's right. If not then wouldn't that be hypocritical? LOL!!"
So you're admitting it's not the truth it's what you think is true? Okay then.

"You did both. The emotional reaction you'd think I would get from this is anger or sadness. I have neither."
I did neither. Show me where I said you was upset.
LMFAO @ you telling me what I think. I simply guessed the reasoning was emotional reaction I didn't state which.

[Asker]

To me if when discussing why something is wrong you don't go on about feelings and being upset it suggests it's not based on emotional reaction.

Wow.

[udolipixie]

"Do you have a emotion reaction? It seems you do."
Based on what? I'm not questioning you about your feelings in regards to something being wrong. o.O

How do I seem to have 'a emotion reaction' to you?

[Asker]

Egh I didn't state it was hypocritical. You're the one who first used that word not me.

LOL!!! Oh wooow.

[udolipixie]

"Wow."
Yeah wow I made a typing error without editing.

Considering I've been stating it is based on emotional reaction to me. I guessed you would grasp it was an error.

[Asker]

So you're admitting it's not the truth it's what you think is true? Okay then.

Still doesn't mean it isn't true like you keeping saying.

[Asker]

You guessed because? Why do people type what they type or say what they say? I guess it has nothing to do with their thoughts right? Ok.

[udolipixie]

Oh wait I thought I made a typing error considering how you used hypocritical however I didn't.

I stated:
Basically you're saying it seems 'Since your attraction can change it shouldn't matter that you find me hideous or unattractive'. The me is a general me as in a hypothetical person not you. LMFAO

You seemingly mistook 'hypothetical' to be 'hypocritical'.

[Asker]

How do I seem to have 'a emotion reaction' to you?

Same could be said to you.

[Asker]

Considering I've been stating it is based on emotional reaction to me. I guessed you would grasp it was an error.

o.O

[udolipixie]

"You guessed because?"
I stated the because. Because you were questioning feelings in a discussion of why it's wrong.

"Why do people type what they type or say what they say?"
Depends on the person in my opinion.

"I guess it has nothing to do with their thoughts right?"
Egh thoughts and feelings can be quite different. When someone is arguing I tend to estimate that they'll be using reasonable and logical thoughts not emotion based thoughts.

[Asker]

*brain explodes*

[udolipixie]

"Same could be said to you."
Doesn't mean it'll apply. I'm not questioning feelings in a discussion of why something is wrong.

If I was stating something is wrong and when asked to state why I question how would someone feel if this was done to them...then the same could be said to me and apply.

[Asker]

No you questioned my feelings. You said it seems I have or had a emotion response. So I questioned your feelings after that.

[udolipixie]

"o.O"
I covered already how you seemingly mistook 'hypothetical' to mean 'hypocritical'.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that I made a typing error. Turns out I didn't.

[Asker]

Depends on the person in my opinion.

So you didn't think when you typed stuff to me? If you did then when you said you thought I had a emotion response then that reflects what you thought.

[udolipixie]

"No you questioned my feelings."
No I did not as I didn't ask you what you felt. I stated your line of questioning suggests an emotional reaction.

"You said it seems I have or had a emotion response. So I questioned your feelings after that."
Don't bs you asked how I would feel if guys did the same and if I would be upset.

I then stated this line of questioning suggests to me your reasoning is based on emotional reaction.

[udolipixie]

You: Ok what if most guys made a big deal out of the preference I'm alluding to (it's not height)? How would you feel about that? You wouldn't be upset?

Me: I'd be amused if most guys thought they could get the gals they wanted considering it's a very low percentage in my opinion. No I wouldn't be upset.

Considering this line of questioning it seems I was correct in guessing this isn't about 'wrongful' discrimination but emotional reaction.

[Asker]

Egh thoughts and feelings can be quite different. When someone is arguing I tend to estimate that they'll be using reasonable and logical thoughts not emotion based thoughts.

It's still thoughts and I doubt you don't use feelings in your responses to people.

[Asker]

I mean I bet you use feelings in some of your responses to people.

[Asker]

Doesn't mean it'll apply. I'm not questioning feelings in a discussion of why something is wrong.

Did you not say you thought I had or have a emotion response? Is that tied to feelings?

[Asker]

I covered already how you seemingly mistook 'hypothetical' to mean 'hypocritical'.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that I made a typing error. Turns out I didn't.

...Ok.

[udolipixie]

"It's still thoughts and I doubt you don't use feelings in your responses to people."
Emotion based thoughts still being thoughts is irrelevant. I was talking about an emotional reaction not emotion based thoughts.

It's quite interesting how you seemingly often lie or create stuff just to refute what I say.

Exactly what is the point in you seemingly stating that people type things based on thoughts? It doesn't exclude that people can type based on emotion or that people's reasoning can be based on emotional reaction.

So exactly what is your point here other than seemingly being argumentative?

[Asker]

No I did not as I didn't ask you what you felt. I stated your line of questioning suggests an emotional reaction.

Questioning if I had/have a emotional reaction and questioning my feelings are different? Ha ok.

[Asker]

Don't bs you asked how I would feel if guys did the same and if I would be upset.

I then stated this line of questioning suggests to me your reasoning is based on emotional reaction.

Yet I never applied none of that to myself. YOU did.

[udolipixie]

"Did you not say you thought I had or have a emotion response? Is that tied to feelings?"
Ah so this is your point. Me thinking you had an emotional reaction is not based on feelings.

It's based on reason.

The discussion was about why discrimination in regards to attraction is wrong.

Your questioning was about feelings and being upset.

That implies the reasoning based on why this is wrong is based on emotional reaction.

[udolipixie]

"Questioning if I had/have a emotional reaction and questioning my feelings are different? Ha ok."
I did neither.

I stated your line of questioning suggests an emotional reaction. That's not questioning you having an emotional reaction.

Just because the word questioning is in the statement doesn't mean I'm doing the questioning. LMFAO

[Asker]

You: Ok what if most guys made a big deal out of the preference I'm alluding to (it's not height)? How would you feel about that? You wouldn't be upset?

Me: I'd be amused if most guys thought they could get the gals they wanted considering it's a very low percentage in my opinion. No I wouldn't be upset.

Considering this line of questioning it seems I was correct in guessing this isn't about 'wrongful' discrimination but emotional reaction.

So you think upset and emotional reaction are the same? Well then why did you get mad when I said I wasn't upset and you said you didn't say that. No you didn't say that but your above statement suggest that you were thinking that and if you weren't thinking that then you post that to me without thinking in which then I should care about it because it's not what you actually thought.

[Asker]

Emotion based thoughts still being thoughts is irrelevant. I was talking about an emotional reaction not emotion based thoughts.

*shrugs* My statements are not from emotion reactions.

[Asker]

Exactly what is the point in you seemingly stating that people type things based on thoughts? It doesn't exclude that people can type based on emotion or that people's reasoning can be based on emotional reaction.

So exactly what is your point here other than seemingly being argumentative?

Haven't I answered this?

[udolipixie]

"So you think upset and emotional reaction are the same?"
No I do not. I don't understand how you got that when I didn't even mention upset other than to answer your question of if I would be.

"Well then why did you get mad when I said I wasn't upset and you said you didn't say that."
I wasn't mad. Amusing how after the seemingly hissy fit you threw because I said you seem angry you still tell me what I feel. LMFAO

[udolipixie]

" My statements are not from emotion reactions."
Your line of questioning suggests your reasoning on why this is 'wrong' is based on emotional reaction.

"Haven't I answered this?"
You're seemingly reading my responses a bit late. I already stated I got that your point was seemingly trying to turn this around on me.

[Asker]

Ah so this is your point. Me thinking you had an emotional reaction is not based on feelings.

It's based on reason.

The discussion was about why discrimination in regards to attraction is wrong.

Your questioning was about feelings and being upset.

That implies the reasoning based on why this is wrong is based on emotional reaction.

Oh I get what your saying now. Part of why it's wrong is that others will feel wrong that they have been discriminated against based on height. I could say that's part of it.

[Asker]

But then again all discrimination is like that and that's only part of the argument.

[Asker]

"Questioning if I had/have a emotional reaction and questioning my feelings are different? Ha ok."
I did neither.

I stated your line of questioning suggests an emotional reaction. That's not questioning you having an emotional reaction.

Just because the word questioning is in the statement doesn't mean I'm doing the questioning. LMFAO

Smh. Poor girl. I won't even attack this one.

[Asker]

"So you think upset and emotional reaction are the same?"
No I do not. I don't understand how you got that when I didn't even mention upset other than to answer your question of if I would be.

What emotional reaction would you expect me to have? That's all I'm going to say about this.

[Asker]

Your line of questioning suggests your reasoning on why this is 'wrong' is based on emotional reaction.

So your telling me how I feel yet again? Like I said before you know more than me. With your "hissy fits" LOL!!!

[udolipixie]

Meh poor boy seems more suited considering how long it took you to grasp what I was saying. LMFAO

"and that's only part of the argument."
The other argument you've given it seems is because it's being extremely picky or excluding others. Your argument doesn't really appear to have 'strong reasoning' as to why it's 'wrong'.

[Asker]

Meh poor boy seems more suited considering how long it took you to grasp what I was saying. LMFAO

"and that's only part of the argument."
The other argument you've given it seems is because it's being extremely picky or excluding others. Your argument doesn't really appear to have 'strong reasoning' as to why it's 'wrong'.

Your argument doesn't give strong reasoning as to why it's right.

[udolipixie]

"So your telling me how I feel yet again?"
How can I be telling you what you feel when I didn't state an emotion...LMFAO

Don't do this 'again' as I haven't told you what you felt. I stated you seemed angry to me that's not telling you how you feel.

The one who repeatedly told another how they felt was you.

[Asker]

It took enough time for you to explain it. LOL!!! Veggies WTF!!

[udolipixie]

"Your argument doesn't give strong reasoning as to why it's right."
It's not strong reasoning that it's suited for people to have a romantic/sexual partner they find attractive and appealing if that is what is important to them. LMFAO

[Asker]

Don't do this 'again' as I haven't told you what you felt. I stated you seemed angry to me that's not telling you how you feel.

The one who repeatedly told another how they felt was you.

Anything else all wise one?

[udolipixie]

Then again I don't think you're suited to talk about strong reasoning considering you took 'Attraction is discrimination' to mean I'm saying discrimination is wrong. LMFAO

[udolipixie]

"It took enough time for you to explain it."
I explained it over and over.

In fact I'm repeating the same things I said in the quote where you state you got it. The only difference is I put each sentence by itself rather than in a paragraph.

LMFAO

[Asker]

It's not strong reasoning that it's suited for people to have a romantic/sexual partner they find attractive and appealing if that is what is important to them. LMFAO

If it discriminates to a very specific level it is. I gave examples but you said I shouldn't compare them even though you gave what did you call it scenarios?

[Asker]

*It is not.

[udolipixie]

"If it discriminates to a very specific level it is."
So it seems it's only suited for people to have a partner they find attractive and appealing if what they want includes many people. To me that's quite skewed if that's your mindset.

"I gave examples but you said I shouldn't compare them even though you gave what did you call it scenarios?"
Again you lie. Nowhere did I state you shouldn't compare them.

I don't do should or shouldn't unless it pertains to harming children or animals.

I said that discriminating based on race is not necessarily automatically racism in the sense of thinking one is superior to a race. That's not stating you shouldn't compare them.

[Asker]

Then again I don't think you're suited to talk about strong reasoning considering you took 'Attraction is discrimination' to mean I'm saying discrimination is wrong. LMFAO

Considering you made ridiculous scenarios, think because someone misinterprets something that equals a liar, and it took you forever to give you point, and you don't answer things you can't answer without soundly like you have strong reasoning I can "suggest" that you are not someone who can be debated with.

[Asker]

What's your race again? LMAO!!! "I'm not a indifferent person".

[Asker]

I explained it over and over.

Yeah ok.

[Asker]

So did I.

[Asker]

So it seems it's only suited for people to have a partner they find attractive and appealing if what they want includes many people. To me that's quite skewed if that's your mindset.

To you.

[Asker]

"I gave examples but you said I shouldn't compare them even though you gave what did you call it scenarios?"
Again you lie. Nowhere did I state you shouldn't compare them.

Yeah ok.

[udolipixie]

"Considering you made ridiculous scenarios,"
Ridiculous to you because you applied them to something else I wasn't discussing.

"think because someone misinterprets something that equals a liar,"
I think stating something that isn't true is being a liar.

"and it took you forever to give you point,"
It took forever it seems for you to get my point. Apparently repeating the same thing just in single sentences rather than a combined paragraph makes it easier for you.

[Asker]

I said that discriminating based on race is not necessarily automatically racism in the sense of thinking one is superior to a race. That's not stating you shouldn't compare them.

Yeah yeah yeah.

[udolipixie]

" I can "suggest" that you are not someone who can be debated with."
Not when the debate is based on the other person such as yourself asking questions that don't state what they mean, ignoring what is typed (you admitted you skipped my responses), and insisting they know what the other person feels and thinks.

I can also suggest you're not someone who can be debated with hence why I stuck to mainly poking fun and laughing at your illogical reasoning.

[Asker]

I think stating something that isn't true is being a liar.

Misinterpreting something that isn't true is not a liar. It's someone who misinterpret.

[Asker]

It took forever it seems for you to get my point. Apparently repeating the same thing just in single sentences rather than a combined paragraph makes it easier for you.

You either apparently.

[udolipixie]

"To you."
I said to me. I'm unsure why you're repeating it. o.O

If anything it seems more suited for me to repeat "To you" recalling how you stated you're right and seemingly stated this is the truth.

[Asker]

"To you."
I said to me. I'm unsure why you're repeating it. o.O

If anything it seems more suited for me to repeat "To you" recalling how you stated you're right and seemingly stated this is the truth.

So your not right.

[udolipixie]

"You either apparently."
No it doesn't apply to me. I haven't missed something that you had to repeat in single sentences rather than a paragraph. Disagreeing with your opinions doesn't mean I didn't understand them.

"Misinterpreting something that isn't true is not a liar. It's someone who misinterpret."
Stating something that isn't true is a liar.

You didn't just misinterpret. You made a claim that's not true.

Just because you thought I said it based on a misinterpretation doesn't mean it's not a lie. That means it's a lie based on misinterpretation.

[Asker]

Not when the debate is based on the other person such as yourself asking questions that don't state what they mean, ignoring what is typed (you admitted you skipped my responses), and insisting they know what the other person feels and thinks.

You insisted I had a emotion response.

I can also suggest you're not someone who can be debated with hence why I stuck to mainly poking fun and laughing at your illogical reasoning.

My illogical reasoning? LOL!!! Carry on miss indifference.

[udolipixie]

"So your not right."
You're not right. Yet you stated: "And I'm right".

Ironic how often you talked about how right you are yet you claim I'm the one who thinks they're always right. LMFAO

[Asker]

You think specific discrimination isn't wrong. What's not illogical about that? There is no logical reason as to why women should only date guys that are tall. The fact that you try to reason is funny enough for me.

[Asker]

No it doesn't apply to me.

Yeah ok.

[udolipixie]

"You insisted I had a emotion response. "
No I did not. Nowhere did I insist you had a 'emotion response'...especially as I didn't use those words. LMFAO

I guessed you you based your reasoning on emotional reaction and stated it seems my guess were right.

My words were "it seems I was I was correct in guessing".

[Asker]

My claim was based on misinterpretation not a lie.

[udolipixie]

"My illogical reasoning?"
Yes which you've shown by reasoning me stating "Attraction is discrimination" is me saying discrimination is wrong. LMFAO

[Asker]

Just because you thought I said it based on a misinterpretation doesn't mean it's not a lie. That means it's a lie based on misinterpretation.

Still doesn't make me a liar because I thought it was truth. You could say it was a lie but that doesn't make me a liar. I believed it to be true. If I knew it was the truth and lied then I'm a liar.

[udolipixie]

"You think specific discrimination isn't wrong. What's not illogical about that?"
It's not illogical as the specific discrimination is in regards to choosing a romantic/sexual partner. It's understandable that people would have a specific partner in mind.

"There is no logical reason as to why women should only date guys that are tall."
Egh I don't do should or shouldn't. There is a logical reason as to why it's suited for a gal to only date guys that are tall and that reason is if she's attracted to tall guys and finds attraction important in a partner.

[Asker]

No I did not. Nowhere did I insist you had a 'emotion response'...especially as I didn't use those words.

LMFAO!!! What are even saying?

[Asker]

XD LOL!!!

[Asker]

I've said over and over your guess is incorrect.

[Asker]

As it doesn't apply to me.

[udolipixie]

"My claim was based on misinterpretation not a lie."
Your claim was a lie. Stating it makes you a liar.

It's a lie based on if it's true or not based on why it was said.

Because yo said it due to misinterpretation doesn't change that you said I said something I didn't and that's a lie.

[Asker]

You still bringing up that misinterpretation and then saying I have illogical reasoning because of it when my "illogical reasoning" is not based on that? LMAO!!! Pathetic.

[udolipixie]

"LMFAO!!! What are even saying?"
I'm saying I didn't insist you had a emotion response.

You brought up the phrase 'emotion response'. I can't insist something you brought up. LMFAO

[Asker]

It's not illogical as the specific discrimination is in regards to choosing a romantic/sexual partner. It's understandable that people would have a specific partner in mind.

It's illogical that you think that's ok to be like that.

[udolipixie]

"I've said over and over your guess is incorrect."
So first you state it's a guess then I insisted and now it's back to guess.

So which is it did I insist or did I guess? Can't keep your story straight it seems? LMFAO

[Asker]

Egh I don't do should or shouldn't. There is a logical reason as to why it's suited for a gal to only date guys that are tall and that reason is if she's attracted to tall guys and finds attraction important in a partner.

You don't do should or shouldn't? Yeah ok.

[Asker]

Your claim was a lie. Stating it makes you a liar.

My claim was a lie based on misinterpretation. Stating it does not make me a liar but someone who interpreted something incorrectly.

[udolipixie]

You still bringing up that misinterpretation and then saying I have illogical reasoning because of it when my "illogical reasoning" is not based on that? LMAO!!! Pathetic."
Pathetic to you.

Your misinterpretation is relevant as it suggests your lacking reasoning ability and reading comprehending.

You reasoning doesn't have to be based on the misinterpretation.

That you got this misinterpretation and have continuously done similar suggests you have illogical reasoning skills.

[Asker]

Because yo said it due to misinterpretation doesn't change that you said I said something I didn't and that's a lie.

LOL!!

[Asker]

I'm saying I didn't insist you had a emotion response.

You brought up the phrase 'emotion response'. I can't insist something you brought up. LMFAO

You shouldn't say I'm a liar with statement. WTF.

[Asker]

*with that statement.

[udolipixie]

"It's illogical that you think that's ok to be like that."
It's illogical to you.. seemingly because it excludes others.

A romantic/sexual partner generally is someone a person is attracted to and finds appealing.

It's logical for a person to act in a manner that fits the purpose, intent, or desire of a romantic/sexual partner.

[Asker]

So first you state it's a guess then I insisted and now it's back to guess.

So which is it did I insist or did I guess? Can't keep your story straight it seems? LMFAO

This is funny stuff. Are you a comedian? Let's go with guess. LOL!! For 500.

[udolipixie]

"You don't do should or shouldn't? Yeah ok."
I don't unless it pertains to harming children or animals.

In fact when you told me that I said "you should" or 'people should' I corrected you telling you I didn't and asked you to show me where I did so. Which you didn't.

[Asker]

Your misinterpretation is relevant as it suggests your lacking reasoning ability and reading comprehending.

"Suggest". Your suggestion is incorrect just like you guessing I had/have a emotional response just because I asked a question that evoked one from you.

[udolipixie]

"My claim was a lie"
Yes it was.

"Stating it does not make me a liar but someone who interpreted something incorrectly."
Stating a lie makes you a liar. It doesn't matter why it was said when it's a lie.

You interpreted something incorrectly then you lied by saying I said it.

[udolipixie]

"You shouldn't say I'm a liar with statement. WTF."
That statement doesn't discredit me saying you're a liar.

I didn't bring up the phrase 'emotion response'. You did. I stated 'emotional response'.

[udolipixie]

"Your suggestion is incorrect just like you guessing I had/have a emotional response just because I asked a question that evoked one from you."

My suggestion seems to be quite correct your illogical reasoning.

I didn't guess you had/have a emotional response because you asked a question that evoked one from me.

I guessed your reasoning was based on emotional reaction because when discussing why discrimination is wrong your questioning was feelings.

[Asker]

A romantic/sexual partner generally is someone a person is attracted to and finds appealing.

It's logical for a person to act in a manner that fits the purpose, intent, or desire of a romantic/sexual partner.

This appeal is based on many factors. Maybe in some cases it isn't. If it isn't is that wrong? I say yes.

[Asker]

That statement doesn't discredit me saying you're a liar.

I didn't bring up the phrase 'emotion response'. You did. I stated 'emotional response'

LMAO!! Yeah. Anything else?

[Asker]

You finished?

[udolipixie]

I thought you grasped that I guessed your reasoning is based on emotional reaction because when discussing why it's wrong you talk and question about feelings.

You asking questions that evoke emotions isn't why I stated my guess. You asking these questions when discussing why something is wrong is why I stated my guess.

[udolipixie]

"This appeal is based on many factors. Maybe in some cases it isn't. If it isn't is that wrong? I say yes."
Doesn't mean what you say is correct, right, or the truth as you alluded to ala "And I'm right".

"You finished?"
Are you? Considering I've been responding to your responses. LMFAO

[Asker]

My suggestion seems to be quite correct your illogical reasoning.

o.O

I didn't guess you had/have a emotional response because you asked a question that evoked one from me.

I guessed your reasoning was based on emotional reaction because when discussing why discrimination is wrong your questioning was feelings.

You said you never said it applied to me yet guessed that my reasoning for why I think discrimination is wrong is because of a emotional response. I'm saying that he emotional response has nothing to do with me. I should have restated the question to everyone because while I am short the question was really a general one that really doesn't apply to me. This is my very first question though so yeah.

[Asker]

I thought you grasped that I guessed your reasoning is based on emotional reaction because when discussing why it's wrong you talk and question about feelings.

You asking questions that evoke emotions isn't why I stated my guess. You asking these questions when discussing why something is wrong is why I stated my guess.

You mean the one specific preference question?

[Asker]

Doesn't mean what you say is correct, right, or the truth as you alluded to ala "And I'm right".

Am I wrong? LOL!! Nope.

[Asker]

"You finished?"
Are you? Considering I've been responding to your responses. LMFAO

Guess not. The fun show continues.

[udolipixie]

"You mean the one specific preference question?"
Actually it was two questions and you asked it another variation of it.

In my opinion if an emotional reaction is not the basis of the reasoning why ask how I'd feel if guys reacted in the manner you think is 'wrong' for gals to do? o.O

[Asker]

Actually it was two questions and you asked it another variation of it.

What other question? You mean the one where I got specific with the 10 million and 4 million? All that?

[Asker]

In my opinion if an emotional reaction is not the basis of the reasoning why ask how I'd feel if guys reacted in the manner you think is 'wrong' for gals to do? o.O

So you could understand that part of my belief.

[Asker]

And I'm saying it's not a emotional reaction for me but it could be for others.

[Asker]

That doesn't mean I have a emotional reaction to it like you guessed.

[udolipixie]

"So you could understand that part of my belief."
That is why I guessed it's based on emotional reaction.

If asking me how I'd feel and if I'd be upset is your way of trying to get me to understand why this is wrong then I'm guessing your reasoning behind why it's wrong is based on emotional reaction.

[udolipixie]

"And I'm saying it's not a emotional reaction for me but it could be for others."
You just seemingly stated you asked those questions for understanding of your belief. Those questions were about feelings and being upset...that suggests your reasoning is based on emotional reaction.

As well as the discussion was about you specifically why you think it's wrong so I'm unsure why you're seemingl saying you were talking about others.

[Asker]

That is why I guessed it's based on emotional reaction.

If asking me how I'd feel and if I'd be upset is your way of trying to get me to understand why this is wrong then I'm guessing your reasoning behind why it's wrong is based on emotional reaction.

But not MY emotional reaction. Capeesh? I again didn't state the question on this right. I am short but I personally have never had a problem with my height. Most girls found me cute anyway. I was speaking for other short guys.

[Asker]

Other short guys agree that it's a problem and yeah some of them get emotional about it. That is why some try to run their mouth and be more aggressive. Again that's not the whole reason why I believe it's wrong though.

[udolipixie]

"Am I wrong? LOL!! Nope"
In your opinion you're not wrong. LMFAO

"So you could understand that part of my belief."
"And I'm saying it's not a emotional reaction for me but it could be for others."

So first you seemingly state asking how I'd fee is part of your belief yet reasoning based on emotional response is for others? o.O

If feelings and being upset is part of understanding your belief then it seems your reasoning is based on emotional reaction.

[udolipixie]

"But not MY emotional reaction. Capeesh? I again didn't state the question on this right."
I'm not talking about the original question 'why don't girls like short guys'.

I'm talking about you asking me how I'd feel if guys were discriminating and if I'd be upset as a way of me understanding that part of your belief.

If asking me about feelings is part of your belief it seems your reasoning is based on emotional reaction.

[udolipixie]

Your belief is seemingly that it's wrong to be discriminating.

You asked me how I'd feel if guys made a big deal out of preferences and if I'd be upset.

You said you asked that so I could understand part of your belief.

That to me suggests your reasoning is based on emotional reaction.

Or are you now going to backtrack and state that's not a part of your belief? o.O

[Asker]

You just seemingly stated you asked those questions for understanding of your belief. Those questions were about feelings and being upset...that suggests your reasoning is based on emotional reaction.

As well as the discussion was about you specifically why you think it's wrong so I'm unsure why you're seemingl saying you were talking about others.

I see what your trying to say but no. Just because I think it's wrong doesn't mean it's happened to me. Now does it mean it upsets me? No not really now that I've thought about it. Yet I still feel it's wrong. I guess I can understand why other may have a emotional response even if it hasn't happened to me?

[Asker]

In your opinion you're not wrong. LMFAO

In your opinion I am wrong. LMFAO

[Asker]

So first you seemingly state asking how I'd fee is part of your belief yet reasoning based on emotional response is for others? o.O

I wanted to know if you were in a certain situation as others would you have a emotional response. Never did I apply that to me nor did I say I have a emotional response. Just because I can reason with the emotional response of others doesn't mean I have had a emotional response nor does it suggest I want to.

[udolipixie]

"I see what your trying to say but no. Just because I think it's wrong doesn't mean it's happened to me. "
Egh it seems you don't see what I'm trying to state. I didn't state or suggest because you think it's wrong that means it happened to you.

I'm not stating this happened to you.

I stating you using feelings and being upset so I could understand your belief suggests the reasoning is based on emotional reaction.

"Now does it mean it upsets me? No not really now that I've thought about it."
If it doesn't upset you then how is asking if it is upsetting a part of understanding your belief? o.O

[Asker]

Your belief is seemingly that it's wrong to be discriminating.

You asked me how I'd feel if guys made a big deal out of preferences and if I'd be upset.

You said you asked that so I could understand part of your belief.

That to me suggests your reasoning is based on emotional reaction.

Or are you now going to backtrack and state that's not a part of your belief? o.O

Yes it is based on emotional response but not mine. It's the emotional response of others I've seen and heard.

[Asker]

It's like someone saying some Muslims are bad people. They hear and see it but that doesn't mean they have experienced it.

[Asker]

Egh it seems you don't see what I'm trying to state. I didn't state or suggest because you think it's wrong that means it happened to you.

I'm not stating this happened to you.

I stating you using feelings and being upset so I could understand your belief suggests the reasoning is based on emotional reaction.

And I'm saying it is based on emotional reaction but just not mine.

[Asker]

But that's only part of my belief. My belief is not solely dependent on just the emotional response of others.

[Asker]

If it doesn't upset you then how is asking if it is upsetting a part of understanding your belief?

Because it hasn't happened to me yet I can sympathize with it. If it had maybe I would be upset but yet I can still understand why others would be upset. This is why I put YOU in a similar situation.

[udolipixie]

"Never did I apply that to me nor did I say I have a emotional response. Just because I can reason with the emotional response of others doesn't mean I have had a emotional response nor does it suggest I want to."
I'm unsure why you're still telling me you didn't have an emotional response when nowhere did I seemingly said you have an emotional response.

I said it seems your reasoning is based on emotional reaction.

I didn't state the emotional reaction is yours.

What I attributed to being yours is the reasoning not the emotional reaction.

Can you grasp that or are you still going to tell me about how you're not getting rejected for being short and how you don't have an emotional response? o.O

[udolipixie]

"Yes it is based on emotional response but not mine. It's the emotional response of others I've seen and heard."
Ah so yo do grasp I was saying your reasoning is based on emotional reaction. Not that I was saying the emotional reaction is yours.

[udolipixie]

"Because it hasn't happened to me yet I can sympathize with it."
Egh this is actually implying that your reasoning is based on other's emotional reaction (upset) and your emotional reaction (sympathy feeling pity or sorrow).

[Asker]

"Never did I apply that to me nor did I say I have a emotional response. Just because I can reason with the emotional response of others doesn't mean I have had a emotional response nor does it suggest I want to."
I'm unsure why you're still telling me you didn't have an emotional response when nowhere did I seemingly said you have an emotional response.

I said it seems your reasoning is based on emotional reaction.

I didn't state the emotional reaction is yours.

What I attributed to being yours is the reasoning not the emotional reaction.

Can you grasp that or are you still going to tell me about how you're not getting rejected for being short and how you don't have an emotional response? o.O

LOL!!! XD I love your responses. Yes but can you grasp that by giving you a question that puts you in a situation in which you would get discriminated against based on a very specific preference was a attempt for you to...

[Asker]

...(I ran out of characters) I mean a attempt for me to get you to understand the emotional response of others? o.O

[udolipixie]

"It's like someone saying some Muslims are bad people. They hear and see it but that doesn't mean they have experienced it."
Not really this is more like me stating something is wrong and when you ask why I respond with how would you feel if guys did that to you.

I'm still unsure why you're seemingly stuck on experiences as nowhere did I state I'm guessing this based on you experiencing this..O.O

It's odd to me how often and rampant you seem to be about how this hasn't happened to you when I haven't said it has. O.O

[Asker]

Ah so yo do grasp I was saying your reasoning is based on emotional reaction. Not that I was saying the emotional reaction is yours.

Yes Queen of intelligence.

[udolipixie]

I already grasped it was your attempt for me to understand the emotional response of others.

Hence why I stated it seems your reasoning is based on emotional reaction. Which you admitted.

[Asker]

Egh this is actually implying that your reasoning is based on other's emotional reaction (upset) and your emotional reaction (sympathy feeling pity or sorrow).

I mean empathy. They are different.

[udolipixie]

"Yes Queen of intelligence."
It took you in my opinion quite some time to grasp that "your reasoning is based on emotional reaction" is saying your reasoning is based on emotional reaction not that you have the emotional reaction. LMFAO

[udolipixie]

"I mean empathy. They are different."
I'm aware empathy and sympathy are definition...o.O

It seems you're prone to stating things when you really mean another. lol

[Asker]

Not really this is more like me stating something is wrong and when you ask why I respond with how would you feel if guys did that to you.

I'm still unsure why you're seemingly stuck on experiences as nowhere did I state I'm guessing this based on you experiencing this..O.O

It's odd to me how often and rampant you seem to be about how this hasn't happened to you when I haven't said it has. O.O

What your responding to here was before I read your other post.

[udolipixie]

So it appears my guess was correct your reasoning is based on emotional reaction. That in my opinion is illogical reasoning.

[Asker]

I already grasped it was your attempt for me to understand the emotional response of others.

Hence why I stated it seems your reasoning is based on emotional reaction. Which you admitted.

Right right.

[Asker]

It took you in my opinion quite some time to grasp that "your reasoning is based on emotional reaction" is saying your reasoning is based on emotional reaction not that you have the emotional reaction. LMFAO

Hence why I said your the Queen of intelligence. LOL!! Smh.

[Asker]

I'm aware empathy and sympathy are definition...o.O

It seems you're prone to stating things when you really mean another. lol

All mighty wise one. I guess you like correcting everything someone says don't you?

[Asker]

So it appears my guess was correct your reasoning is based on emotional reaction. That in my opinion is illogical reasoning.

Your opinion.

[Asker]

Discrimination can also be based on a emotional reaction. Attraction can also be based on a emotional reaction. Is that illogical reasoning? No. Is it wrong in my opinion? Yes.

[Asker]

Correction: Attraction based on a emotional reaction from solely height is wrong in my opinion. Illogical yeah but others think it's logical.

[udolipixie]

"I guess you like correcting everything someone says don't you?"
I guess you're overlooking you corrected yourself. I merely commented on your self correction.

"Your opinion."
I'm aware of that hence why I said "that in my opinion" LMFAO

You seem prone to state this is my opinion...yet when it comes to your statements its "And I'm right"...nothing about it being your opinion LMFAO

[udolipixie]

"Is it wrong in my opinion? Yes."
Ah so you admit it's your opinion. Interesting change from how you initially talked about how it's wrong as if its fact or the truth.

[udolipixie]

Seeing as you're admitting it's your opinion rather than you're right and this is the truth then it suited to agree to disagree. (?)

[Asker]

You seem prone to state this is my opinion...yet when it comes to your statements its "And I'm right"...nothing about it being your opinion LMFAO

LMAO!!!

[udolipixie]

"LMAO!!!"
That was a response to your previous post as I didn't see your earlier one.

Unsure why you're LMAOing considering you've been lately responding to my posts as well.o.O

[Asker]

Seeing as you're admitting it's your opinion rather than you're right and this is the truth then it suited to agree to disagree.

Seeing as how I'm not wrong and I only used the words you used (which was that it's my opinion). I said it's my opinion because that's what you think it is. I was mocking you but it went over your head I guess. I agree to disagree.

[Asker]

Unsure why you're LMAOing considering you've been lately responding to my posts as well.o.O

I was just laughing. I didn't have anything to say. Yeah we can't keep responding to each other. It's nothing.

[udolipixie]

"Seeing as how I'm not wrong "...LMFAO @ how you claim I always think I'm right.

" I was mocking you but it went over your head I guess. "
Meh it was quite a fail mocking. When I mocked you by saying you seemed angry in response to you saying I'm angry was a cool mocking. You seemingly threw such a hissy fit insisting I let it go. LMFAO

[Asker]

*we can

[udolipixie]

"I agree to disagree."
Okay then. So since it seems that discussion is over what are we responding to each other about then? o.O

[Asker]

I failed at mocking you? :(

Oh so you did say I was angry? I thought you said you didn't say that?

[Asker]

Okay then. So since it seems that discussion is over what are we responding to each other about then? o.O

You saying that you never said I was angry and now saying that you did say I was angry.

Can I ask you something though?

[udolipixie]

"Oh so you did say I was angry? "
No I didn't.

"I thought you said you didn't say that?"
I did say you were angry.

I said you seemed angry.

Even the post you're referring to states that" When I mocked you by saying you seemed angry"...you seemed angry. LMFAO

[udolipixie]

* edit
"I didn't say you were angry."

[udolipixie]

"You saying that you never said I was angry and now saying that you did say I was angry. "
I didn't just now say I said you were angry.

I said "I mocked you by saying you seemed angry".

I've repeatedly stated I said you seemed angry not that I stated you are angry.

[udolipixie]

"Can I ask you something though?"
Go ahead doesn't mean I'll answer. That seems to depend on if you pull some bs about it.

[Asker]

Seemed implies that you think I'm angry but your unsure if I'm angry. It still means you think I'm angry even if your unsure if it's true or not.

[Asker]

Can I ask you two questions? Answer these two and I'm done for the time being. I gotta cook breakfast. I'm hungry.

[udolipixie]

There's a difference between thinking you're angry and telling you that you're angry. One is stating my opinion on what it seems to me and the other is telling you what you feel.

[udolipixie]

"Can I ask you two questions?"
Go ahead doesn't mean I'll answer. That seems to depend on if you pull some bs about it.

[Asker]

There's a difference between thinking you're angry and telling you that you're angry. One is stating my opinion on what it seems to me and the other is telling you what you feel.

Ok well I'm not angry so don't think I am.

[Asker]

What race are you?

What race do you want your romantic/sexual partner to be?

[udolipixie]

"Ok well I'm not angry so don't think I am."
You seem angry.

Amusing it wasn't enough to tell me what I think now you're seemingly telling me what I can and can't think. LMFAO

[udolipixie]

I already told you I'm not answering those questions with the bs you pulled.

[Asker]

Well I seem angry but I'm not angry.

[Asker]

Ok. Back to my breakfast.

[Asker]

Correction: I seem angry to you but I am not angry.

[Asker]

You seem to just not want to answer those questions out of anger.

[Asker]

I know one answer.

[udolipixie]

"I know one answer."
I doubt it considering an answer to one answers both.

If you already know one answer then you'd know both since I stated I wanted my partner to be the same race as me. LMFAO

[udolipixie]

"I seem angry to you"
Yes you do. LMFAO

It's amusing how you seemingly have such an issue with me stating this.

It was funny and possibly telling hypocrisy of yours considering I brought up that you seem angry because you kept telling me I was angry so I was mocking you.

[Asker]

I doubt it considering an answer to one answers both.

If you already know one answer then you'd know both since I stated I wanted my partner to be the same race as me. LMFAO

Well in that case I know what race your not.

[udolipixie]

"Well in that case I know what race your not."
It's suited that you would have a guess considering I eliminated being Black, Hispanic, and Native American.

I'm unsure of the point of your "I know" bit. I have no issue with you knowing the answer. I simply have no interest in giving you a direct answer considering the bs you pulled when asking the question.

[Asker]

*Well in that case I know what races your not.

[Asker]

Problem is you said I said you were angry and you said I seem angry. They are not the same so how were you mocking me?

[udolipixie]

"They are not the same so how were you mocking me?"
It's not required for me to be doing the exact same thing to mock you. The similarity was speaking about the other's emotion. You told me mine I stated what seemed to be yours.

It was quite successful mocking in my opinion considering the hissy fit you seemingly threw and insisting I let it go. It was ironic hypocrisy of yours in my opinion.

[Asker]

"No I would not date a short guy, black guy, hispanic guy, Asian guy, or Indian guy. I'm not attracted to them and I date what I find attractive."

At that point when I said Indian I meant middle-eastern. Later when I started talking about genetics and myself I said Indian but clarified by saying this time I meant Native American. You just now said you eliminated Native American. So now I have no idea what race you are because that eliminates most races in the United States (where you live according to your profile). Well that and another statement you made somewhere else.

[udolipixie]

Are you aware that mocking is defined as:
"tease or laugh at in a scornful or contemptuous manner."

The 'contempt' bit to me is more of showing a lack of respect and approval for you not hatred.

I'm unsure why you seem to think it's means doing the same thing. That's copycatting to me.

[Asker]

Yet I said I wasn't angry and you even kept backing up saying that you didn't say I was angry. Your mocking is weak seeing as how I called you angry and when I said I wasn't you backed up and said it only seems that way.

[Asker]

I said you know how I feel better than I do (sarcastically) and since you don't not only was I picking at you with sarcasm but also it makes your mocking weak since your seems are not what is right.

[udolipixie]

"At that point when I said Indian I meant middle-eastern. Later when I started talking about genetics and myself I said Indian but clarified by saying this time I meant Native American."
I'm aware you stated something when you meant something else...something you seem to do a lot of.

That's I'm now using the word you intended 'Native American' rather than the one you used 'Indian'.

"So now I have no idea what race you are because that eliminates most races in the United States (where you live according to your profile)."
LMFAO

"Well that and another statement you made somewhere else."
You seem to be quite interested in me as you made several implications of reading my posts/comments outside of this discussion.

Wow if you'd go to such lengths. Quite telling if you'd do that rather than acknowledge what you did and admit it was a fault.

[Asker]

Even if it's mocking is a mighty weak one.

[Asker]

Based on a seem that isn't true.

[Asker]

I said let it go because you kept seemly ranting about it.

[udolipixie]

It was quite a strong one in my opinion considering you're seemingly still whining about it.

It was hilarious to me seeing you insist and insist I let it go. You were seemingly so rampant about it. LMFAO

[udolipixie]

"Based on a seem that isn't true."
So? Your statements telling me what I think, what I feel, and who I am weren't true. You still said them and insisted you were right. LMFAO

[Asker]

So both Indian and Native American are eliminated. I just wanted to clarify and technically saying Indian and meaning Middle-eastern is not incorrect as India is in the Middle-east. Also some people do call Native Americans Indians but I don't like that term so I felt the need to be politically correct. So in essence I didn't state something and mean something else.

If you consider reading a few of your other posts as great lengths then ok Count Von Count.

[udolipixie]

"I said let it go because you kept seemly ranting about it."
I doubt that as I wasn't ranting about it.

I made a single comment about in the midst of responding to you going on and on telling me I'm angry and so mad.

When I saw how it seemed you took such an issue to it I decided to continue.

[udolipixie]

If I kept seemingly ranting about it...then you were seemingly ranting telling me what I feel.

As my 'seemingly ranting' was a tease response to you telling me over and over what I feel.

[Asker]

Oh I was rampant about it? o.O When you were the one saying I seemed angry and I debated you on it and then said to let it go yet you still brought it up and bringing it up now?

[udolipixie]

"If you consider reading a few of your other posts as great lengths then ok Count Von Count."
I do considering it suggests this answer is so important to you that'd you'd search through my other answers and comments for mentions of race. LMFAO

[Asker]

I mocked you on it because of your persistence to keep bringing it up.

[Asker]

So your mocking was weak.

[Asker]

The single comment came with you constantly bringing it up. You even said that you thought I only have a problem with it because it's you saying I was angry. Or seemly angry.

[Asker]

I continually said I was not angry yet you kept saying that I seemed angry.

[Asker]

Sounds like ranting to me.

[udolipixie]

"Oh I was rampant about it?"
You were seemingly so rampant about it. Stating you debated me on it supports that you were rampant. LMFAO

"When you were the one saying I seemed angry and I debated you on it and then said to let it go yet you still brought it up and bringing it up now?"
I brought it up to show I mocked you just as you mocked me. You're the one who is continuing to bring it up by seemingly continue your rampant insistence you're not angry.

[Asker]

If I was seemly ranting then it would be telling you I'm not angry and can you quit bringing it up. Yet you kept bringing it up.

[udolipixie]

"I mocked you on it because of your persistence to keep bringing it up."
You didn't seem to be mocking me rather it was seemingly you throwing a hissy fit.

So you're now saying you were mocking me mocking you?

LMFAO @ "your persistence to keep bringing it up"
I brought it up presently to show I mocked you as well when you stated you were mocking me by stating it's your opinion.

You're the one who is persisting in having it talked about by rather than take it as a statement that I was mocking you to debate that you weren't angry. LMFAO

[Asker]

You went through great lengths to try to justify your opinion.

[udolipixie]

It's really hilarious hypocrisy to me that you state I persist in bringing it up considering I stated it as a response to you repeatedly persistently telling me what I feel. LOL

[Asker]

I debated it because you seemed to rant about it. I also have said that if you'd quit bringing it up I'd quit saying I wasn't angry.

[Asker]

No you kept bringing it up don't lie.

[Asker]

As a matter of fact I brought it up this last time to mock you for constantly bringing it up the other times.

[udolipixie]

"I continually said I was not angry yet you kept saying that I seemed angry."
"Sounds like ranting to me."

So you were ranting as well. I continually told you I was not angry yet you kept saying I am angry. LMFAO

"So your mocking was weak."
Not in my opinion considering you seemingly threw a hissy fit, insisted I let it go, and you're still debating it. LMFAO

[Asker]

You didn't seem to be mocking me rather it was seemingly you throwing a hissy fit.

So you're now saying you were mocking me mocking you?

Read my other recent comments.

[udolipixie]

"You went through great lengths to try to justify your opinion."
To you it seemed I went through great lengths.

[Asker]

LMFAO @ "your persistence to keep bringing it up"
I brought it up presently to show I mocked you as well when you stated you were mocking me by stating it's your opinion.

You're the one who is persisting in having it talked about by rather than take it as a statement that I was mocking you to debate that you weren't angry. LMFAO

Again read my other recent comments.

[Asker]

Yet that was like what a day ago? The rest of the time was you bringing it up and me talking about it because you brought it up. This time I mocked you by bringing it up again. Something you've done over and over again.

[udolipixie]

"No you kept bringing it up don't lie."
"As a matter of fact I brought it up this last time to mock you for constantly bringing it up the other times."
It seems you can't keep your story straight first it's I kept bringing it up now it's you brought it up. LMFAO

[udolipixie]

"I debated it because you seemed to rant about it."
If that seemed to be a rant then you seemed to rant as well as you continously told me I was angry.

"I also have said that if you'd quit bringing it up I'd quit saying I wasn't angry."
That's irrelevant. I brought it up to tease you as a response to you telling me I'm angry.

You quit saying you weren't angry isn't an incentive for me to quit bringing it up. An incentive would have been you acknowledging that you told me my feelings and admitting that was a fault.

[Asker]

So you were ranting as well. I continually told you I was not angry yet you kept saying I am angry. LMFAO

No but even if I did I quit (except this last time to mock you) you didn't you kept it going.

[Asker]

Not in my opinion considering you seemingly threw a hissy fit, insisted I let it go, and you're still debating it. LMFAO

Your opinion.

[udolipixie]

"No"
Yes you did. If me continually bringing up something is seemingly ranting then you continually bringing up something is ranting.

[Asker]

"You went through great lengths to try to justify your opinion."
To you it seemed I went through great lengths.

Just like to you when I stopped and mocked you on it this time that means I'm ranting when you've been ranting about me seemly being angry and not stopping. If I'm ranting you HAVE to be ranting and still doing it after I stopped and mocked you this last time.

[udolipixie]

"but even if I did I quit (except this last time to mock you) you didn't you kept it going."
It's amusing that I stated I did it to mock you and you respond with how you're mocking me about it. LMFAO

Doesn't seem you're mocking rather you're seemingly throwing a hissy fit about how you're not angry.

[Asker]

It seems you can't keep your story straight first it's I kept bringing it up now it's you brought it up. LMFAO

No it's I stopped bringing it up except this last time to mock you and yes once you started ranting about it you didn't stop.

[Asker]

If that seemed to be a rant then you seemed to rant as well as you continously told me I was angry

You spelled continuously wrong but didn't I already address this statement?

[Asker]

You quit saying you weren't angry isn't an incentive for me to quit bringing it up. An incentive would have been you acknowledging that you told me my feelings and admitting that was a fault.

So you did continuously bring it up? Get your story straight.

[udolipixie]

"Just like to you when I stopped and mocked you on it this time that means I'm ranting when you've been ranting about me seemly being angry and not stopping."
When you stopped I stopped as I was responding to your responses.

You even admitted that you're the one continuing this discussion.

This isn't me ranting about you seeming to be angry. You stated you mocked me by stating 'in your opinion' and I stated I mocked you as well by saying you seem angry.

You're the one going on about it and debating it. You even admit such.

" If I'm ranting you HAVE to be ranting and still doing it after I stopped and mocked you this last time."
You keep saying you're mocking me..if so it's a mighty weak one to me. Your idea of mocking seems to be telling me you're not angry. LMFAO

[Asker]

Yes you did. If me continually bringing up something is seemingly ranting then you continually bringing up something is ranting.

Yet I stopped (expect for this one last time) and you didn't.

[udolipixie]

"You spelled continuously wrong but didn't I already address this statement?"
Really now you're going to comment on my spelling...you who have made reading and reasoning mistakes. LMFAO

FYI You're responding to previous comments not recent ones.

[Asker]

It's amusing that I stated I did it to mock you and you respond with how you're mocking me about it. LMFAO

Doesn't seem you're mocking rather you're seemingly throwing a hissy fit about how you're not angry.

Now that I've thought about it really was just copy catting. You were doing the mocking which could be seen as having a hissy fit. I just was doing what you did. You said copy catting ain't the same as mocking in your opinion.

[udolipixie]

"So you did continuously bring it up? Get your story straight."
My story is straight- I continuously brought it up when you told me you're not angry. I stopped when you stopped as I was responding to you.

[Asker]

Yes you did. If me continually bringing up something is seemingly ranting then you continually bringing up something is ranting.

But mine was copy catting your rant.

[udolipixie]

"Yet I stopped (expect for this one last time) and you didn't."
If you brought it up that means you didn't stopped.

[Asker]

When you stopped I stopped as I was responding to your responses.

You even admitted that you're the one continuing this discussion.

This isn't me ranting about you seeming to be angry. You stated you mocked me by stating 'in your opinion' and I stated I mocked you as well by saying you seem angry.

You're the one going on about it and debating it. You even admit such.

I thought copy catting wasn't mocking? Get your story straight. LOL!!

[udolipixie]

"But mine was copy catting your rant."
That's fail.

You repeatedly told me I was angry and 'so mad'.

As a response I said you seemed angry.

You seemingly threw a hissy fit, insisted you weren't, and rampantly told me to stop saying it.

I don't think you know what copycatting as there's no copycatting my 'rant' in that.

[Asker]

You keep saying you're mocking me..if so it's a mighty weak one to me. Your idea of mocking seems to be telling me you're not angry. LMFAO

My idea of mocking is/was copy catting but yours isn't. I was copy catting stuff you do because I thought it was funny.

[Asker]

Really now you're going to comment on my spelling...you who have made reading and reasoning mistakes. LMFAO

Apparently you have too. How did you spell continuously again?

[udolipixie]

"I thought copy catting wasn't mocking? Get your story straight. LOL!!"
It is straight.

You're the one changing things up.

First you stated you were mocking me. Now you're stating you were copycatting me.

Again your thought is wrong. I said mocking doesn't necessarily have to equate to doing the same thing that's copycatting to me.
"I'm unsure why you seem to think it's means doing the same thing. That's copycatting to me."

That's not saying mocking isn't copycatting. That's saying doing the same thing is copycatting. LMFAO

[udolipixie]

It seems you're really reaching for things to argue against and refute.

You claim my story isn't straight because you said you were mocking now you say you were copycatting.

You changing how you label what you did doesn't mean my story isn't straight because 'copycatting wasn't mocking'.

It means your story isn't straight. LMFAO

[Asker]

My story is straight- I continuously brought it up when you told me you're not angry. I stopped when you stopped as I was responding to you.

No your seem that I am/was angry was in your responses regardless. Even when I stopped. They are in it now because I did copy cat you this last time.

[udolipixie]

"My idea of mocking is/was copy catting but yours isn't. I was copy catting stuff you do because I thought it was funny."
I can understand how you who seem prone to think he's right and he speaks the truth can find it funny that another acknowledges the difference between a fact and an opinion. LMFAO

[udolipixie]

"Apparently you have too. How did you spell continuously again?"
Apparently I have not. I have made spelling mistakes as you did.

[Asker]

If you brought it up that means you didn't stopped.

And you talking to me about reading comprehension? Focus on your grammar first. I brought it up this last time but before that you were running the show LOL!!!

[udolipixie]

"No your seem that I am/was angry was in your responses regardless. Even when I stopped. They are in it now because I did copy cat you this last time."
LMFAO @ no just no.

[Asker]

That's fail.

You repeatedly told me I was angry and 'so mad'.

As a response I said you seemed angry.

You seemingly threw a hissy fit, insisted you weren't, and rampantly told me to stop saying it.

I don't think you know what copycatting as there's no copycatting my 'rant' in that.

Your response to me telling you you were angry was you saying I'm seemly angry. You say that's mocking me well if it is then that could also be seen as a hissy fit. Telling you to stop after I have is not throwing a hissy fit.

[udolipixie]

"And you talking to me about reading comprehension? Focus on your grammar first."
A single spelling mistake means I'm suited to focus on my grammar.

Then it seems suited for you to focus on your reading comprehension and grammar. LMFAO

It's telling that you can't argue or refute my statements rather nitpick the spelling mistakes...which you have also made.

[udolipixie]

"Based on what you quoted that's an unnecessary focus.
Seems according to several

I brought it up this last time but before that you were running the show LOL!!!"
You stated you stopped.

" I brought it up this last time but before that you were running the show LOL!!!"
Before that I was stating your reasoning seems to be based on emotional reaction since you're asking me how I'd feel and if I'd be upset.

[udolipixie]

*edit
" I brought it up this last time but before that you were running the show LOL!!!"
Before that I was stating your reasoning seems to be based on emotional reaction since you're asking me how I'd feel and if I'd be upset.

[Asker]

It is straight.

You're the one changing things up.

First you stated you were mocking me. Now you're stating you were copycatting me.

Again your thought is wrong. I said mocking doesn't necessarily have to equate to doing the same thing that's copycatting to me.
"I'm unsure why you seem to think it's means doing the same thing. That's copycatting to me."

That's not saying mocking isn't copycatting. That's saying doing the same thing is copycatting. LMFAO

LOL!!! So now they all mean the same thing? LOL!! Oh wait no not necessarily.

[Asker]

Before that I was stating your reasoning seems to be based on emotional reaction since you're asking me how I'd feel and if I'd be upset.

That has nothing to do with you saying I'm seemly angry. Or now are you saying that you thought the emotional reaction was mine?

[udolipixie]

"You say that's mocking me well if it is then that could also be seen as a hissy fit."
Egh in my opinion the only way that could be seen as as a hissy fit is if to you mocking is a hissy fit.

If so since you stated you're mocking me that means you're throwing a hissy fit. LMFAO

"Telling you to stop after I have is not throwing a hissy fit."
Telling me to stop, insisting I stop, telling me what I can't say and not to say what I have, and all while rampantly debating is throwing a hissy fit to me.

Let's not bs as if all you did was say stop after you did. You told me to stop in many ways before you actually stopped.

[Asker]

It seems you're really reaching for things to argue against and refute.

I'm not reaching for things to argue about. That's you. We can quit arguing now. Your the one who's flipping out because I picked on you this last time not me.

[Asker]

My grammar and sentence structure is apparently better than yours and your basing my reading comprehension on your opinions.

[Asker]

Egh in my opinion the only way that could be seen as as a hissy fit is if to you mocking is a hissy fit.

If so since you stated you're mocking me that means you're throwing a hissy fit. LMFAO

Well the whole thing with this part of the discussion is based on your opinion to begin with. Me not understanding your opinions doesn't mean I lack reading comprehension either.

[udolipixie]

"Your the one who's flipping out because I picked on you this last time not me."
I'm not flipping out.

You stated you mocked me. I found it amusing and stated I mocked you as well.

You seemingly didn't like how I mocked you because you rehashed the whole I'm not angry bit. LMFAO

[udolipixie]

"My grammar and sentence structure is apparently better than yours"
Again it's suited for you to focus on your grammar if a single spelling mistakes means it's suited for me to.

"and your basing my reading comprehension on your opinions."
I basing your reading comprehension your frequent 'misinterpretations'.

It's not an opinion that stating 'attraction is discrimination' means 'attraction is discrimination'.

That you didn't get what it means suggests you lack reading comprehension.

[udolipixie]

When I state something and you get something completely different to what it states that suggests you lack reading comprehension.

For example: I typed 'I have a blue car' and you get I typed 'I have a boat that is red'. That suggests you lack reading comprehension.

[Asker]

Telling me to stop, insisting I stop, telling me what I can't say and not to say what I have, and all while rampantly debating is throwing a hissy fit to me.

Let's not bs as if all you did was say stop after you did. You told me to stop in many ways before you actually stopped.

Again it's your opinion but I'm stopping.

[Asker]

I'm finished with the whole angry rant thing because it's based on your mocking/copy catting/ w/e you want to call it and your opinion/opinions.

[Asker]

And your opinion/opinions of that such matter doesn't matter.

[udolipixie]

"Well the whole thing with this part of the discussion is based on your opinion to begin with."
Actually the whole thing with this part of the discussion is based on your seemingly know it all mindset telling me what I feel.

"Me not understanding your opinions doesn't mean I lack reading comprehension either."
I didn't state not understanding my opinions mean you lack reading comprehension.

I stated you frequently getting something different than what a statement states suggests you lack reading comprehension.

For example: I typed "I like hot guys" and you don't understand why I like hot guys that's not a lacking reading comprehension. But if you got that "I like hot dogs" that's suggest a lacking reading comprehension.

[udolipixie]

"Again it's your opinion"
Just like you being right is your opinion.

"And your opinion/opinions of that such matter doesn't matter."
Just like yours don't matter.

LMFAO.

[Asker]

When I state something and you get something completely different to what it states that suggests you lack reading comprehension.

For example: I typed 'I have a blue car' and you get I typed 'I have a boat that is red'. That suggests you lack reading comprehension.

Your statements weren't like that. They were analogy about Veggies was based on your opinion. Not factual information. If you say broccoli is green then I comprehend that broccoli is green. If you say broccoli and carrots are not a different species after I say they are then that doesn't mean I lack reading comprehension. And they are factually different species so for me to believe that that still applies in your analogy is not lacking comprehension. It's lacking in understanding you viewpoint.

[Asker]

It's not an opinion that stating 'attraction is discrimination' means 'attraction is discrimination'.

But I comprehended that.

[Asker]

I didn't state not understanding my opinions mean you lack reading comprehension.

For example: I typed "I like hot guys" and you don't understand why I like hot guys that's not a lacking reading comprehension. But if you got that "I like hot dogs" that's suggest a lacking reading comprehension.

You make my point.

[Asker]

Just like yours don't matter.

...um...ok? LOL!!! Never said it did.

[udolipixie]

"Your statements weren't like that. They were analogy about Veggies was based on your opinion."
I stated in my opinion a person is not missing out by not seeking something they don't want and gave an example of a person wanting carrots not broccoli is not missing out by not getting broccoli.

"If you say broccoli and carrots are not a different species after I say they are then that doesn't mean I lack reading comprehension."
I didn't state you lack reading comprehension because of that.

I stated you lacked reading comprehension because you didn't comprehend the analogy was about how it's not missing out to not seek what you don't want. Instead you thought it was about saying different race guys are different species. O.O

[udolipixie]

"But I comprehended that."
You misinterpreted it. You thought 'Attraction is discrimination' means I'm saying discrimination is wrong.

You comprehended after I repeatedly continuously persisted told you what it means. That it took such for you to comprehend suggests you lack reading comprehension.

[Asker]

I stated you lacked reading comprehension because you didn't comprehend the analogy was about how it's not missing out to not seek what you don't want. Instead you thought it was about saying different race guys are different species. O.O

Yet what sparked such analogy was the fact that we were talking about you missing out on different races. It's pretty logical for me to believe that you were still adding that part into the missing out discussion. How am I suppose to believe you weren't when that's what we were talking about? And how does that show I lack comprehension? o.O

[udolipixie]

"You make my point."
I'm didn't make your point.

I stated in my opinion it's not missing out for a person to not seek what they don't want. With that I gave an example of a person wanting carrots not broccoli so they're not missing out by not getting broccoli.

I imagine most people would comprehend it's analogy about how it's not missing out to not seek what you don't want.

Instead you got that I was making an analogy about different race and nationality guys and saying they are a different species.

What you got suggests a lacking reading comprehension.

[udolipixie]

"It's pretty logical for me to believe that you were still adding that part into the missing out discussion."
It'd if logical if I had personalized the example and talked about race and nationality when giving it. Instead I generalized it and made it apply to any scenario of not wanting something.

"How am I suppose to believe you weren't when that's what we were talking about?"
By comprehending the first time when I stated I was responding to the logic of your claim that it's missing out to not seek what you don't want.

"And how does that show I lack comprehension?"
By repeatedly insisting it's about race and nationality when it wasn't mentioned and when I told you it wasn't. O.O

[Asker]

You misinterpreted it. You thought 'Attraction is discrimination' means I'm saying discrimination is wrong.

You comprehended after I repeatedly continuously persisted told you what it means. That it took such for you to comprehend suggests you lack reading comprehension.

Me thinking that you meant discrimination is wrong was because to me it is wrong. Our different opinions created your belief that I lack reading comprehension. Still doesn't mean I lack reading comprehension. Did I not get that the Attraction is discrimination part? It was only when opinions were brought into it that I misinterpret it. If not knowing your opinion is lacking reading comprehension (which it isn't) then you could say that.

[udolipixie]

I made a personal statement addressing how you think I'm missing out.

I then made an analogy addressing the logic of your claim that it's missing out to not seek something you don't want.
Note how I keep stating something...that means it can apply to any scenario meaning I wasn't adding it to be about race and nationality.

You combined both as it seems you don't comprehend the difference between addressing a claim and addressing it's logic.

[Asker]

I stated in my opinion it's not missing out for a person to not seek what they don't want. With that I gave an example of a person wanting carrots not broccoli so they're not missing out by not getting broccoli.

I imagine most people would comprehend it's analogy about how it's not missing out to not seek what you don't want.

Instead you got that I was making an analogy about different race and nationality guys and saying they are a different species.

What you got suggests a lacking reading comprehension.

Yet again I was applying the analogy to the before topic. Why else would you say it's not missing out for people to not seek what they want? What made you say that? Or was that random?

[udolipixie]

"Me thinking that you meant discrimination is wrong was because to me it is wrong"
That suggests you have projection issues and illogical reasoning as well as lacking reading comprehension.

So because you think something is wrong that means I'm saying it's wrong? LMFAO

"Our different opinions created your belief that I lack reading comprehension. Still doesn't mean I lack reading comprehension."
It's a created belief that you lack reading comprehension.

You frequently think a statement is saying something other than what it states. That suggests a lacking reading comprehension.

[udolipixie]

'Attraction is discrimination' means 'attraction is discrimination'. Instead you got that I was saying discrimination is wrong because you think it's wrong.

This is akin to:
I stated "I have a blue car"

You think I'm saying I hate blue cars because you hate blue cars.

That suggests you have lacking reading comprehension, projection issues, and illogical reasoning.

It's not logical reasoning to me to think something is stating something is wrong because you think it's wrong.

[Asker]

It'd if logical if I had personalized the example and talked about race and nationality when giving it. Instead I generalized it and made it apply to any scenario of not wanting something.

And your reasoning for the analogy was? Again how am I suppose to know that just because you made a general statement that it doesn't apply to our personal discussion about race and nationality when you stated it in the middle of that?

[udolipixie]

"Yet again I was applying the analogy to the before topic. Why else would you say it's not missing out for people to not seek what they want? What made you say that? Or was that random?"
I told you why. I was addressing the logic behind your claim.
Your claim was that I'm missing out by not dating different race and nationality guys I don't want.
Your logic behind the claim is that it's missing out to not seek what you don't want.

Again you can address a claim and it's logic.
For example:
You state "all cats like red because in my experience cats like red"

I address your claim with "all cats do not like red"

I address the logic behind your claim with "it's not logical to generalize all cats based on your experience"

[Asker]

I then made an analogy addressing the logic of your claim that it's missing out to not seek something you don't want.
Note how I keep stating something...that means it can apply to any scenario meaning I wasn't adding it to be about race and nationality.

Your reasoning for trying to address my logic is still based on our discussion about race and nationality. Just because you make a general statement doesn't always mean that it's meant to address logic. And again even in your general statement it was still used to address the logic of our discussion and therefore it is related.

[udolipixie]

"And your reasoning for the analogy was?"
I've repeatedly stated the reasoning. You're showing your lacking reading comprehension.

The reasoning for the analogy was to address the logic of your claim.

"Again how am I suppose to know that just because you made a general statement that it doesn't apply to our personal discussion about race and nationality when you stated it in the middle of that?"
By the way I provided it as an example to it's missing out for a person to not seek something they don't want.

By the way I didn't make it personal by using me and I.

By the way I didn't mention race and nationality.

By the way I stated it's addressing your logic.

By when I stated it's not about race and nationality when you claimed it was.

[Asker]

You frequently think a statement is saying something other than what it states. That suggests a lacking reading comprehension.

I frequently misinterpret your opinions on things such as general statements and mocking.

[Asker]

That's not lacking reading comprehension like you are suggesting.

[udolipixie]

In this scenario can you grasp which e statement is addressing the claim and which is addressing the logic?

You state: All cats like red because in my experience cats like red

I stated: All cats do not like red. It's not logical to generalize all of something based on your experience"

[udolipixie]

"Your reasoning for trying to address my logic is still based on our discussion about race and nationality."
That's what I've been stating. The analogy address the logic NOT the claim.

"Just because you make a general statement doesn't always mean that it's meant to address logic."
I'm unsure why you're telling me this as nowhere did I state making a general statement always means it's meant to address logic. I did state that is a way you could have seen I'm not addressing your claim as I made it general.

"And again even in your general statement it was still used to address the logic of our discussion and therefore it is related."
I didn't state it was unrelated. That was you. I stated it was addressing different things. There is a difference between addressing a claim and addressing the logic.

[udolipixie]

"I frequently misinterpret your opinions on things such as general statements and mocking."
You frequently think a statement is saying something other than what it states. You also frequently misinterpret my opinions.

It's thinking a statement is saying something other than it states to get that "Attraction is discrimination" means I'm saying discrimination is wrong.

It's also projection if the reason why you think I'm saying it is because you think discrimination is wrong.

[udolipixie]

"That's not lacking reading comprehension like you are suggesting."
It is lacking reading comprehension to think a statement is saying something other than what it states.

You got "Attraction is discrimination" means I'm saying discrimination is wrong because you think it's wrong.

It's akin to getting "I have a blue car" to mean I'm saying I hate blue cars because you hate them.

[Asker]

'Attraction is discrimination' means 'attraction is discrimination'. Instead you got that I was saying discrimination is wrong because you think it's wrong.

This is akin to:
I stated "I have a blue car"

You think I'm saying I hate blue cars because you hate blue cars.

More like I'm saying you love blue cars but they have to have tinted windows. I love blue cars regardless. Then me not knowing such car also has to have tinted windows for you to love them me saying you love blue cars. Just because I love blue cars doesn't mean you do even though you love blue cars. Say there is a blue car in front of us. You say you don't love it even though we both know you love blue cars. You don't love the blue car in front of us because it doesn't have tinted windows.

[Asker]

I told you why. I was addressing the logic behind your claim.
Your claim was that I'm missing out by not dating different race and nationality guys I don't want.
Your logic behind the claim is that it's missing out to not seek what you don't want.

What if my logic is case by case and not general like your statement?

[udolipixie]

"More like I'm saying you love blue cars but they have to have tinted windows. I love blue cars regardless. Then me not knowing such car also has to have tinted windows for you to love them me saying you love blue cars."
That proves my point.
I stated "I have a blue car"
You get I'm saying I love blue cars.

You are thinking the statement says something it doesn't state.

The statement was about having a blue car yet you got that it was about loving blue cars.

[udolipixie]

"What if my logic is case by case and not general like your statement?"
That wasn't the implication I got.

That wasn't what you stated. And you had plenty of times to state your logic when I was repeatedly stating what seemed to be your logic.

That you didn't suggests I was correct with my implication.

[Asker]

You state "all cats like red because in my experience cats like red"

I address your claim with "all cats do not like red"

I never said you are always missing out by seeking something you don't want. You made that general statement. In your red cat analogy it's like me saying cats like red and you saying not all cats like red.

[udolipixie]

You suggested lacking reading comprehension by thinking my statement is saying something it doesn't state (Getting 'Attraction is discrimination' means I"m saying discrimination is wrong)

You suggested lacking reading comprehension by not understanding how my response addressed your claim and your logic with different statements. (Vegetable analogy)

You suggested lacking reading comprehension by thinking I was stating you are basing your opinions on experiences. (When I created a hypothetical situation in which you did to show the difference between addressing a claim and the logic)

[Asker]

You are thinking the statement says something it doesn't state.

The statement was about having a blue car yet you got that it was about loving blue cars.

I changed the analogy when I said "more like". I also included tinted windows.

[Asker]

And love for cars not having one.

[udolipixie]

"I never said you are always missing out by seeking something you don't want. You made that general statement."
No I did not as that's not what I was addressing and I didn't use the word always.

I was addressing that it's missing out to not seek what you don't want.

I wasn't addressing 'you are always missing out by seeking something you don't want'. It seems you made a typing error there as I was talking about NOT seeking.

"In your red cat analogy it's like me saying cats like red and you saying not all cats like red."
No it's not as the analogy was addressing the logic of the claim NOT the claim. LMFAO

[Asker]

That wasn't the implication I got.

That wasn't what you stated. And you had plenty of times to state your logic when I was repeatedly stating what seemed to be your logic.

That you didn't suggests I was correct with my implication.

Well you had plenty of times to state things as well but were indifferent to do so. I did say specific discrimination is wrong remember? Wouldn't that mean case by case?

[udolipixie]

"I changed the analogy when I said "more like". I also included tinted windows."
But your analogy isn't applicable here. As it's excluding why you said I love blue cars.

You got that I said discrimination is wrong from "Attraction is discrimination".

That is like getting I said I hate blue cars from "I have a blue car".

[udolipixie]

"I did say specific discrimination is wrong remember? Wouldn't that mean case by case?"
But the analogy wasn't about discrimination remember?
It was about missing out by not seeking what you don't want which can apply to any scenario. As it's addressing logic not a claim.

If you mean that it's missing out in certain cases it's missing out you had plenty of time to state such.

[Asker]

You suggested lacking reading comprehension by thinking my statement is saying something it doesn't state (Getting 'Attraction is discrimination' means I"m saying discrimination is wrong)

But I comprehended that you said attraction is discrimination. It then seem at that point that if you believed attraction is discrimination you'd also believe discrimination is wrong as people do believe that discrimination is wrong.

You suggested lacking reading comprehension by not understanding how my response addressed your claim and your logic with different statements. (Vegetable analogy)

I know it addressed my claim. Your the one who says it doesn't. That would mean you lack comprehension.

[udolipixie]

In this scenario can you grasp that stating ;it's not logical to generalize all of something based on your experiences' isn't saying you always generalize based on your experience?

You state: All cats like red because in my experience cats like red

I stated: All cats do not like red. It's not logical to generalize all of something based on your experience.

[udolipixie]

"It then seem at that point that if you believed attraction is discrimination you'd also believe discrimination is wrong as people do believe that discrimination is wrong."
That it seemed such suggests lacking reading comprehension. You projected something onto me.

"I know it addressed my claim. Your the one who says it doesn't. That would mean you lack comprehension."
My response addressed your claim and the logic. I'm saying the vegetable analogy part addressed the logic.

This further supports you're lacking reading comprehension.

[Asker]

No I did not as that's not what I was addressing and I didn't use the word always.

I was addressing that it's missing out to not seek what you don't want.

I wasn't addressing 'you are always missing out by seeking something you don't want'. It seems you made a typing error there as I was talking about NOT seeking.

Yeah I meant not seeking.

[Asker]

No it's not as the analogy was addressing the logic of the claim NOT the claim. LMFAO

Yet the general statement applies to the claim otherwise you wouldn't have said it. LOL!! Otherwise you wouldn't have tried to generalize my claim. You said I have never stated my logic. If I never stated it how can you claim my logic? o.O And how can you say what my logic is in the first place?

[udolipixie]

LMFAO @ "I know it addressed my claim. Your the one who says it doesn't."
...
...
In a response to "my response addressed your claim and your logic"

"That would mean you lack comprehension."
That's you by how you state I'm the one saying my response doesn't address your claim when I just said "my response addressed your claim and your logic" LMFAO

[udolipixie]

"Yet the general statement applies to the claim otherwise you wouldn't have said it."
I didn't state it doesn't apply to the claim it's the logic of the claim so clearly it'll apply.

For example:
You state: All cats like red because in my experience cats like red

Can you grasp stating it's not logical to generalize all of something based on your experiences' is addressing the logic of the claim not the claim that all cats are red?

[udolipixie]

"You said I have never stated my logic."
No I did not. A search on this page will show I didn't state You never stated your logic.

I did state you didn't state your logic was case by case and not general.

"If I never stated it how can you claim my logic?"
I already showed how by the logic your claim seems to you.
If you state 'all cats I know like red' and 'all cats like red'. It seems your logic is generalizing all based on your experience.

"And how can you say what my logic is in the first place?"
Again by the logic your claim seems to use.

Asking these questions show you're lacking reading comprehension.

[Asker]

In this scenario can you grasp that stating ;it's not logical to generalize all of something based on your experiences' isn't saying you always generalize based on your experience?

You state: All cats like red because in my experience cats like red

I stated: All cats do not like red. It's not logical to generalize all of something based on your experience.

I still never said EVERYONE is missing out if they don't seek what they don't want.

Me: Cats like red

You: All cats do not like red

[Asker]

If I say cats like red that doesn't necessarily mean every cat.

[udolipixie]

Are you again lacking reading comprehension and getting I said 'You never stated your logic' from:
You: "What if my logic is case by case and not general like your statement?"
Me: "That wasn't what you stated."

Saying that you didn't state your logic is case by case not general is not stating you never stated your logic.

[Asker]

My response addressed your claim and the logic. I'm saying the vegetable analogy part addressed the logic.

This further supports you're lacking reading comprehension.

You fail to apply analogies correctly. I already address the claim and the logic thing. I feel like I'm repeating myself. Which would suggest you lacking reading comprehension according to what you think lacking in reading comprehension is.

[udolipixie]

Your cat analogy isn't applicable as I addressed your claim.
You: 'You're missing out by not dating different race and nationality guys' (paraphrasing)
Me: "I'm not missing out"

I'm not claiming you said EVERYONE is missing out if they don't seek what they don't want.

I am stating that it's missing out to not get seek what you don't want is the seeming logic of your claim.

[Asker]

That's you by how you state I'm the one saying my response doesn't address your claim when I just said "my response addressed your claim and your logic" LMFAO

Yet you have said your analogy doesn't address my claim it explains my logic. You try to separate the two when you can't. Thus you may lack reading comprehension and you may be switching your stories.

[Asker]

*You have tried to separate the two when you can't.

[Asker]

No I did not. A search on this page will show I didn't state You never stated your logic.

I did state you didn't state your logic was case by case and not general.

Yes I did. That was part of this entire discussion between me and you. Are YOU lacking reading comprehension?

[udolipixie]

"You fail to apply analogies correctly."
You fail to understand analogies correctly going by how you take 'Attraction is discrimination' to mean I'm saying attraction is wrong...because you think attraction is wrong. (then you later backtracked and said because others think it's wrong).

"Which would suggest you lacking reading comprehension according to what you think lacking in reading comprehension is."
It doesn't suggest I lack reading comprehension for me to think it's lacking reading comprehension to think a statement is saying something it doesn't state. That is what lacking reading comprehension is generally defined as. LMFAO

It's not lacking reading comprehension for me to think it's lacking reading comprehension to get 'I love blue cars' from stating "I have a blue car".

Nice fail. It doesn't suggest I lack reading comprehension because you don't think you do. LOL

[udolipixie]

*edit
You fail to understand analogies correctly going by how you take 'Attraction is discrimination' to mean I'm saying attraction is wrong...because you think discrimination is wrong. (then you later backtracked and said because others think it's wrong).

[Asker]

Saying that you didn't state your logic is case by case not general is not stating you never stated your logic.

Stating that specific discrimination that stops other attractions from being viewed (like personality) is saying it's case by case. Is it not? It seems you should look yourself in the mirror when you say someone else is lacking reading comprehension.

[udolipixie]

"Yet you have said your analogy doesn't address my claim it explains my logic. You try to separate the two when you can't. Thus you may lack reading comprehension and you may be switching your stories."
The analogy doesn't address your claim it addresses the logic. The logic is related to the claim but that doesn't make it the same thing. You are aware something can be different and related? Such as a cousin is related to you but is a different person.

I'm not switching my story. My stance has been my response addressed your claim with a personal statement and your logic with the vegetable analogy.

That you think addressing the logic means addressing the claim suggests lacking reading comprehension.
If someone made a claim because their logic is generalizing all based on their experiences.
It's not addressing the claim to state it's illogical to generalize all based on their experiences.

[Asker]

Your cat analogy isn't applicable as I addressed your claim.
You: 'You're missing out by not dating different race and nationality guys' (paraphrasing)
Me: "I'm not missing out"

Me: "You are missing out by not dating guys of other races and nations than your own.
You: "People are not missing out by not seeking what they find attractive."

This is a general statement that you made to my case by case statement. You then tried to give a veggie analogy and say it had to do with my logic (even though my logic depends on the case) and tired to separate it. Whether you call it claim or logic it's case by case and you still generalized it.

[udolipixie]

"Yes I did. That was part of this entire discussion between me and you. Are YOU lacking reading comprehension?"
No you didn't. You said what if that was your logic behind the claim.

You stated a claim that I was missing out because I don't want guys of a different race and nation.

Reasonably I guessed the logic behind I'm missing out is that it's missing out to not seek what you don't want.

Are YOU lacking reading comprehension again? LMFAO

[Asker]

Yet again I you fail to understand after I've just went through the same process of explaining at least twice.

[Asker]

*Yet again I guess you fail to understand after I've just went through the same process of explaining at least twice

[udolipixie]

Again you

"This is a general statement that you made to my case by case statement.
No I didn't. I told you "I'm not missing out".

I made a personal statement to your personal assessment. By omitting that you're being deceptive.

"Whether you call it claim or logic it's case by case and you still generalized it."
You didn't state your logic was case by case. You implied it was general so reasonably I generalized. You didn't counter this generalization until now so reasonably I guessed I my implication was correct.

[udolipixie]

Are you really going to try to pretend I didn't respond with "I'm not missing out"? LMFAO

[udolipixie]

"Yet again I you fail to understand after I've just went through the same process of explaining at least twice."
I didn't fail to understand. I fail to agree.

There is a difference between addressing a claim and addressing it's logic. Just because the logic is related to the claim doesn't mean addressing the logic is addressing the claim.

I understand you don't get this difference. I've repeatedly stated that.

[udolipixie]

LMFAO @ you talking about failing to understand.

When more than twice I went through the process of explaining I didn't say discrimination is wrong.
Took you some time it seem to get "Attraction is discrimination" /= "I'm saying discrimination is wrong"

When more than twice I went through the process of saying something that isn't true is a lie and being the person that said it makes you a lair. Something you still seemingly don't get.

[Asker]

The analogy doesn't address your claim it addresses the logic. The logic is related to the claim but that doesn't make it the same thing. You are aware something can be different and related? Such as a cousin is related to you but is a different person.

There you go with another analogy. With such analogy it's like me saying that's my cousin and you saying that's your family member. Yes it's my family member but I said cousin. Just because I was specific and you generalize my specific claim doesn't mean you addressed my logic. LOL!!!

[udolipixie]

"With such analogy it's like me saying that's my cousin and you saying that's your family member."
Inapplicable analogy.

It's more like me saying "that's your cousin and she's a family member". I addressed the specific and generalized.

Again it's amusing how you're seemingly bsing as if I didn't answer with "I'm not missing out".

[Asker]

I'm not switching my story. My stance has been my response addressed your claim with a personal statement and your logic with the vegetable analogy.

So in other words you made a specific statement like I did and then tried to explain my reasoning after saying that I never stated my reasoning? That would mean that you are making a statement based on what you think I believe. LOL!! Funny how you do this when you say I do this to you.

[udolipixie]

Again if someone made a claim that all guys do X because their logic is generalizing all guys based on their experiences.

It's not addressing or generalizing the claim to state it's illogical to generalize all based on their experiences.

It seems you don't understand the difference between a claim and the logic:
The claim is the statement.

The logic is the reasoning of why the statement was made.

[Asker]

No you didn't. You said what if that was your logic behind the claim.

Read my other comment. I will not repeat this.

[Asker]

You didn't state your logic was case by case. You implied it was general so reasonably I generalized. You didn't counter this generalization until now so reasonably I guessed I my implication was correct.

Did you even read my other comment? Again I will not repeat myself on this.

[udolipixie]

"So in other words you made a specific statement like I did and then tried to explain my reasoning after saying that I never stated my reasoning?"
I guessed your reasoning based on the implication and you didn't tell me otherwise so I guessed I was correct.

"That would mean that you are making a statement based on what you think I believe. LOL!!
"Funny how you do this when you say I do this to you."
It'd be funny if I responded the same as you telling you this is what you said after you said you didn't.

I haven't done that. I stated you didn't tell me your reasoning was specific and you haven't. The closest was your 'what if my reasoning was'.

You seemingly think I am supposed to mind read/gloss/infer because you talked about specific discrimination is wrong that means the logic of another different claim is specific as well.

[udolipixie]

"Did you even read my other comment? Again I will not repeat myself on this."
I did: "I did say specific discrimination is wrong remember? Wouldn't that mean case by case?"

Saying specific discrimination is wrong is not stating your reasoning for another different claim is specific and cases as well.

[Asker]

I never said you didn't say your not missing out. I said you generalized my specific statement.

[udolipixie]

*edit
"Saying specific discrimination is wrong is not stating your reasoning for another different claim is specific and case by case as well."

[udolipixie]

"Did you even read my other comment? Again I will not repeat myself on this."
I did.

Your comment shows that you didn't state your logic for this claim was specific and case by case because you said specific discriminiation is wrong.

[Asker]

Again if someone made a claim that all guys do X because their logic is generalizing all guys based on their experiences

It's not addressing or generalizing the claim to state it's illogical to generalize all based on their experiences.

Why do I have to repeat myself? I never said anything about experiences when it came to the missing out part. Why do you keep saying experiences? When did I say that when I said your missing out by not dating guys who are of different races and nations than you? What does that have to do with experiences?

[udolipixie]

"I never said you didn't say your not missing out. I said you generalized my specific statement."
But I didn't. I generalized the logic of your statement. The claim is the statement. The logic is the reasoning.

Just because to you seemingly the addressing the claim is the reasoning doesn't make it so.

Take for example: Someone made a claim that all guys do X. Their reasoning is generalizing all guys based on their experiences.
Their claim isn't that they generalize all guys based on their experience. Their claim is that all guys do X.

It's not addressing or generalizing the claim to state it's illogical to generalize all based on their experiences.

[udolipixie]

"Why do I have to repeat myself?"
You seemingly lack reading comprehension to understand I'm giving an example not stating you did something.

"I never said anything about experiences when it came to the missing out part. Why do you keep saying experiences?"
I didn't state you said anything about experiences when it came to the missing out part. I didn't even mention the missing out part. I was giving an example to show one can address reasoning without addressing the claim.

In fact the words were 'if someone' how did you get that to mean 'you'? LMFAO

[udolipixie]

" When did I say that when I said your missing out by not dating guys who are of different races and nations than you? What does that have to do with experiences?"
It has to do with giving you an example to show the difference between addressing a claim (the statement) and addressing the logic (the reasoning).

I don't even mention missing out on dating, different races, or different nations. I'm talking about how addressing the claim and the logic can be different.

How did you get that it has something to do with your claim rather than trying to get you to understand the difference between addressing a claim and addressing the logic?

[Asker]

Just because to you seemingly the addressing the claim is the reasoning doesn't make it so.

No I addressed both but in terms of the missing out part I only made a statement ("claim") of course it's supported by logic but that doesn't mean my logic is general.

[Asker]

You tried to generalize my logic.

[udolipixie]

"You tried to generalize my logic."
I've stated this already. It seems to have finally gotten through your seeming lacking reading comprehension. LMFAO

Again the implication I got was your logic was general. You didn't correct that implication until much much much much later (presently) so I guessed my implication was correct.

I was unaware that seemingly I am supposed to mind read/gloss/infer because you talked about specific discrimination is wrong that means the logic of another different claim is specific as well.

[udolipixie]

If your issue is that I generalized your logic I'm unsure why you didn't state when I first did it. You're bringing it up quite some time ago in my opinion.

[udolipixie]

So your logic is that it's missing out for a person to not seek specific things they don't want?

[udolipixie]

* edit
So your logic is that it's missing out for a person to not seek specific things they don't want and the case is in regards to race/nationality and I'm guessing anything physical?

In which case my analogy is more of it's not missing out for a gal to not date a guy she's not physically attracted to when physical attraction is important in a partner to her.

[Asker]

Again the implication I got was your logic was general. You didn't correct that implication until much much much much later (presently)

Lie.

so I guessed my implication was correct.

Nope.

I was unaware that seemingly I am supposed to mind read/gloss/infer because you talked about specific discrimination is wrong that means the logic of another different claim is specific as well.

That means you shouldn't use a analogy that you admit generalizes.

[udolipixie]

FYI I'm not trying to debate it as shown by how I was trying to get you to understand that addressing a claim vs addressing the logic.

I am simply stating what would have been a more suitable analogy.

[Asker]

I had told you my logic a long time ago but you instead came up with a logic to explain my claim when my claim is based on different logic. The logic I told you before.

[udolipixie]

"Lie."
It's not a lie you didn't tell me your logic until now.

"Nope."
I did guess that. How are you going to tell me what I guessed? LMFAO

"That means you shouldn't use a analogy that you admit generalizes."
No it means if you want people not to generalize your logic it's suited to state the logic is specific and case by case.

[Asker]

FYI I'm not trying to debate it as shown by how I was trying to get you to understand that addressing a claim vs addressing the logic.

I am simply stating what would have been a more suitable analogy.

I'm thinking about going to bed.

[Asker]

I still don't get the race thing. Every race in the USA has been ruled out.

[udolipixie]

"That means you shouldn't use a analogy that you admit generalizes."
LMFAO @ this. It's your opinion what I shouldn't do and to use your wordsyour opinion/opinions of that such matter doesn't matter.

[Asker]

I did guess that. How are you going to tell me what I guessed?

Never said you didn't guess it.

[udolipixie]

"I still don't get the race thing. Every race in the USA has been ruled out."
Every race that you know of has been ruled out.

"I'm thinking about going to bed."
Hmm thinking about going bed because I'm not trying to debate. That suggests to me that you do just look for/create stuff just to argue and refute.

[Asker]

No it means if you want people not to generalize your logic it's suited to state the logic is specific and case by case.

I've been doing that. Just because I didn't say exactly that it's case by case doesn't mean it's not. I did say it's specific though.

[Asker]

Or more so I stated stuff that support my logic that it's specific but yet you still some how got a generalize claim out of it.

[udolipixie]

"so I guessed my implication was correct."
"Nope"
That is implying that I didn't guess. If you meant nope to my implication is correct your phrasing was odd to me.

[Asker]

Every race that you know of has been ruled out.

Oh ok I know what you are. If you are that then your rare.

[udolipixie]

"I've been doing that. Just because I didn't say exactly that it's case by case doesn't mean it's not. I did say it's specific though."
No you haven't.

You made the claim that specific discrimination is wrong.

You made another claim about missing out without stating the reasoning of the logic is specific and case by case.

Just because you said something else is specific doesn't necessarily mean another different thing you said is as well.

[Asker]

Hmm thinking about going bed because I'm not trying to debate. That suggests to me that you do just look for/create stuff just to argue and refute.

Huh? o.O I'm a nocturnal type person. What does that have to do with our discussion other than me considering ending it for now/ever?

[udolipixie]

""Or more so I stated stuff that support my logic that it's specific but yet you still some how got a generalize claim out of it."
I would have guessed that since one of your claims had specific reasoning another would as well if I'd give you the benefit of the doubt of being consistent and rational.

However you lost that benefit by telling me what I feel and telling me why I'm attracted to something (ignoring my earlier response saying why).

[Asker]

No you haven't.

You made the claim that specific discrimination is wrong.

You made another claim about missing out without stating the reasoning of the logic is specific and case by case.

Just because you said something else is specific doesn't necessarily mean another different thing you said is as well.

And yet you tried to generalize it when the opposite would seem true.

[udolipixie]

"Oh ok I know what you are. If you are that then your rare."
I doubt you know what I am since you state I'm rare...o.O

[udolipixie]

"And yet you tried to generalize it when the opposite would seem true."
Either one could seem true as you didn't state the reasoning for that claim. I picked general. You didn't tell me otherwise at the time so I guessed my pick was correct.

If you hadn't shown what I see as inconsistently and irrationality by telling me what I feel and telling me why I'm attracted to certain things. I would have gone with specific since your other claim was specific as I'd think you'd be consistent.

[Asker]

I would have guessed that since one of your claims had specific reasoning another would as well if I'd give you the benefit of the doubt of being consistent and rational.

Again I didn't generalize. You did.

However you lost that benefit by telling me what I feel and telling me why I'm attracted to something (ignoring my earlier response saying why).

So in other words by me telling you how you feel and telling you why your attracted to something I lost the benefit of you believing/thinking/saying/expressing (or any of those other words you like to be picky about) that I am consistent and rational. It seems that that is a reaction.

[Asker]

I doubt you know what I am since you state I'm rare...o.O

Well then you lied about saying you found a romantic/sexual partner who is the same race as you as attractive. All the majority races were listed. Unless you don't know what rare means. What I mean by that is that your race is a very small population when compared to the major races in the USA. When I say major races I mean the ones that have the most people in there. Is that specific enough for you?

[Asker]

*Instead of there I meant them.

[Asker]

Either one could seem true as you didn't state the reasoning for that claim. I picked general. You didn't tell me otherwise at the time so I guessed my pick was correct.

You picked general based on evidence that pointed in the other direction. I told you otherwise when you made a general claim.

[Asker]

If you hadn't shown what I see as inconsistently and irrationality by telling me what I feel and telling me why I'm attracted to certain things. I would have gone with specific since your other claim was specific as I'd think you'd be consistent.

Oh so it seems that too is based on a reaction?

[udolipixie]

"Again I didn't generalize. You did. "
Egh I didn't state you generalized...o.O

"It seems that that is a reaction"
It was a decision though a decision is a reaction as a reaction is defined as an 'action performed in response to a situation or event'.

Either way it was a reasonable logical decision or reasonable logical reaction to me.

You didn't give a reasoning for your claim so I picked one. Based on your inconsistent and irrational behavior I decided/reacted that it's a tossup if it's general or specific.

[udolipixie]

"You picked general based on evidence that pointed in the other direction. I told you otherwise when you made a general claim."
I picked general despite another claim of yours being specific because you been inconsistent and irrational. It's reasonable to guess that your reasoning would also be inconsistent and irrational.

You didn't tell me otherwise when I made the general analogy. You just now told me and that's much much much later. LMFAO

[udolipixie]

"Oh so it seems that too is based on a reaction?"
What do you mean that too...you're stating the same thing is based on a reaction.

Are you aware what you're quoting is repeating the same thing? It's not something different.

[Asker]

It was a decision though a decision is a reaction as a reaction is defined as an 'action performed in response to a situation or event'.

You didn't give a reasoning for your claim so I picked one. Based on your inconsistent and irrational behavior I decided/reacted that it's a tossup if it's general or specific.

LOL!!! Alright I guess.

[udolipixie]

"Well then you lied about saying you found a romantic/sexual partner who is the same race as you as attractive. All the majority races were listed."
I didn't lie. It means you seemingly don't recall what you listed.

You listed Black, Asian, Hispanic, and Native American (you stated Indian but meant Native American). That's not all the major races. LMFAO

If anything Native American seems to be a minority race..o.O

[Asker]

I picked general despite another claim of yours being specific because you been inconsistent and irrational. It's reasonable to guess that your reasoning would also be inconsistent and irrational.

Just because you have a different opinion doesn't make it irrational and I haven't been inconsistent. You've been very inconsistent.

[udolipixie]

"LOL!!! Alright I guess."
LMFAO Okay then.

[Asker]

You didn't tell me otherwise when I made the general analogy. You just now told me and that's much much much later. LMFAO

You made a false claim based on your reaction. LMFAO

[Asker]

You listed Black, Asian, Hispanic, and Native American (you stated Indian but meant Native American). That's not all the major races. LMFAO

If anything Native American seems to be a minority race..o.O

That's not all that was eliminated either. Or did you forget our small talk on that?

[udolipixie]

"Just because you have a different opinion doesn't make it irrational and I haven't been inconsistent."
I didn't state me having a different opinion makes it irrational.

I stated telling me what I feel makes you irrational. It irrational to tell others how they feel especially as I'm a random internet stranger.

"You've been very inconsistent."
That's you not me. I've been quite consistent.

You've changed your stories plenty of times. First stating a certain action is mocking me, then stating it's copycatting, the stating its mocking me. LMFAO

[Asker]

Also I stated Indian and Native American. The first time I meant Indian the second time Native American.

[udolipixie]

"You made a false claim based on your reaction. LMFAO"
I made a reasonable logical decision/reaction as you didn't provide the reasoning.

[Asker]

I stated telling me what I feel makes you irrational. It irrational to tell others how they feel especially as I'm a random internet stranger.

It's irrational to say I don't know how others feel. I did say I empathize with others did I not? How do you know I don't feel the same way as you or others on some things? Just because I said if it's wrong or not doesn't mean I'm telling you how you feel. Just because I said a few times your angry doesn't mean it's ok for you to say I seem angry nor does it mean that I didn't mean to say you seem angry nor does it mean that I did mean to say you seem angry.

[udolipixie]

LMFAO @ you finding it funny I made a false claim because you didn't give me the reasoning so I had to guess what it was.

Coming from a guy who made several false claims telling me what I feel based on his reaction.

Coming from a guy who made several false claims telling me what I think based on his reaction.

Coming from a guy who made a false claim about who I am based on his reaction.

Coming from a guy who made several false claims about what I said based on his reaction.

At least my decision/reaction was due to lacking information.

[Asker]

That's you not me. I've been quite consistent.

You changed your stories. If I did it was copy catting your own changed stories and opinions.

[udolipixie]

"That's not all that was eliminated either. Or did you forget our small talk on that?"
That is that was eliminated by me.

You may have projected onto my responses thinking others were eliminated but that's all that was eliminated by me.

[udolipixie]

"Also I stated Indian and Native American. The first time I meant Indian the second time Native American."
I'm aware you stated you think both were eliminated. Reread that sentence perhaps you'll grasp it.

[Asker]

That is that was eliminated by me.

You may have projected onto my responses thinking others were eliminated but that's all that was eliminated by me.

Incorrect. I didn't project anything only based it on what you've posted.

[udolipixie]

"It's irrational to say I don't know how others feel."
Egh I didn't state you don't know how others feel.

'It's irrational to tell others how they feel' doesn't mean I'm saying you don't know how others feel.

Again your lacking reading comprehension is showing.

"Just because I said if it's wrong or not doesn't mean I'm telling you how you feel."
I'm not stating you saying something is wrong is telling me how I feel.

I clearly stating you telling me I'm angry and so mad was telling me how I feel. Recall your words: "You stay angry"

[udolipixie]

"Just because I said a few times your angry doesn't mean it's ok for you to say I seem angry nor does it mean that I didn't mean to say you seem angry nor does it mean that I did mean to say you seem angry."
It makes it okay in my opinion as it's tit for tat or close to it.

You're seemingly stating it wasn't okay for me to state you seem angry. If so are you're admitting that what you said telling me my feelings wasn't okay?

[udolipixie]

"Incorrect. I didn't project anything only based it on what you've posted."
You did project as I didn't eliminate all the major races. If you based it on what I posted then you wouldn't have claimed all the major races were eliminated.

You made a false claim based on your reaction again. LMFAO

You've shown a tendency to project by stating you got I'm saying discrimination is wrong because you think it's wrong. In regards to me stating "Attraction is discrimination" means to you I'm saying discrimination is wrong.

[Asker]

I'm aware you stated you think both were eliminated. Reread that sentence perhaps you'll grasp it.

Oh ok. It still doesn't change the fact that you said I didn't state all major races (and I gave you what a major race means to me already so I will not explain that again) and I didn't but what I did state you said you are not that race (again you also said you wouldn't date a guy who was a different race). So then if you are a part of a major race (again I will not explain what a major race is again) then it contradicts what YOU have said not what I have said. Again you should look at our small talk on this matter. It was brief.

[Asker]

Still that neutral mess. "I didn't say..." "It seems your..." "I didn't say..." "It seems your...". Are you scared to make definitive statements?

[Asker]

You did project as I didn't eliminate all the major races. If you based it on what I posted then you wouldn't have claimed all the major races were eliminated.

You did eliminate all the major races based on what I've read. It's going over your head but I'm not going to tell you because you want to play cat and mouse about it.

[udolipixie]

" It still doesn't change the fact that you said I didn't state all major races"
It doesn't change 'the fact' as that's not a face. I said all the major races weren't eliminated. I didn't state you didn't state all the major races.

"So then if you are a part of a major race (again I will not explain what a major race is again) then it contradicts what YOU have said not what I have said."
It doesn't contradict what I said.

You listed the major races but I didn't eliminate them all. Just because you thought I did doesn't mean I did. I eliminated Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American.

[Asker]

No no no you eliminated another major race. But it's cool. I got my answer now. It's a contradiction to your other statement but w/e.

[udolipixie]

"Again you should look at our small talk on this matter. It was brief."
It was brief and it shows I eliminated Black, Asian, Hispanic, and Native American (you stated Indian but meant Native American interestingly enough I got what you mean despite the wording).

You: "So both Indian and Native American are eliminated. "
You made this statement without me eliminating both Indian and Native American. I took you stating Indian to mean Native American without your clarification.

I'm guessing you thought White was eliminated because I questioned why you put white Americans as the desirable in a scenario.

[Asker]

Or wait you were being neutral so I guess it doesn't count. LOL!!

[udolipixie]

"It's a contradiction to your other statement but w/e."
It's not a contradiction to any statement.

I eliminated Black, Asian, Hispanic, and Native American.

You thought I eliminated White and Indian (as in Middle Eastern). I didn't.

[Asker]

LOL!! Who says it had to even do with OUR convo? W/e. I gotta go to bed.

[Asker]

*Who says it came from OUR convo?

[udolipixie]

"LOL!! Who says it had to even do with OUR convo? W/e."
Wow just wow you really do go through great lengths in my opinion if you'e reading through my posts for mentions of race. LMFAO

I supposed I overestimated you to not be seemingly fanatic.

[Asker]

Nah it wasn't that difficult. It's probably a bigger feat to count my every reply.

[udolipixie]

"It's probably a bigger feat to count my every reply."
I doubt it as the counting was memory recall from a recent event. I just responded to each reply so it's not really a feat to recall how many there were.

Plus I remained on the same page while you probably did a web search going through links or clicked m username going through the answers hitting the search on the browser to find mentions of race.

[udolipixie]

In my opinion in regards to feat size:
"Recalling how many replies you just responded to < searching through answers/links for mentions of something specific"

LMFAO. So how long was that journey?

[Asker]

I'm not a fanatic. Anything else you want to say about how your not any major race in the USA or you done?

[udolipixie]

"I'm not a fanatic."
You seemingly are considering the going through links/my answers for information.

"Anything else you want to say about how your not any major race in the USA or you done?"
That you statement is skewed.

Are you done? LMFAO

It's amusing how you state 'are you done' when you brought up the topic. LOL

[udolipixie]

*edit
"That your statement is skewed."

[udolipixie]

By statement I mean the notion that I'm not any major race in the USA

FYI it's amusing how you told me I need to focus on grammar when you've consistently used your instead of you're. LOL

[Asker]

Amusing how you think because I brought up the topic I can't state are you done with it. Everything you argue is only to suit yourself. If the roles where reverse you'd think it's amusing that you want to end something you started and that I'm wrong for that.

My statement isn't skewed or if it is then it would conclude that your a liar. If my statement is correct then you contradicted yourself.

I asked if you are done because I'm going to bed. If you have no life and want to stay on here then by all means. My last reply to you for the time being.

[udolipixie]

"Amusing how you think because I brought up the topic I can't state are you done with it. "
"If the roles where reverse you'd think it's amusing that you want to end something you started and that I'm wrong for that."

That's not what I think. Amusing how you keep incorrectly telling me what I think.

Your statement is skewed likely because you misread or projected. That's a reasonable possibility considering you took 'Attraction is discrimination' to me I'm saying discrimination is wrong. LMFAO

Ah so suddenly because you want to end this that means I have no life.

"If you have no life and want to stay on here then by all means."
You're the one going to bed...and you seemingly imply I have no life. LMFAO

I have a life...it seems you're unaware of the notion of multitasking.

[Asker]

That's not what I think. Amusing how you keep incorrectly telling me what I think.

Are you done? LMFAO

It's amusing how you state 'are you done' when you brought up the topic. LOL

Ah so suddenly because you want to end this that means I have no life.

I didn't say you didn't have a life. You misread what I type too. LOL!!!

I have a life...it seems you're unaware of the notion of multitasking.

I again never said you didn't. You again are doing what you say I do.

[udolipixie]

"I didn't say you didn't have a life. You misread what I type too. LOL!!!"
You're misreading what I type as nowhere did I sate you said I didn't have a life.

"I again never said you didn't. You again are doing what you say I do."
I'm not doing it again as I haven't done it. You're misreading what I type.

"I have a life" isn't stating you said I didn't have a life. LMFAO

[udolipixie]

*edit
You're misreading what I type as nowhere did I state you said I didn't have a life.

"I have a life" /= you said I didn't have a life. LMFAO you're showing your lacking reading comprehension again.

[udolipixie]

Are you done with your seemingly weak attempts to turnaround my statements of lacking reading comprehension/misreading? LMFAO

[Asker]

Ah so suddenly because you want to end this that means I have no life.

"If you have no life" doesn't mean I said you don't have a life. You misread that like you've been doing.

[Asker]

"I have a life" /= you said I didn't have a life. LMFAO you're showing your lacking reading comprehension again.

Ah so suddenly because you want to end this that means I have no life.

You didn't put one of your netural words in there therefore you think because I wanted to end it that I think you have no life or you think because I wanted to edn it that you don't have a life. I again never said you did or didn't so you trying to refute it is usually and pointless which leaves me to wonder that your misreading is due to a emotional reaction.

[Asker]

*end

[Asker]

Are you done with your seemingly weak attempts to turnaround my statements of lacking reading comprehension/misreading? LMFAO

Ah so suddenly because you want to end this that means I have no life.

You were trying to turn around my statement I was just correcting you.

[udolipixie]

"You didn't put one of your netural words in there therefore you think because I wanted to end it that I think you have no life or you think because I wanted to edn it that you don't have a life."
Again you're misreading and telling me what I think.
"Ah so suddenly because you want to end this that means I have no life. " isn't stating you think I have no life.

The only you I stated was that 'you want to end this' which was true at the time.

"I again never said you did or didn't so you trying to refute it is usually and pointless which leaves me to wonder that your misreading is due to a emotional reaction."
The misreading here is yours. I didn't state you said I don't have a life. You can't even show me other than the bs that I didn't put 'neutral words'.

[udolipixie]

"You were trying to turn around my statement I was just correcting you."
Again you're misreading as I wasn't trying to turn around your statement. If I was trying to turn it around I'd state I'd want to end this and etc. o.O

Your reading comprehension needs correcting not the statement.
Ah so suddenly because you want to end this that means I have no life. " isn't stating you think I don't have a life. The only mention of you I state is 'you want to end this'.

How did you get I'm stating you think I have no life when I only talk about you wanting to end this? LMFAO

[udolipixie]

Perhaps your misreading is due to emotional reaction.

I didn't state you think I have no life.

None of the statements you 'correct' is stating that.

The only mention of you I did in the statement was you want to end this.

[Asker]

Again you're misreading and telling me what I think.

No I'm telling you what you didn't put in your statement that would justify it in your terms. Now THIS is based on my experience (with discussing with you). If your statements don't have one of those terms I call neutral that you use a lot then it seems (one of those terms) to me that you'd think that that means it's not right seeing as how you've been using them to defend your cases but say I'm telling you what I think you are when I use the terms.

[udolipixie]

Me: "I have a life...it seems you're unaware of the notion of multitasking.
You: "I again never said you didn't. You again are doing what you say I do."

Do tell how did you seemingly misread 'I have a life' to me I'm stating you said I didn't have a life? LMFAO

[Asker]

The only you I stated was that 'you want to end this' which was true at the time

Yes I wanted to end it. You then said that that means you have no life. If your going to refute that I didn't say you had no life then that would mean that YOU possibly think you have no life.

[Asker]

The misreading here is yours. I didn't state you said I don't have a life. You can't even show me other than the bs that I didn't put 'neutral words'.

I've been posting the same comment that we are talking about that came from you.

[Asker]

I didn't state you think I have no life.

Then that would be the whole point of you arguing about it unless YOU think you have no life and developed a emotional reaction maybe because "no life" was in my statement.

[udolipixie]

"No I'm telling you what you didn't put in your statement that would justify it in your terms."
That's a lie as you were also telling me what I think "You didn't put one of your netural words in there therefore you think"

Egh I didn't state my terms so it seems your guessing what they are. So it appears you made a false claim based on a reaction. LMFAO

I wouldn't need to put neutral words in my statement to justify it as I'm not stating what you think I am.

The only thing about you I'm stating is that you wanted to end this...which you stated.

Just because you seemingly misread and took the sentence to mean I think you're saying I have no life doesn't mean that is what the statement says.

[Asker]

*Then what would be the whole point.

[Asker]

Do tell how did you seemingly misread 'I have a life' to me I'm stating you said I didn't have a life? LMFAO

You: Ah so suddenly because you want to end this that means I have no life.

Me: I didn't say that.

[udolipixie]

* edit
I wouldn't need to put neutral words in my statement to justify it as I'm not stating what you claimed I am.

[udolipixie]

"Yes I wanted to end it. You then said that that means you have no life. If your going to refute that I didn't say you had no life then that would mean that YOU possibly think you have no life."
No I'm refuting that you claimed I said something I didn't doesn't mean that I possibly think I have no life...o.O

It means I'm calling you out on your seeming bs of lying that I said something I didn't. Or your seeming misreading again.

[Asker]

Egh I didn't state my terms so it seems your guessing what they are. So it appears you made a false claim based on a reaction.

Just like you generalizing my logic even though I did tell you my logic you still said I didn't.

[udolipixie]

"Then that would be the whole point of you arguing about it unless YOU think you have no life and developed a emotional reaction maybe because "no life" was in my statement."
You're the one arguing about it as you brought up that I stated you think I have no life LMFAO

I didn't develop an emotional reaction because no life was in your statement. Your statement: " If you have no life and want to stay on here then by all means" is stating there is a possibility I have no life.

I respond with "I have a life" that's not stating you said I have no life that's responding to the proposed possibility you stated with 'If'.

[Asker]

Seemly misread and mistook?

Ah so suddenly because you want to end this that means I have no life.

You imply that I think because I want to end this that you have no life.

[Asker]

I wouldn't need to put neutral words in my statement to justify it as I'm not stating what you claimed I am

Yet you do with seems and guesses and then when I correct you you'll say that it doesn't necessarily mean (fill in blank).

[udolipixie]

"You: Ah so suddenly because you want to end this that means I have no life.

Me: I didn't say that."
That statement isn't stating you said anything. So how can it be saying you said I have no life? LMFAO

It only mentions you as wanting to end this. You're seemingly misreading again.

[udolipixie]

So it appears you made a false claim based on a reaction. LMFAO

[Asker]

It means I'm calling you out on your seeming bs of lying that I said something I didn't.

ain't that funny because I was calling YOU out on your "seemly" BS of saying I said something I didn't.

[udolipixie]

"You imply that I think because I want to end this that you have no life."
I implied to you probably because of your misreading. LOL

I only mention you as wanting to end this. I didn't make any statement about what you think or what you said. That you got the implication I did further supports my guess that you lack reading comprehension.

[Asker]

You're the one arguing about it as you brought up that I stated you think I have no life LMFAO

Read my other statement. And by the way

Ah so suddenly because you want to end this that means I have no life.

You saying I "seemly" think that because I want you to end it that you have no life.

[udolipixie]

"Yet you do with seems and guesses and then when I correct you you'll say that it doesn't necessarily mean (fill in blank)."
I state seems and guesses when I'm making a claim about others.

I didn't make a claim about you besides that you want to end this. I didn't state seems or guesses because you stated you did.

Just because you thought I made a claim about what you think/state doesn't mean I did. That does suggests you misread my statement to be making a claim.

[Asker]

I implied to you probably because of your misreading.

Me misreading my own statement? LOL!!

[udolipixie]

It's not me misreading that you seemingly think I made a claim.

If anything if you seemingly think my terms are using seems and guesses when I make a claim it would likely stand to reason that I didn't make a claim as I didn't use those words. LMFAO

[Asker]

Another "seemly" false claim by a reaction you "seem" to have got from my statement

[Asker]

I state seems and guesses when I'm making a claim about others.

False claims apparently.

[udolipixie]

"Me misreading my own statement? LOL!!"
No you seemingly misread my statements.

Recall how you stated my statement is saying I think/state you said I have no life.

Now you're really seemingly pulling major bs there as the discussion has been about my statement (s) making a 'claim'.

[Asker]

Just because you thought I made a claim about what you think/state doesn't mean I did.

There you go again. I could say the same to you if that's the case.

[udolipixie]

"You saying I "seemly" think that because I want you to end it that you have no life."
No I am not.

The statement isn't stating you think anything so how can it be stating you think that because you want to end it that I have no life? LMFAO

Just because you think the statement is stating that doesn't make it so.

Show me where the statement talks about what you think:
"Ah so suddenly because you want to end this that means I have no life."

[udolipixie]

* edit
Just because you claim the statement is stating that doesn't make it so.

Show me where the statement talks about what you think:
"Ah so suddenly because you want to end this that means I have no life."

[Asker]

No you seemingly misread my statements.

I asked if you are done because I'm going to bed. If you have no life and want to stay on here then by all means. My last reply to you for the time being.

That's my statement that you are now misreading. LOL!!!

[Asker]

Recall how you stated my statement is saying I think/state you said I have no life.

Now you're really seemingly pulling major bs there as the discussion has been about my statement (s) making a 'claim'.

Again what statement are we talking about? This one?

I asked if you are done because I'm going to bed. If you have no life and want to stay on here then by all means. My last reply to you for the time being.

Is that mine or yours? It's mine. You responded with what it "seems" you thought it meant and I corrected you.

[udolipixie]

"Another "seemly" false claim by a reaction you "seem" to have got from my statement"
Yes it's seemingly a false claim to you because you appear to have misread the statement.

The statement doesn't talk about what you think so how can it be making a claim on what you think?

By your count it seems I've had two 'seemingly false claims' while you've had more than that. Many weren't seemingly false they were false.
Such as you stating I said discrimination is wrong. Such as you stating I'm angry.
Such as you stating I'm so mad.
Such as you stating I stay angry.

LMFAO

[udolipixie]

"There you go again. I could say the same to you if that's the case."
You could say whatever you want however that doesn't make it true.

I can say that to you and have it be true for multiple incidents.
Such as you stating I think I'm always rights.
Such as you stating I said discrimination is wrong.

[Asker]

Just because you claim the statement is stating that doesn't make it so.

"Ah so suddenly because you want to end this that means I have no life."

I want to end it therefore you have no life. It's one equals the other. I like every blue cars, that car is blue, therefore I like it. You even said "that means" how do you know it's what it means? That seems to imply that you know what I meant just by me making that statement when it doesn't necessarily mean what you say it means.

[udolipixie]

"That's my statement that you are now misreading. LOL!!!"
I didn't misread it unless you didn't state you want to end this. LMFAO

"You responded with what it "seems" you thought it meant and I corrected you."
I didn't respond with what I thought it meant.
You're seemingly misreading my statement to be saying what you said/think when I don't even mention you besides you want to end this. LOL

The statement doesn't need correcting unless you didn't mean and state you want to end this.

[Asker]

You could say whatever you want however that doesn't make it true.

If it's my statement then what it means to me is true.

[Asker]

I didn't misread it unless you didn't state you want to end this.

Your missing the other half here LOL!! Don't give me that bs.

[udolipixie]

"I want to end it therefore you have no life."
It seems you're misreading my statement as that's not what I stated.

"You even said "that means" how do you know it's what it means? That seems to imply that you know what I meant just by me making that statement when it doesn't necessarily mean what you say it means.
I understand what 'that means' means.

Do you understand 'that means' /= you mean, you think, you're saying?

So it seems my guess was correct that you misread my statement and mistook it to be stating I think you said/think I have no life because I used that means.
...even though I didn't state about what you think.
...even thought I didn't state what you said.
...even though I didn't state that you mean it.

LMFAO

[Asker]

You're seemingly misreading my statement to be saying what you said/think when I don't even mention you besides you want to end this. LOL

You said it means you have no life. It applies to me because it's my statement even if it's about you.

[Asker]

It seems you're misreading my statement as that's not what I stated.

Ah so suddenly because you want to end this that means I have no life

[Asker]

*Bottom part should have been in quotes.

[udolipixie]

"Your missing the other half here LOL!! Don't give me that bs."
I'm not missing the other half as the other half isn't about you. That is what you seemingly don't get.

Let's not talk about missing part as you initially applied this to both my statements. What happened to that? Show me where "I have a life" equates to stating you said/think I don't have a life. LMFAO

"Your missing the other half here LOL!! Don't give me that bs."
So you seemingly got that it applies to just because it's your statement? IN which case it seems you did misread/mistook my statement.

If I was applying it to you I'd state 'it seems you mean' rather than 'that means'.

Just because a statement involves you doesn't mean it's only about you. Can you grasp that?

[Asker]

I didn't respond with what I thought it meant.

Ah so suddenly because you want to end this that means I have no life

"means I have no life" "means I have no" "means I have" "means I" "means" "means" "means" "means"

[udolipixie]

*edit
"You said it means you have no life. It applies to me because it's my statement even if it's about you.
"
So you seemingly got that it applies to you just because it's your statement? In which case it seems you did misread/mistook my statement.

If I was applying it to you I'd state 'it seems you mean' rather than 'that means'.

Just because a statement involves you doesn't mean it's only about you. Can you grasp that?

[udolipixie]

By "I didn't respond with what I thought it meant" I'm referring to your claim that I thought it mean you said I have no life.

I perhaps overestimated your intelligence to grasp that I was referring to your claim in a discussion about your claim. LMFAO

[udolipixie]

""means I have no life" "means I have no" "means I have" "means I" "means" "means" "means" "means""
And none of that is 'you mean'.

So again it seems you misread my statement and took 'that means' to apply to you about what you mean.

[Asker]

If I was applying it to you I'd state 'it seems you mean' rather than 'that means'.

So your saying you don't have a life?(I already asked this but w/e)

[udolipixie]

I guess I got how you seemingly misread my statement to be stating you meant/think/stated I have no life.
...even though it doesn't state you mean.
...even though it doesn't state you think.
...even though it doesn't state you stated.

Do tell how did you seemingly misread 'I have a life' to me I'm stating you said I didn't have a life? LMFAO
Me: "I have a life...it seems you're unaware of the notion of multitasking.
You: "I again never said you didn't. You again are doing what you say I do."

[Asker]

So again it seems you misread my statement and took 'that means' to apply to you about what you mean.

Oh so when you say someone thinks something or means something or that their statement means something then It's not saying that you think that person meant that? LMAO!!! And I have skewed reasoning?

[udolipixie]

So your saying you don't have a life?(I already asked this but w/e)
No I'm not saying that. In fact I've already stated the opposite 'I have a life'...o.O

Again it seems your lacking reading comprehension is showing.

I'm unsure how you seemingly got that me stating I didn't make a claim you said I did means I'm saying I have no life...o.O

[udolipixie]

Are you under the notion that if I'm not stating you thought/meant/said I have no life like you claimed I was that means I'm saying I have no life? o.O

If so that's a bit wonky to me as the reasonable conclusion to me would be that I'm not saying something you claimed I did.

[Asker]

It does state THAT means. What is that? MY statement. Why are you posting that other part? Ok. You want to go there? Why say "it seems you're unaware of the notion of multitasking" when according to you

...even though it doesn't state you mean.
...even though it doesn't state you think.
...even though it doesn't state you stated.

LOL!!!

[Asker]

Oh wait you used your neutral word (seems) so it's ok. LOL!!!

[udolipixie]

"Oh so when you say someone thinks something or means something or that their statement means something then It's not saying that you think that person meant that?"
Egh I didn't say you think or you mean something. You even quote the words were 'that means'.

" LMAO!!! And I have skewed reasoning?"
You do in my opinion. Nowhere did I state 'you think' or 'you mean' in that statement yet you got that I was stating you think/you mean something. o.O

[Asker]

If so that's a bit wonky to me as the reasonable conclusion to me would be that I'm not saying something you claimed I did.

What you said my statement meant may not be what it meant nor what it was intended for. Since it's my statement I get to state what it means, not you. Now if it means something different to you that doesn't mean that's what it means.

[udolipixie]

"Why say "it seems you're unaware of the notion of multitasking" when according to you?
I stated it because it seemed you were unaware of the notion of multitasking.

Again you're showing your lacking reading comprehension. Are you aware those 'even though' statements were about another statement?

I'm unsure why you're applying my statements about a different statement to this statement. o.O

[Asker]

I didn't say you think or you mean something. You even quote the words were 'that means'.

Means: To have in mind as a purpose. What were saying again?

[Asker]

you aware those 'even though' statements were about another statement?

I'm unsure why you're applying my statements about a different statement to this statement.

Maybe because you did? O.o Just a thought. Keep in mine I took it from your same full statement. Not just the first half.

[udolipixie]

"Oh wait you used your neutral word (seems) so it's ok. LOL!!!"
I used 'seems' in my claim about you seemingly being unaware of multitasking.

Using seems for that claim doesn't make the statement not saying you said/think/mean I don't have a life.

The statement isn't making any claim on you other than it seems you're unaware of multitasking. Seemingly being unaware of multitasking isn't saying you stated/think I have no life.

[Asker]

I used 'seems' in my claim about you seemingly being unaware of multitasking.

Using seems for that claim doesn't make the statement not saying you said/think/mean I don't have a life.

I didn't say it did. Your "neutral" words are just ways for you to switch when someone corrects you.

[udolipixie]

"Means: To have in mind as a purpose. What were saying again?"
Again I'm saying the subject isn't 'you'. I didn't state 'you mean' so I'm not stating you meant/think/stated I don't have a life as you claimed. LMFAO

[Asker]

Again I'm saying the subject isn't 'you'. I didn't state 'you mean' so I'm not stating you meant/think/stated I don't have a life as you claimed. LMFAO

Ok so the subject is my statement and I'm saying my statement doesn't necessarily mean what you "seemly" think it means. How hard is it for you to understand that? Think before you just try to refute stuff.

[udolipixie]

"I didn't say it did."
Me: "I have a life...it seems you're unaware of the notion of multitasking.
You: "I again never said you didn't. You again are doing what you say I do."

Your response is either stating or implying my statement is saying you said I don't have a life.

When I asked how did you seemingly get that from the statement you responded with "Why say "it seems you're unaware of the notion of multitasking""

Such a response is either stating or implying in the form of a question that part is how you got the statement is saying I claimed you said I don't have a life.

[Asker]

Your response is either stating or implying my statement is saying you said I don't have a life.

Implying.

[Asker]

Such a response is either stating or implying in the form of a question that part is how you got the statement is saying I claimed you said I don't have a life.

Implying..."seemly". LOL!!!

[udolipixie]

"Your "neutral" words are just ways for you to switch when someone corrects you."
To you it seems that way.

There is no switching done as the neutral words aren't making a definitive claim as in 'factual' statement. Since it's not a definitive claim it can't be corrected.

You stating "You stay angry" can be corrected.

Me stating "You seem angry" can't be corrected as it's an opinion.

Seemingly unlike you I am aware of the difference between a fact and the truth and an opinion.

So it appears you want to correct opinions? O.O

[Asker]

To you it seems that way.

A neutral trying to refute a neutral? Do they cancel out? LOL!!

[Asker]

I'm guessing you feeling some time of waaaaay. And you keep bringing it up.

[udolipixie]

"Ok so the subject is my statement and I'm saying my statement doesn't necessarily mean what you "seemly" think it means. How hard is it for you to understand that? Think before you just try to refute stuff."
You were initially stating my statement is saying you think/stated/mean something. That is what I have been refuting.

Seemingly rather than admit that my statement wasn't stating you think/stated/mean something you switch stories.

Egh seemingly you're suited to think before you just try to refute stuff.

[udolipixie]

"I didn't say you didn't have a life. You misread what I type too. LOL!!!"
"I again never said you didn't. You again are doing what you say I do."

Let's not bs as if I was just refuting and arguing to do such acting on emotional reaction without thinking.

You made a claim that my statement is stating you think something, you said something, you mean something...and it doesn't. You claimed I misread your statement and I'm saying you said, you think, you mean something you didn't.

Are you going to admit that?

[Asker]

You were initially stating my statement is saying you think/stated/mean something.

Again so the subject is my statement and I'm saying my statement doesn't necessarily mean what you "seemly" think it means.

[Asker]

Seemingly...seemingly. Guess guess.

[udolipixie]

"A neutral trying to refute a neutral? Do they cancel out? LOL!!"
Egh I'm unsure what you're talking about as what you quoted wasn't a neutral trying to refute a neutral.

It was a response to: "Your "neutral" words are just ways for you to switch when someone corrects you."
That's not a neutral there is no it seems, probably, possibly, likely, maybe. It's making a definitive claim.

[udolipixie]

"I'm guessing you feeling some time of waaaaay. And you keep bringing it up."
I keep bringing what up? If you mean feelings then it appears you really lack reading comprehension and memory call as you brought up feelings ala emotion reaction/emotional reaction.

[Asker]

You made a claim that my statement is stating you think something, you said something, you mean something...and it doesn't.

You made a claim on my statement that me wanting to end it "that means" you have no life. I say that's not what it necessarily means. Are you going to admit that?

[udolipixie]

"Again so the subject is my statement and I'm saying my statement doesn't necessarily mean what you "seemly" think it means."
So you're seemingly not going to admit you changed your claim from basically 'you're stating I think, I stated, I meant you have no life' to 'you're stating the statement means you have no life'?

Is it because you don't want to admit you made another false claim by stating I said you think/stated/mean something in a statement that doesn't say you think/stated/mean anything? LMFAO

[Asker]

Egh I'm unsure what you're talking about as what you quoted wasn't a neutral trying to refute a neutral.

LOL!! Ok buddy.

[Asker]

Your word "seemingly" is used neutrally.

[udolipixie]

"Seemingly...seemingly. Guess guess."
Yes seemingly as I tend to take guesses unless I know it to be a fact or supported by research.

Seemingly unlike you I am aware of the difference between a fact and the truth and an opinion. Such as how you made a statement that I stay angry while I stated you seem angry. I unlike you it seems don't inherently think whatever I state is a fact/the truth.

[Asker]

I didn't bring it up...you did. I was only saying that my statement doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means and that you may be having a emotional reaction to it. Your the one who started talking about I called you angry. And you seem to think that having a emotional reaction doesn't necessarily mean your angry.

[udolipixie]

You made a claim that my statement is stating you think something, you said something, you mean something...and it doesn't. You claimed I misread your statement and I'm saying you said, you think, you mean something you didn't.

Are you going to admit that?

Are you going to admit that you lied claiming my statement is saying you think/you stated/you mean something?

Are you going to admit that you lied stating I said discrimination is wrong?

Are you going to admit that you lied stating I stay angry?

Are you going to admit that you lied stating I'm angry and so mad?

[Asker]

Yes seemingly as I tend to take guesses unless I know it to be a fact or supported by research.

You like to make neutral statements to support you opinions. There you go stating the angry thing. It seems that it is always in your mind.

[Asker]

You made a claim that my statement is stating you think something, you said something, you mean something...and it doesn't. You claimed I misread your statement and I'm saying you said, you think, you mean something you didn't.

Are you going to admit that?

Are you going to admit that you lied claiming my statement is saying you think/you stated/you mean something?

Are you going to admit that you lied stating I said discrimination is wrong?

Are you going to admit that you lied stating I stay angry?

Are you going to admit that you lied stating I'm angry and so mad?

I'm indifferent on admittance. Not that I'm saying I did those things only that I don't care if I admit them or not.

[udolipixie]

"I didn't bring it up...you did."
Another lie. You brought it up by talking about an emotional reaction.

"I was only saying that my statement doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means and that you may be having a emotional reaction to it."
That's bringing up feelings. Using to you 'emotional' doesn't mean feelings...o.O

"Your the one who started talking about I called you angry."
That doesn't mean I brought up feelings. I talked about you calling me angry AFTER you brought up feelings using emotional reaction.

LMFAO

[Asker]

Emotional reactions doesn't necessarily mean angry even if it's based on feelings. So that means I did NOT bring up the angry thing...you did. I brought up emotional reactions you brought up anger. Don't BS.

[udolipixie]

"And you seem to think that having a emotional reaction doesn't necessarily mean your angry."
It doesn't to me as there are plenty of emotions besides angry.

In my opinion a person can emotional reaction with sadness, happiness, amusement, fear, disappointment, anger. Emotional reaction to me doesn't necessarily mean you're angry.

Though I'm unsure how you got it seems I think this way as I didn't mention anger in regards to emotional reaction. When you talked about emotional reaction I turned it on you seemingly having one.

My talk of anger was showing how it seems you're unaware of the difference between a fact and an opinion considering how you told me I was angry.

[Asker]

It doesn't to me as there are plenty of emotions besides angry.

Made my other point then.

[Asker]

It seemed to me that you are trying to say that by me bringing up emotional reactions that that meant you didn't bring up anger.

[udolipixie]

"Emotional reactions doesn't necessarily mean angry even if it's based on feelings. So that means I did NOT bring up the angry thing...you did. I brought up emotional reactions you brought up anger. Don't BS."
I'm not bsing. You stating/implied I brought up feelings. I didn't
You: "I'm guessing you feeling some time of waaaaay. And you keep bringing it up."
Me: I keep bringing what up? If you mean feelings then it appears you really lack reading comprehension and memory call as you brought up feelings ala emotion reaction/emotional reaction.
You: I didn't bring it up...you did.

It seems you're switching your story from bringing up feelings to bringing up anger. LMFAO

And you claim I just try to refute stuff. Exactly what is the point of that?

[Asker]

I'm not bsing. You stating/implied I brought up feelings.

Anger isn't a feeling? LOL! ok.

[udolipixie]

"Made my other point then."
No you made my point.

You seemingly made another point of mine that it seems you just try to refute stuff. Exactly what is the point in who brought up anger? o.O

Or is this still seemingly a touchy subject you throw a hissy fit on and don't want to be reminded that you told me what I feel? LMFOA

[Asker]

You use neutral words to refute what I'm saying and support what your saying. Exactly what is the point of that? Why is it incorrect when I use it but correct when you use it even though it may be in the same context?

[udolipixie]

"It seemed to me that you are trying to say that by me bringing up emotional reactions that that meant you didn't bring up anger."
Then it seems you really lack reading comprehension if that what it seems to you.

I was saying I didn't bring up feelings you did by talking about an emotional reaction.
Me: "I keep bringing what up? If you mean feelings then it appears you really lack reading comprehension and memory call as you brought up feeling"

You didn't clarify what I keep bringing up. I asked and you still didn't answer. I stated a possibility that I keep bringing up feeling and you responded as that possibility was correct.

[Asker]

No you made my point.

So my point is your point now? LOL!!

[Asker]

You seemingly made another point of mine that it seems you just try to refute stuff. Exactly what is the point in who brought up anger? o.O

Refuting stuff doesn't necessarily mean out of anger.

[Asker]

So now you wanna bring up hissy fits again? Are you having one? You claim I claim you are.

[udolipixie]

"Anger isn't a feeling? LOL! ok."
It is a feeling however you brought up feelings before me by talking about an emotional reaction.

You talked about feelings before I did.

[Asker]

Then it seems you really lack reading comprehension if that what it seems to you.

No it seems you lack comprehension if you think what I meant factually meant that you have no life.

[Asker]

appears you really lack reading comprehension and memory call as you brought up feeling"

Anger is a feeling but feelings are not always anger.

[udolipixie]

"You use neutral words to refute what I'm saying and support what your saying."
I use neutral words to refute your opinions. I don't use neutral words to refute your false claims such as telling me what I feel, what I think, who I am, or what I said.

"Exactly what is the point of that?"
The point of using neutral words depends on the case. In this case for me it's exchanging opinions. It's stating I disagree with what it seems to you and that it seems another way to me.

"Why is it incorrect when I use it but correct when you use it even though it may be in the same context?"
I'm unsure what you're trying to say.

I didn't state what seems to you is incorrect. I did state I disagree with it or that if it seems that way to you then it seems you have illogical reasoning or lacking reading comprehension.

That's not stating what seems to you is incorrect. That's stating what seems to you seems to be illogical and lacking comprehension.

[Asker]

It is a feeling however you brought up feelings before me by talking about an emotional reaction.

Again anger is a feeling but feeling are not always anger. You brought up anger when I brought up feelings. That doesn't necessarily mean that me bringing up feelings has anything to do with anger. Your again failing to comprehend simple understanding and trying to say you didn't bring up anger when you did. Your BSing.

[Asker]

I brought up feelings.

You brought up anger.

Just because I brought up feelings don't necessarily mean I meant anger. If your connecting my statement with you bringing up anger then I'm it seems you thought I meant you seemed to feel angry. This means you tried to tell me what I thought.

[udolipixie]

"So my point is your point now? LOL!!"
My point is that I didn't bring up feelings you did. You admitted you talked about an emotional reaction.

"Refuting stuff doesn't necessarily mean out of anger."
Egh unsure why you're telling me this as I didn't state otherwise.

"So now you wanna bring up hissy fits again? Are you having one? You claim I claim you are."
Egh I didn't claim you said I was having a hissy fit. I did stating it seems you're throwing a hissy fit.

"No it seems you lack comprehension if you think what I meant factually meant that you have no life."
I don't think you meant so it seems I don't lack comprehension. lMFAO

"Anger is a feeling but feelings are not always anger."
Unsure why you're telling me this as nowhere did I state otherwise.

[Asker]

I didn't state what seems to you is incorrect. I did state I disagree with it or that if it seems that way to you then it seems you have illogical reasoning or lacking reading comprehension.

Well with that said then there's no point in talking about it because if you don't disagree then I don't care.

[udolipixie]

You brought up feeings by talking about an emotional reaction. Do you seemingly mean to change your story to who brought up angry NOT who brought up feelings?

If so what is the point of that? Does it bother you when I state you told me I was angry? o.O

[Asker]

Ok even with that. Using your comment. I brought up emotional reactions. A emotional reaction is a feeling. Feelings include anger but not necessarily. You brought up anger.

[udolipixie]

"Again anger is a feeling but feeling are not always anger. You brought up anger when I brought up feelings. That doesn't necessarily mean that me bringing up feelings has anything to do with anger."

I didn't bring up anger to mean that bringing up feelings means bringing up anger. LMFAO

I brought up anger to show you lied earlier stating I was mad, I was angry, I stay so angry.

[udolipixie]

"Your again failing to comprehend simple understanding and trying to say you didn't bring up anger when you did. Your BSing."
You're bsing as I'm not trying to say I didn't bring up anger I'm trying to say I didn't bring up feelings first you did.

You're also bsing as if I brought up anger to mean that feelings are always anger or that emotional reaction is anger.

I brought up anger in regards to how you seemingly can't tell fact from an opinion by how you told me what I feel as if it was a fact "I stay angry", I'm angry, I'm so mad.

I brought up anger not in regards to talk about your false claims and lies about me.

[udolipixie]

* I brought up anger in regards to talk about your false claims and lies about me.

[udolipixie]

"Your again failing to comprehend simple understanding"
That's you not me. You show this fail by saying I'm trying to say something I didn't and I'm not.

"and trying to say you didn't bring up anger when you did. Your BSing."
I'm not bsing as that's not what I'm trying to say.

'I didn't bring up feelings because you talked about feelings first' isn't stating I didn't bring up anger. It's stating I didn't bring up feelings.

Take for example.
You bring up transportation.
I bring up cars.
It's not saying I didn't bring up cars to state you brought up transportation.

[Asker]

Oh so now you change why you brought it up? I thought it was because I mentioned feelings? Which is it. Or is it one of those neutral statements again LOL!!

[udolipixie]

" If your connecting my statement with you bringing up anger then I'm it seems you thought I meant you seemed to feel angry. This means you tried to tell me what I thought."
I didn't connect your statement with anger.

My mention of anger was unrelated to your emotional reaction statement.

I talked about anger in regards to you seemingly being unaware of the difference between a fact and an opinion by how you told me I was angry.

How is it seemingly a possibility I was connecting the emotional reaction statement by telling you about a false claim and lie you told many times suggests you're aware of what are facts and opinions?

[Asker]

My mention of anger was unrelated to your emotional reaction statement.

Oh now it isn't? Quit switching. Before you said I mentioned feelings and that feelings are emotional responses (I don't know why you said that). And I said it doesn't necessarily have to do with anger. So now you admit to bringing it up when before you didn't admit it?

[udolipixie]

"You brought up anger."
FYI if what you meant was I brought up anger it's suited to state such. You just stated And you keep bringing it up." without stating what 'it' was,

You: "I'm guessing you feeling some time of waaaaay. And you keep bringing it up."
Me: I keep bringing what up? If you mean feelings then it appears you really lack reading comprehension and memory call as you brought up feeling"

[Asker]

without stating what 'it' was,

So you forgot "it" was anger after I've been telling you for how long now? Is that your new story? before it was how you didn't bring up anger not it's I didn't say what "it" was.

[Asker]

Oh I get what you mean. Still doesn't change the fact that you seemly thought it meant anger.

[udolipixie]

"Oh now it isn't? Quit switching."
I'm not switching. My statements about anger was how you told me what I feel such as "I stay mad" suggests you're unaware of the difference between fact and opinion.

"Before you said I mentioned feelings and that feelings are emotional responses (I don't know why you said that)."
I said that because when you stated 'you keep bringing it up' I thought 'it' was feelings. In which case that's incorrect as you brought up feelings by talking about an emotional reaction.

[Asker]

I'm not switching. My statements about anger was how you told me what I feel such as "I stay mad" suggests you're unaware of the difference between fact and opinion.

That's not what I meant when I said quit switching but w/e.

[udolipixie]

You stated: "And you keep bringing it up"
I asked: "Keep bringing up what? If you mean feelings"
You responded: "I didn't bring it up...you did."

At the time you didn't specify what 'it' was even after I asked. I guessed feelings as a possibility and your response implied I was correct.

Though again now that I know you meant to state I keep bringing up anger...so what?

So? o.O I'm not seeing the point of you talking about who brought up anger.

Are you bothered by me bringing up anger? Are you bothered by me talking about the false claims and lies you told by telling me I was angry? LMFAO

[Asker]

I said that because when you stated 'you keep bringing it up' I thought 'it' was feelings

I said you seem to feel some time of way. How is that not meaning feelings?

[Asker]

In which case that's incorrect as you brought up feelings by talking about an emotional reaction

Emotional reactions can happen because of feelings yes I know that. However, like I've been saying I didn't bring up anger which again is not necessarily the feeling I was referring to when I said you seem to feel some type of way. You still brought up the anger part.

[Asker]

That's why I don't understand why it's relevant.

[udolipixie]

"So you forgot "it" was anger after I've been telling you for how long now?"
You've been telling me lots of stuff for some time and I've brought up lots of story.

"Is that your new story? before it was how you didn't bring up anger not it's I didn't say what "it" was."
It's not a story that I didn't know what you meant by 'it'. I'm not a mind reader hence why I asked 'Keep bringing up what?'.

I didn't state I didn't bring up anger. Show me where I stated that...oh that's right you can't because I didn't. I said you brought up feelings as you talked about feelings first.

[udolipixie]

"I said you seem to feel some time of way. How is that not meaning feelings?"
That's my point that it is feelings hence why I thought you may have meant 'feelings' when you said I keep bringing it up.

You're seemingly contradicting what you said earlier. It seemed you were stating I'm creating a new story by not knowing when you said 'it' you meant anger.

Now you're seemingly admit that you were talking about feelings which can reasonably mean that it may have been seen as ambiguous what you meant by it.

[Asker]

At the time you didn't specify what 'it' was even after I asked. I guessed feelings as a possibility and your response implied I was correct.

Though again now that I know you meant to state I keep bringing up anger...so what?

So? o.O I'm not seeing the point of you talking about who brought up anger.

You the one who kept talking about. I already said it was pointless. LOL!!

[udolipixie]

I'm unsure why you didn't tell me you meant anger when I asked you.
You: "I'm guessing you feeling some time of waaaaay. And you keep bringing it up."

Me: I keep bringing what up? If you mean feelings then it appears you really lack reading comprehension and memory call as you brought up feelings ala emotion reaction/emotional reaction.

You: I didn't bring it up...you did.

[udolipixie]

"You the one who kept talking about."
You're the one who started off 'arguing'/making claims about who brought up anger. LMFAO

"I already said it was pointless. LOL!!"
It's not pointless that you told me I was angry, I stay angry, and I'm so mad. That suggests you're unaware of the difference between a fact and an opinion by how you told me what I feel.

That was my point your false claims and lies of that nature suggest you're unaware of what is a fact and an opinion.

[udolipixie]

So it seems your issue is that I bring up you having told me I was angry at all? If so why?

Does it bother you for me to make comments about your false claims and lies since you wanted me to 'let it go'? LOL

[udolipixie]

"That's why I don't understand why it's relevant."
Likely you don't understand why I brought it up because you seemingly connect it to your emotional reaction statement or seemingly think it should/does
have relevance to it.

My statements about anger were relevant to you talking about how I use neutral words.
You: "Seemingly...seemingly. Guess guess."
M: Yes seemingly as I tend to take guesses unless I know it to be a fact or supported by research.

Seemingly unlike you I am aware of the difference between a fact and the truth and an opinion. Such as how you made a statement that I stay angry while I stated you seem angry. I unlike you it seems don't inherently think whatever I state is a fact/the truth.

[Asker]

Is it or is it not pointless? It's obviously pointless to me yet you say why I keep bringing it up. It seems it's not pointless to you reading your past comments and this "It's not pointless" yet you wonder why I say you keep bringing it up.

[udolipixie]

I'm saying why you are seemingly harping on who brought up anger as if it's some big deal or something to argue about.

It's not pointless that you told me I was angry, I stay angry, and I'm so mad. That suggests you're unaware of the difference between a fact and an opinion by how you told me what I feel.

[Asker]

Likely you don't understand why I brought it up because you seemingly connect it to your emotional reaction statement or seemingly think it should/does
have relevance to it.

Even though you admitted such connection? LOL!!! It's pointless to me so I don't want to talk about it. Are you still going to talk about? O.o

[udolipixie]

It's odd to me that you seemingly want to argue over who brought up anger or seemingly want to harp on that anger was brought up.

Why is it seemingly an issue for you to bring up anger? It's not pointless as it's based on what you said "I stay angry" unless you're admitting your false claims and lies were pointless? LMFAO

[Asker]

Seemly seemly seemly. Again using such word to talk about your opinion on something I don't care about and then criticizing me about it when I could care less about it.

[Asker]

I'm saying why you are seemingly harping on who brought up anger as if it's some big deal or something to argue about.

It's not a big deal. Hence why I kept saying it's pointless to me and hence why I keep saying it. LOL!!

[udolipixie]

"Even though you admitted such connection?"
I didn't admit such a connection. Either you're lying or showing your lacking reading comprehension.

Show me where I admitted me bringing up anger is connected to your emotional reaction statement.

I clearly stated: "My statements about anger were relevant to you talking about how I use neutral words."

My statements about anger weren't related to you talking about an emotional reaction.

[Asker]

*keep saying it's pointless.

[udolipixie]

How are any of these statements related to your emotional reaction statement?
"Seemingly unlike you I am aware of the difference between a fact and the truth and an opinion. Such as how you made a statement that I stay angry while I stated you seem angry. I unlike you it seems don't inherently think whatever I state is a fact/the truth."

"Are you going to admit that you lied stating I stay angry?"

"Are you going to admit that you lied stating I'm angry and so mad?"

[udolipixie]

"It's not a big deal. Hence why I kept saying it's pointless to me and hence why I keep saying it. LOL!!"
If it's not a big deal and pointless to you then why are you seemingly harping on who brought up anger?

It seems more like it bothers you that I'm seemingly reminding you of your false claims and lies when you wanted me to 'let it go'. LMFAO

[udolipixie]

"Again using such word to talk about your opinion on something I don't care about and then criticizing me about it when I could care less about it."
That's basically my stance on your posts and opinions. However I add in amusement at your seeming delusion that what you state is fact and the truth.

LMFAO @ the notion it's a world fault and 'wrongful' discrimination to not be attracted to and date guys of different races, nationalities, heights, and other physical criteria.

[udolipixie]

So have you done anymore of your seemingly fanatic searching through links/answers to get information on me? LMFAO

[Asker]

It is wrongful and it's illogical to think many factors play a part in the mindset of thinking tall height somehow means better and more masculine.

[Asker]

*It's illogical to think many factors don't play a part in the mindset of thinking tall height somehow means better and more masculine.

[Asker]

It's also illogical to think that just because someone seeks something that attracts them that it can't still be wrong. Robbing someone could attract me and I could say because it attracted me it's not wrong. See the illogical reasoning of yours?

[udolipixie]

"It is wrongful and it's illogical to think many factors play a part in the mindset of thinking tall height somehow means better and more masculine."
Wrongful is your opinion.

Illogical is a toss up that seemingly depends on what is considered better and masculine. If being tall is generally defined as masculine or seen as better it's not illogical to think many factors play in the mindset of thinking tall somehow means better and more masculine.

[udolipixie]

"It's also illogical to think that just because someone seeks something that attracts them that it can't still be wrong"
Wrong is seemingly subjective in this case. If using the idea of wrong as unfair/unjust it's not illogical to think seeking someone seeking what attracts them isn't wrong as long as it's not done out of hatred or superiority.

It's not unfair/unjust to exclude others as a romantic/sexual partner as finding a partner one is compatible with and desires will likely mean excluding those that aren't desired or compatible.

It's seemingly only unfair/unjust if one thinks everyone is entitled to date everyone no matter what the other person wants.

[Asker]

Your wrong and right has been seemingly subjective this entire time.

[udolipixie]

". Robbing someone could attract me and I could say because it attracted me it's not wrong. See the illogical reasoning of yours?"
I see the illogical reasoning of yours to twist this to apply to actions rather than criteria in a person such as attractiveness and personality.

I also see your lacking reading comprehension it seems.

My reasoning wasn't "someone seeking something that attract can't be wrong". A search on this page will show my mention of someone seeking something is in regards to stating it's not missing out:
"a person is not missing out by not seeking something they don't want"

[udolipixie]

Nice fail at you claiming a reasoning that's not mine is illogical. LMFAO

Really nice fail at generalizing a reasoning (again one that isn't mine) to be about actions rather than criteria in a person such as looks. Especially considering how much you seemingly whine about me generalizing your logic. LMFAO

[udolipixie]

Your wrong and right has been seemingly subjective this entire time. Such as "Guys want short girls. This is wrong" is subjective.

LMFAO

[udolipixie]

Other than again showing your lacking reading comprehension and lying I'm unsure why you're bringing up a reasoning that isn't mine and stating what is illogical to you about it...o.O

Other than your pathetic attempt to find anything to refute I'm really unsure why in this reasoning you're apply 'something' to be actions rather than criteria such as physical and personal as the discussion has been about that. LMFAO

[udolipixie]

FYI when I was responding to your statements about this reasoning (that isn't mine) by 'something' I was inferring it meant criteria like looks such as height, weight, baldness, race, nationality, etc.

Here's the edit so you're clear as it seems you're prone to 'misinterpretations':
You: "It's also illogical to think that just because someone seeks something that attracts them that it can't still be wrong"
Me: Wrong is seemingly subjective in this case. If using the idea of wrong as unfair/unjust it's not illogical to think someone seeking what attracts them, as in physical traits/appearance of a partner, isn't wrong as long as it's not done out of hatred or superiority.

[Asker]

Again showing you flip flop, make neutral statements, bring up stuff due to "emotional reactions", don't fully know what I believe yet think it's illogical I'm going to have to conclude that it's more about refuting something than debating something with you. You were more worried about arguing on political correctness than what we were debating on. Yes I brought in other stuff but so did you. Not only did you bring it up but you kept talking about as if you had a "emotional response" about it.

It's not subjective to think just because attraction is the excuse that such situation still isn't wrong.

And in your lower paragraph your grammar is still incorrect. At least when I do point out actual errors it's factual and not based on your opinion.

Also seeing as how you continually used your "neutral" words to try to stay neutral and yet still refute what I was saying it leads me to suggest you can't have a logical debate as you want...

[Asker]

to stay neutral.

[udolipixie]

"Again showing you flip flop"
I haven't flip flopped. You have claimed my reasoning was something it wasn't and think it's flipping to tell you that it's not what you claim.

"You were more worried about arguing on political correctness than what we were debating on."
Egh I'm not worried about political correctness nor did I argue about it. Note how you said Indian and on your own you brought up political correctness and switched to Native American.

I didn't see this as a debate but poking fun at your seemingly delusion that your opinions are facts and the truth.

[udolipixie]

"It's not subjective to think just because attraction is the excuse that such situation still isn't wrong. "
It is subjective as what is wrong (outside of laws) is subjective.

"And in your lower paragraph your grammar is still incorrect. At least when I do point out actual errors it's factual and not based on your opinion."
LMFAO @ you talking about grammar.

If you want me to point out actual errors that's factual then how about your grammar errors?
"You use neutral words to refute what I'm saying and support what your saying."...it's "you're not your"

If you want to play the grammar error game I can.

[udolipixie]

"Also seeing as how you continually used your "neutral" words to try to stay neutral and yet still refute what I was saying it leads me to suggest you can't have a logical debate as you want..."
I'm refute what you say with neutral words as yours statements are opinions so I refute with opinions. This has for me basically you stating your opinions and me disagreeing with them.

Egh I'm unsure why you state 'have a logical debate as you want' as nowhere did I state I wanted to have a logical debate. I don't even seen this as a debate much less a logical one considering your logic leaps like 'Attraction is discrimination' means I'm saying discrimination is wrong. LMFAO

[udolipixie]

"don't fully know what I believe yet think it's illogical "
Egh I don't have to fully know what you believe to think certain statements of yours are illogical.

Stating it's 'wrong' to exclude short guys when seeking a romantic/sexual partner is illogical to me. Why it's believed to be wrong is irrelevant when the claim is illogical to me.

[Asker]

Yeah you flip flopped by changing what your reasoning was when I tried to correct it. But it's cool. If you want to flip flop then flip flop. Is it illogical in turns of a debate? Yes. Very much so.

When I say you were worried about politcal correctness I was referring to you trying to correct me on your neutral terms. Your neutral terms shouldn't be used if I think something is wrong and you think it's right. Yet you'd use neutral terms to escape like "seems" then try to correct me if I didn't use such terms.

Note how I said I used Indian the first time but seeing as how the second time I used Indian when I was referring to Native American that time. It's not switching as I always had in mind Native American and some people call Native Americans Indians. Yes that could be political correctness but that doesn't change you "seeming"

I thought it was a debate but a amusing one as I was laughing at your own amusement. I thought it was funny that you found it amusing...

[Asker]

when I repeatedly copy catted what you said and poked fun at you and you "seemly" expressing a emotion from it. LOL!!! Still makes me laugh. "seemly" "seemly" "seemly" and the veggies thing. Too funny. Yeah funny debate, but I guess you didn't want that so you instead felt the need to refute what I was saying giving me more fuel to laugh at you.

[udolipixie]

"You were more worried about arguing on political correctness"
Moree on this. I wasn't worried about arguing on political correctness...I didn't even bring political correctness up or argue about it. LMFAO

Are you aware that political correctness is defined as "the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against."?

If anything you've made an attempt to be political correct not me ala the Indian and Native American replacement.

[udolipixie]

I didn't change anything or flip flop as it wasn't my reasoning you were correcting. Again just because you said it was doesn't make it so.

Amusing if you want to tell me what my reasoning is then call it flip flopping when I tell you that's not it? Is it illogical in turns of a debate? Yes. Extremely very much so. LMFAO

The it seems you don't know what political correctness is if neutral statements like 'seemingly' is political correctness to you. It's not political correctness to use neutral terms to differentiate between a fact and an opinion.

My neutral terms shouldn't be used in your opinion. This was an exchange of opinion so I responded in kind differentiating what was facts and what was opinions.

[Asker]

You tried to correct me when what you were correcting was not if I was right or wrong but whether or not I used a neutral term like you do. This "seemly" gave me the impression that you were just trying to argue and that makes me laugh.

I'm aware you "seemly" google/yahoo searched political correctness. You also "seemly" think that because I don't say "seemly" that that means I think it's factual that you think something. This is the "political correctness" that I'm talking about.

[Asker]

I said political correctness to suggest how picky you seem to be. It's "addressing your logic" LOL!!! Or can I not use that? Please tell me again what I can and can't use. LOL!!!

[Asker]

I didn't change anything or flip flop as it wasn't my reasoning you were correcting. Again just because you said it was doesn't make it so.

Well again just because you said it was doesn't make it so.

[udolipixie]

Meh I expressed amusement at you copycatting me and turned it around on you laughing at your failures. I din;t even grasp you poking fun at me...o.O so I'm unsure how it seemed to you I was expressing an emotion from it. LMFAO

"but I guess you didn't want that so you instead felt the need to refute what I was saying giving me more fuel to laugh at you"
I didn't see it as a debate I saw it as me poking fun at your delusions at thinking your opinions are the truth/facts, your false claims, your lies, and your lacking reading comprehension.

LMFAO @ you laughing at me because of an analogy...that you seemingly couldn't comprehend. -Did you feel that wind above your head?

[Asker]

Amusing if you want to tell me what my reasoning is then call it flip flopping when I tell you that's not it? Is it illogical in turns of a debate? Yes. Extremely very much so. LMFAO

The reason/reasons you gave or implied were illogical as they/it were only based on refuting what I say. Your the one who said my statements meant something that it doesn't necessarily mean.

[udolipixie]

"You tried to correct me when what you were correcting was not if I was right or wrong but whether or not I used a neutral term like you do. This "seemly" gave me the impression that you were just trying to argue and that makes me laugh. "
Your impression is overlooking that I disagree with you.

So it seems you have a limited scope of focus.

If I state that's your opinion then state my opinion disagreeing with it then it appears you focus on me stating that's your opinion. LMFAO

[udolipixie]

"I said political correctness to suggest how picky you seem to be. It's "addressing your logic" LOL!!! Or can I not use that? Please tell me again what I can and can't use. LOL!!!"
You're not addressing my logic though as it's not based on political correctness. You're using the word term as it seems you don't understand what political correctness is.

Differentiating between facts and opinions isn't political correctness that's being technical.

I didn't tell you what you can and can't use.

You were the one telling people what they can and can't do and what they should or shouldn't do. Recall how you kept telling me I shouldn't call you a liar. LMFAO

[udolipixie]

"Please tell me again what I can and can't use. LOL!!!""
Don't bs with this 'again' as if I told you what can and can't use. You've been the person saying what can, can't, should, and shouldn't be used.

[Asker]

No you tried to refute what I said and I laughed at it. You said it was amusing and I laughed harder.

It seems you expressed a emotion since you said that my statement meant you have no life only to "seemly" then try to correct yourself (I guess because you didn't use "seemly") by saying you have a life. You did say that what I said doesn't mean that I'm saying you don't have a life so that would mean that it was pointless for you to say that you do. Therefore it seems that it was based on a emotional reaction. I would also like to note that part of your political correctness BS was when I said you may have had a emotion response and you said you didn't say that you said you had a emotional response. Unless you lack common sense it would seem that you would have known that I meant emotional response and not emotion response. You refuted me with political correctness on the matter as if it were a big deal and I laughed and picked at you the whole time.

[Asker]

Don't bs with this 'again' as if I told you what can and can't use. You've been the person saying what can, can't, should, and shouldn't be used.

LOL!!! Such BS.

[udolipixie]

Actually it because I said it does make it so since it's my reasoning so I can state what the reasoning is. Just because you said my reasoning is something doesn't make it so.

Nice fail at trying to turn that around. LMFAO

"The reason/reasons you gave or implied were illogical as they/it were only based on refuting what I say."
...o.O...do you mean refuting what you say is illogical. If so that's a bit extreme.

"Your the one who said my statements meant something that it doesn't necessarily mean.
Grammar error: It's "You're not your" LMFAO as it seems you like pointing out grammatical errors.

You're the one who said my statements meant something that it doesn't necessarily mean. Such as how you just told me what my reasoning was or when you told me 'Attraction is discrimination' means I'm saying discrimination is wrong. LMFO

[Asker]

You did tell me but I guess because you used your special neutral terms that negates telling me what I think. What about the veggies bull? You thought you knew my logic. My logic has to do with what I think. Or can I not use the related claim like you did? LOL!!!

[udolipixie]

"No you tried to refute what I said and I laughed at it. You said it was amusing and I laughed harder."
You're seemingly rewriting reality or you're unaware that I've been laughing at you since I read your question. LMFAO

Hmm it seems I've likely been laughing the hardest considering how it seems you're so delusion to tell people what they feel. LMFAO

[Asker]

Actually it because I said it does make it so since it's my reasoning so I can state what the reasoning is. Just because you said my reasoning is something doesn't make it so.

"Actually it because I said it does make it so"
But just because you think it's so doesn't make it so. Apply that to yourself.

Just because you said my reasoning is something doesn't make it so.

Just like when you say "that means" doesn't mean that you think the statement means what you said it means? You said my reasoning was something else than what it is. You should again look at yourself in the mirror (figuratively). LOL!!

[udolipixie]

"It seems you expressed a emotion since you said that my statement meant you have no life only to "seemly" then try to correct yourself (I guess because you didn't use "seemly") by saying you have a life."
Grammar error: "an emotion" NOT "a emotion"

It seems to you I expressed an emotion. Nice on admitting you guessed what I said not. It seems you're acknowledging just because you said it doesn't mean it's true.

[Asker]

do you mean refuting what you say is illogical. If so that's a bit extreme.

I mean refuting what I say for the sake of refuting is not making a logical reason it's just trying to counter what I say.

[Asker]

Grammar error: It's "You're not your" LMFAO as it seems you like pointing out grammatical errors.

I did that once. You've done that at least twice now. It's just hard to understand what your saying when your grammar is this:

Actually it because I said it does make it so

What in the hell? LOL!!!

[udolipixie]

It wasn't pointless of me to say I have a life.

What you said didn't mean you're saying I don't have a life. What you said did seemingly state that it's a possibility I don't have a life:
"If you have no life and want to stay on here then by all means."

Note the keywords 'If you have no life' my statement was addressing that implied possibility.

[Asker]

You're the one who said my statements meant something that it doesn't necessarily mean. Such as how you just told me what my reasoning was or when you told me 'Attraction is discrimination' means I'm saying discrimination is wrong.

We are just going back and forth on how it seems we both have said something about the other that isn't necessarily so. I've got multiple examples you got multiple...or just the one you keep stating. It's amusing really. LOL!!

[udolipixie]

As for your note on how when you said emotion response and I said it was emotional response. I don't lack common sense. It does seem you lack and miss when I poke fun at you. LMFAO

[udolipixie]

I've laughed and picked at you the whole time. I even told you that to me this was poking fun at you not a debate as you seem to view it. It's interesting that it's AFTER I told you this that you tell me that you were laughing and picking at me.

Are you copycatting again perhaps to save face? LMFAO

[Asker]

It wasn't pointless of me to say I have a life.

What you said didn't mean you're saying I don't have a life.

Read that statement over. Did you make a error?

What you said did seemingly state that it's a possibility I don't have a life:

See this is the problem. You "seemly" think just because I don't or do use choice words that that determines what I meant. It doesn't.

[Asker]

As for your note on how when you said emotion response and I said it was emotional response. I don't lack common sense. It does seem you lack and miss when I poke fun at you.

Apparently you did too but you tried to cover it up LOL!!! Least I don't do that.

[udolipixie]

"LOL!!! Such BS."
LMFAO. Such lacking memory and reading comprehension.

You don't recall telling me I shouldn't call you a liar? "You shouldn't say I'm a liar with statement." LMFAO

[Asker]

I've laughed and picked at you the whole time. I even told you that to me this was poking fun at you not a debate as you seem to view it. It's interesting that it's AFTER I told you this that you tell me that you were laughing and picking at me.

As if me not saying it's amusing to me the entire time means it wasn't amusing to me the entire time.

[Asker]

Are you flip flopping and inserting neutral terms to save face again? LMAO!!!

[udolipixie]

"I did that once."
You did it more than once. ""And in your lower paragraph your grammar is still incorrect." and "Focus on your grammar first" (when I used 'stopped' instead of 'stop').

Seems more like it's hard for you to understand what I'm saying as you tend to tend me what I say.

[udolipixie]

*edit
Seems more like it's hard for you to understand what I'm saying as you tend to tell me what I say.

[Asker]

It's not a lack of memory. I remember you trying to claim you knew what my logic was and then saying I didn't tell you my logic and then saying since I gave you a emotional response you switched on what you thought my logic was. LMAO!!! Switch after switch. If it's just amusing to you then why you keep switching? It's only digging a deeper hole for yourself for me to laugh into.

[udolipixie]

"We are just going back and forth on how it seems we both have said something about the other that isn't necessarily so."
Meh you bring it up and I respond back in kind. It seems you have an issue with such responses in which case perhaps stop making them? o.O

"I've got multiple examples you got multiple...or just the one you keep stating. It's amusing really. LOL!!"
I listed two examples in that statement. LMFAO

[Asker]

Yeah you said I was a liar and I still say I'm not. You seem to generalize a lot of things, especially my statements even though my logic is not "seemly" based on general logic. Then you'd say that you were just poking fun at me. Which would still mean I'm not a liar and in fact would make YOU the liar.

[Asker]

Meh you bring it up and I respond back in kind. It seems you have an issue with such responses in which case perhaps stop making them?

You stop I'll stop.

[udolipixie]

"Apparently you did too but you tried to cover it up LOL!!! Least I don't do that."
I stated I missed it so how did I try to cover it up?

Recall I stated I didn't even grasp when you poking fun at me...o.O so I'm unsure how it seemed to you I was expressing an emotion from it.

Do you mean I was covering up I missed you poking fun at me by stating I didn't express an emotion from something I didn't know was happening?

[Asker]

I listed two examples in that statement.

I didn't see one of them but you also said you knew what my reasoning was & then I told you you were wrong and you admitted to it saying that it was because of what a "seemly" emotional reaction? "Correct" me again. LOL!!!

[udolipixie]

"See this is the problem. You "seemly" think just because I don't or do use choice words that that determines what I meant. It doesn't."
The problem is you using words you don't seem to understand. You said "If I don't have a life"

If is stating a possibility or hypothetical. Are you aware of that?

I was addressing the possibility I wasn't saying you said I have no life.

It's not like I thought this because you didn't use words like seem. I thought this because you used "If" which is stating a possibility or hypothetical.

[Asker]

Recall I stated I didn't even grasp when you poking fun at me...o.O so I'm unsure how it seemed to you I was expressing an emotion from it.

Ok. Well then that still doesn't take away that you stated multiple times what my statements mean even though your statements to that weren't necessarily true.

[udolipixie]

No I'm not flip flopping again or inserting neutral terms to save face as I haven't done that to begin with.

I do enjoy how you're copycatting me using 'to save face' after I did. First it was searching through links/answers for information about me now it's copying what I do. LMFAO

[Asker]

You know I think your a weird girl. Your weirdness amuses me. LOL!!!

[Asker]

LMAO!!! It amuses me what can I say? I said if I was angry I'd stop.

[Asker]

*I mean if I do stop it wouldn't be out of anger. That's what I meant to say.

[udolipixie]

It is a lack of memory as that's not what happened. I wasn't trying to claim I knew what your logic was (I clearly stated it was guess).
I guessed what your logic was because you didn't provide it and you didn't until MUCH later tell me otherwise. The options were either general or specific. I made the guess it was general since despite your logic for another claim being specific it seemed you irrational and inconsistent.

There was no switching involved. It's not switching to explain to you how I made that guess. LMFAO

"LMAO!!! Switch after switch. If it's just amusing to you then why you keep switching?"
I haven't keep switching.

[udolipixie]

It's not digging any hole to state what you think is my reasoning is not. It's really not digging any hole that I've been differentiating between what is opinion and fact...O.O

[udolipixie]

You are a liar. You told a lie. You said I said something I didn't. I didn't say discrimination is wrong...that makes it a lie and you a liar. LMFAO

I'm poke fun at you because your logic is seemingly irrational- 'wrongful' to not date short guys, 'wrongful' to only date tall guys. Calling this 'wrongful' discrimination a world fault...LOL

Poking fun at you doesn't make me a liar. Are you under the notion that by poking fun at you I'm stating things that are untrue? o.O

[Asker]

LOL!!! It's not irrational just because I believe differently than you and making that statement about attraction to romantic/sexual partners doesn't make my belief on the matter irrational and I wasn't inconsistent with my specifics that supported my logic.

[udolipixie]

"You stop I'll stop."
Meh I see no reason for me to stop. That you take such an issue with my responses is amusing to me.

It's funny the seeming hissy fit you throw whenever I talk about your false claims and lies telling me what I feel by saying I'm angry, I'm so mad, and "I stay angry".

You even went into a seeming tirade about how I brought up anger. LMFAO

[udolipixie]

* edit
That you appear to take such an issue with my responses is amusing to me.

[Asker]

It's really not digging any hole that I've been differentiating between what is opinion and fact.

It's not fact that because people seek what they are attracted to means it's not right nor does such a statement is necessarily logical. That's your statement that you said I was being illogical for not believing.

[Asker]

*It's not fact that because people seek what they are attracted to means it's right

[Asker]

You are a liar. You told a lie.

If I misinterpret what you said and that makes me a liar then your a liar for saying you know what my statements mean and that you should have known that I was poking fun of at you. Since you didn't know you are a liar just like I didn't know you meant differently.

[udolipixie]

I'm not stating it's irrational just because you believe differently than me.

I'm stating you're irrational because of your reasoning such as telling me what I feel, telling me what I think, telling me who I am (recall you @metal reply).

I'm stating you're irrational because of how you got I'm saying discrimination is wrong.

I'm stating you're irrational because of the reasoning that it's unjust to exclude short guys or only go for tall guys.

"I wasn't inconsistent with my specifics that supported my logic."
Egh unsure why you're telling me this as I didn't say you were inconsistent or seemed to be inconsistent in that manner. I was talking about inconsistency in another manner.

[Asker]

I'm poke fun at you because your logic is seemingly irrational- 'wrongful' to not date short guys, 'wrongful' to only date tall guys. Calling this 'wrongful' discrimination a world fault...LOL

Now you say poking fun at someone doesn't make them a liar but you made statements about my statements by misinterpretation like I did. Therefore you are a liar.

[Asker]

I'm not stating it's irrational just because you believe differently than me.

So it's not wrong what I believe.

I'm stating you're irrational because of your reasoning such as telling me what I feel, telling me what I think, telling me who I am (recall you @metal reply).

I get what your trying to say but again like I said before how do you know I DON'T know how you feel? o.O

[udolipixie]

*It's not fact that because people seek what they are attracted to means it's right. That's your statement that you said I was being illogical for not believing.

I didn't say it was a fact...I didn't even say that statement. LMFAO

I also didn't say you're illogical for not believing its right for people to seek what they are attracted to. I did state you're illogical for many other reasons like telling me what I feel, telling me what I think, telling me who I am, how you got I'm saying discrimination is wrong, reasoning that's unjust to exclude short guys.

[Asker]

I'm stating you're irrational because of how you got I'm saying discrimination is wrong.

So then it was irrational to make a general statement that claimed to know the logic behind my specific statement.

[Asker]

I'm stating you're irrational because of the reasoning that it's unjust to exclude short guys or only go for tall guys

That's not irrational if it's my logic. You made the claim that my logic was something different when I never said it was what you claimed it to be.

[Asker]

Egh unsure why you're telling me this as I didn't say you were inconsistent or seemed to be inconsistent in that manner. I was talking about inconsistency in another manner.

And what manner was this? o.O do tell.

[udolipixie]

"If I misinterpret what you said and that makes me a liar"
Saying I said it makes you a liar.

"then your a liar for saying you know what my statements mean and that you should have known that I was poking fun of at you."
No that makes you the liar again. I didn't say I know what your statements mean I clearly stated I guess. I also didn't say you should have known that I was poking fun at you.

[Asker]

I didn't say it was a fact...I didn't even say that statement.

Then it's not illogical for me to think differently sense it's all based on logic to begin with and not facts.

[udolipixie]

Where did you get that I said you should have know that I was poking fun at you? o.O

[udolipixie]

"Then it's not illogical for me to think differently sense it's all based on logic to begin with and not facts."
It does make it illogical since it is based on logic and logic can be logical or illogical.

It not being based on facts doesn't change that logic can be logical or illogical.

If it was based on facts then the matter would likely be if it's a fact or opinion or it's false or true.

[udolipixie]

"I get what your trying to say but again like I said before how do you know I DON'T know how you feel? o.O"
I know you don't know how I feel because your statements were false. LMFAO

[Asker]

I also didn't say you're illogical for not believing its right for people to seek what they are attracted to. I did state you're illogical for many other reasons like telling me what I feel, telling me what I think, telling me who I am, how you got I'm saying discrimination is wrong, reasoning that's unjust to exclude short guys.

reasoning that's unjust to exclude short guys.

How is that illogical if it has to do with my logic? LMAO!! The how you feel and all that could be seen as illogical but it's it's my logic and I could say it's illogical to think that some things you feel or think I can't feel or think too. It's like your saying we can't think the same things or feel the same way about some things. That's not necessarily true and if you want to go back to me "claiming" you at that moment feel a certain way I only suggested it. I also don't understand why you are making a big deal about it since only you know how you feel...

[Asker]

But it's not illogical to think that others can feel the same way or think the same way.

[udolipixie]

"Now you say poking fun at someone doesn't make them a liar but you made statements about my statements by misinterpretation like I did. Therefore you are a liar."
I'm not a liar. I told you I was guessing. If I stated that's what you said then that would be lying. I didn't...you couldn't even show me where I said you stated/you think/you mean/you said. LMFAO

[udolipixie]

"That's not irrational if it's my logic."
It being your logic doesn't mean it's not irrational as logic can be logical or irrational.

"You made the claim that my logic was something different when I never said it was what you claimed it to be."
I made a guess.

[Asker]

I know you don't know how I feel because your statements were false.

Well apparently you don't know how I feel either as you seemly thought I meant something I didn't necessarily meant and you seemly made a claim that was false.

[Asker]

It's again back and forth on false claims and or misinterpretations we both have made.

[Asker]

The claim you seemed to make as to why it's illogical is based on your own logic which is based on perception. You don't get to determine what is logical and illogical if I don't.

[Asker]

Me saying you feel a certain way was a guess too.

[udolipixie]

"How is that illogical if it has to do with my logic? LMAO!!"
Just because it's logic doesn't make it logical. Logic can be logical or illogical. Can you grasp that? LMFAO

"The how you feel and all that could be seen as illogical but it's it's my logic and
"I could say it's illogical to think that some things you feel or think I can't feel or think too."
You could say that however it wouldn't be applicable as I don't think that and I haven't stated I think that. I did state it's illogical to tell me what I think, what I feel, and who I am.

[udolipixie]

Stating you can't tell me how I feel and how I think is not like saying we can't think or feel the same things.

There's a difference between saying 'you can't tell me how I feel' and 'you can't feel what I feel'. Stating you can't tell me that I'm angry isn't stating you can't feel angry as well.

Again you lie. You didn't only suggest how I feel as "I stay angry" is not a suggestion. LMFAO

"I also don't understand why you are making a big deal about it since only you know how you feel.."
I'm not making it a big deal. I'm stating it shows your illogical reasoning.

[Asker]

Can you grasp that you don't get to determine what is illogical or logical?

I never stated I thought what you "seemly" had suggested either. So it's illogical to tell me what my statements mean and if my logic is illogical. Again it's not for you to determine especially when you seem to struggle with what my logic is in the first place. Just because you seem to struggle understanding it also doesn't mean it's illogical.

[udolipixie]

"Well apparently you don't know how I feel either"
Unlike you I didn't state to know how you feel.

"as you seemly thought I meant something I didn't necessarily meant and you seemly made a claim that was false."
Keyword: 'seemly'...actually it's 'seemingly'

[udolipixie]

"The claim you seemed to make as to why it's illogical is based on your own logic which is based on perception."
Egh it was based on the definition of the words you used.

"You don't get to determine what is logical and illogical if I don't."
I do if I'm using defined terms. LMFAO

[Asker]

Again you lie. You didn't only suggest how I feel as "I stay angry" is not a suggestion.

How do you know it's not a suggestion? Again you claim to know what I meant. LOL!!

[udolipixie]

"Me saying you feel a certain way was a guess too."
Amusing you seemingly accused me of saying something was a guess to flip flop and...yet that is what you're appealingly do.

It was reasonable for me to guess as you didn't state your logic and you didn't until MUCH later told me otherwise. I also didn't stick with my guess after you told me otherwise.

So why did you guess that I was angry?

Why did you continue to guess I was angry escalating to so mad and I stay angry after I told you repeatedly I wasn't?

[Asker]

I'm not making it a big deal. I'm stating it shows your illogical reasoning.

Saying "you stay angry" doesn't necessarily mean I believe you stay angry. Since you like neutral statements you should see that.

[udolipixie]

* edit
Amusing you seemingly accused me of saying something was a guess to flip flop and...yet that is what you're seemingly doing.

[Asker]

Keyword: 'seemly'...actually it's 'seemingly'

Again just because you use neutral terms and I don't all the time doesn't mean I meant what you seemly thought I meant.

[udolipixie]

"How do you know it's not a suggestion? Again you claim to know what I meant. LOL!!"
Don't bs with this 'again' that's not claiming to know what you meant. That's talking about how it was phrased.

It's not phrased as a suggestion.

Your response doesn't imply it was a suggestion since after I told you repeatedly I wasn't angry you still persisted.

[udolipixie]

LMFA @ your fail at flip flopping and changing your story.

[Asker]

Amusing you seemingly accused me of saying something was a guess to flip flop and...yet that is what you're seemingly doing.

You seemingly have flip flopped.

[udolipixie]

LOL @ your fail at using neutral wording.

Saying "you stay angry" does mean you said it.

It's untrue meaning you lied. Which makes you a liar.

Amusing how your fail at using neutral statements again reveal you to be a liar.

[Asker]

It was reasonable for me to guess as you didn't state your logic and you didn't until MUCH later told me otherwise. I also didn't stick with my guess after you told me otherwise

It's your opinion that I didn't state it later because I did state it throughout you just didn't understand it.

[udolipixie]

"Again just because you use neutral terms and I don't all the time doesn't mean I meant what you seemly thought I meant."

It does mean you said it.

LMFAO @ your fail at trying to use neutral wording to save face. This is pretty weak poking fun if that's what you're doing.

It's only digging a deeper hole for yourself for me to laugh into.

[Asker]

Why did you continue to guess I was angry escalating to so mad and I stay angry after I told you repeatedly I wasn't?

I didn't say you stayed mad repeatedly like you kept bringing up anger repeatedly. Why did you continue to guess my logic was general when I have been saying it isn't?

[udolipixie]

* edit
LMFAO @ your fail at trying to use neutral wording to seemingly save face. This is pretty weak poking fun if that's what you're doing.

[udolipixie]

I do enjoy this. For me it's amusing, it pokes fun at your illogical reasoning, it reveals more of your lacking reasoning (How is that illogical if it has to do with my logic?), and it shows what a copycat you are.

It also appears to supports that you have been just creating stuff to refute. Like your seeming tirade on me bringing up anger. LMFAO

[Asker]

your fail at trying to use neutral wording to seemingly save face. This is pretty weak poking fun if that's what you're doing.

LOL!! You even used your neutral wording in such statement. Of course I'm not the master at using neutral words to try to weasel my opinions in.

[udolipixie]

"It's your opinion that I didn't state it later because I did state it throughout you just didn't understand it."
You stated it in another claim. If you were using the same logic for a different claim it's suited to say such.

I certainly didn't understand that seemingly I am supposed to mind read/gloss/infer because you talked about specific discrimination is wrong that means the logic of another different claim on missing out is specific as well.

[Asker]

I do enjoy this. For me it's amusing, it pokes fun at your illogical reasoning, it reveals more of your lacking reasoning (How is that illogical if it has to do with my logic?), and it shows what a copycat you are.

It also appears to supports that you have been just creating stuff to refute. Like you bringing up anger. LMFAO

[udolipixie]

"I didn't say you stayed mad repeatedly like you kept bringing up anger repeatedly. "
I asked you why did you continue to guess I was angry and escalated it to you are so mad and you stay angry.

I'm unsure why you seemingly think I'm asking you why you say I stayed mad repeatedly.

"Why did you continue to guess my logic was general when I have been saying it isn't?"
I didn't...o.O.

[Asker]

Wow I should have corrected your grammar because I copied that LOL!!! I see your a liar who uses neutral terms to again weasels your beliefs. You also think that you can determine what is and isn't illogical when you can't. LOL!! And then you try to say you know how to separate opinion from fact?

[Asker]

*before I copied that.

[udolipixie]

Why did you continue to guess I was angry after I told you I wasn't?

Why did after I told you I wasn't angry you guessed I was so mad?

Why did after I told you I wasn't angry, mad, or so mad you guessed I stayed angry?

[udolipixie]

Are you under the notion that because I explained why I made the guess that I continue to guess your logic was general when you finally MUCH later told me it wasn't.

Again this to me would have been suited to tell me when I first made the guess. More suitable would have been to add your logic in rather than seemingly having me infer it from a different claim.

[Asker]

I asked you why did you continue to guess I was angry and escalated it to you are so mad and you stay angry

I didn't repeatedly guess you was angry like you kept bringing it up.

I'm unsure why you seemingly think I'm asking you why you say I stayed mad repeatedly.

No your comprehension is lacking here.

[udolipixie]

"It also appears to supports that you have been just creating stuff to refute. Like you bringing up anger. LMFAO"
It appears...

I brought up anger to show your illogical reasoning. That wasn't something I was refuting. That was something I was using as an example of your lacking reasoning skills.

[udolipixie]

It seems you don't know what the word 'refute' means.

Bringing up anger to show your illogical reasoning isn't necessarily refuting it. That's using it as support to state something else.

[Asker]

I didn't...o.O.

BS. LMAO!!! How am I the liar though? It took you forever (not literally forever I know how you like to "correct" such things) to understand after the general statement you made despite the evidence and other statements I made.

[Asker]

LMAO!!! But again my reading skills are not determined by you. Your not the sole decider to say "so and so lacks reading skills" all you can do is suggest it. Which still doesn't make it true and still doesn't mean my reasoning is illogical.

[udolipixie]

"I see your a liar who uses neutral terms to again weasels your beliefs."
The liar is you. Not me. Recall you telling me I said something I didn't with stating I said discriminiation is wrong. Or will you lie again and again weasel out of your statements by saying it was a guess? LMFAO

Using neutral terms isn't weaseling beliefs...o.O

"You also think that you can determine what is and isn't illogical when you can't. LOL!!"
I can determine what is and isn't illogical when it's using definitive words.

For example:
You: "This car is blue" (the car is no other color but red)
Me: Stating a red car is blue isn't logical.

"And then you try to say you know how to separate opinion from fact?"
I do. Are you aware that a person can use facts to determine what is logical and illogical?

[Asker]

Recall you telling me I said something I didn't with stating I said discriminiation is wrong. Or will you lie again and again weasel out of your statements by saying it was a guess? LMFAO

Using neutral terms isn't weaseling beliefs...o.O

Funny I recall you saying something I didn't say too. Again & again we are just beating a dead horse with this who's lying and who aint.

So since I used the neutral key words incorrectly that's me lying and weaseling my beliefs? o.O Is it because I copy cat when I use them?

[udolipixie]

"I didn't repeatedly guess you was angry like you kept bringing it up."
Why are you so mad?
Got all that anger out?
You stay angry.
In ALL your posts (not just on this question).
^ (talking.. oh wait guessing about me being angry in all my posts)

"No your comprehension is lacking here."
If my comprehension was lacking I would have stated you are not that seemingly. LMFAO

[Asker]

For example:
You: "This car is blue" (the car is no other color but red)
Me: Stating a red car is blue isn't logical.

Now apply that to my "illogic". Again it has to be based on fact and again I never said it wasn't logical for people to seek a romantic/sexual partner that they find attractive.

[udolipixie]

"BS. LMAO!!! How am I the liar though?"
You are the liar. It's not a lie. I didn't continue to guess that was your logic after you said it wasn't.

"It took you forever (not literally forever I know how you like to "correct" such things) to understand after the general statement you made despite the evidence and other statements I made."
It took seconds. I can even quote the statements.

Are you under the notion because I explained how I made the guess that it took forever for me to understand? Or is it me stating it's not suitable for me to seemingly have to infer based on another claim?

[udolipixie]

Most of that discussion wasn't me taking forever to understand I generalized. Rather it was
- explaining to you the difference between a claim and the logic of the claim (that took quite quite quite some time)

- explaining why I made the guess (also took quite some time as for some reason you seemingly want to refute why I took the guess)

- you seemingly taking offense to implying you had an emotional reaction

In my opinion the discussion really trailed off.

[udolipixie]

"Funny I recall you saying something I didn't say too."
Hmmm your recollection seems faulty considering how you tend to state I said things I didn't. LMFAO

"Again & again we are just beating a dead horse with this who's lying and who aint."
Meh you brought it up and I find it funny how much offense you seemingly take to it. I'm unsure why you keep saying it's beating a dead horse as it doesn't seem like you want it to stop.

[Asker]

So you finally admit to trying to refute my belief?

[Asker]

Well the discussion isn't a debate anyway it's just you "picking on me" LOL!!! And me copying you while stating my logic and you trying to refute it.

[udolipixie]

Now apply that to my "illogic".

I already applied it to your statements when you used the terms 'wrongful', 'wrong', 'unjust', 'unfair'.

Again it doesn't have to be based on fact for me to state something is illogical or logical. The reasoning does seemingly have to use definitive terms- which you have.

You used the terms 'wrongful', 'wrong', 'unjust', 'unfair' in regards to excluding people such as short guys. That was illogical reasoning.

You are aware you don't have to state something is or isn't logical for me to state it's illogical?

[udolipixie]

"So you finally admit to trying to refute my belief?"
Egh I'm unsure why you're asking such as questioning as if I made a statement that I was refuting your belief.

Really unsure why you use the term 'admit' as if I was initially denying it...O.O

[udolipixie]

Well the discussion isn't a debate anyway it's just you "picking on me" LOL!!!
Not just me picking on you. It's also me laughing at you, poking fun at you, and disagreeing with your opinions while you seemingly try to refute them or 'correct' them as you throw a hissy fit.

[Asker]

Again it doesn't have to be based on fact for me to state something is illogical or logical.

See that's that flip flopping I was talking about. If you state something as illogical or logical and you say it doesn't have to be fact then you are either lying in this situation or stating your opinion, and if it's your opinion then that doesn't mean that my logic is illogical.

[udolipixie]

*edit
Not just me picking on you. It's also me laughing at you, poking fun at you, and disagreeing with your opinions while you seemingly try to refute or 'correct' the disagreements as you throw a hissy fit.

To me there was no chance of it being a debate once you started telling me what I feel, what I think, who I am, and why I'm attracted to what I'm attraction to (right after I just told you why).

A person who seemingly doesn't listen instead tells you what you state doesn't really appear to be interested in a debate to me.

Do tell what did you seemingly want to debate about before the bs you appeared to pull?

[Asker]

'wrongful', 'wrong', 'unjust', 'unfair' in regards to excluding people such as short guys. That was illogical reasoning.

According to you. That doesn't make it false.

[Asker]

Not just me picking on you. It's also me laughing at you, poking fun at you, and disagreeing with your opinions while you seemingly try to refute or 'correct' the disagreements as you throw a hissy fit.

LMAO!!! Nah you got that backwards.

[Asker]

To me there was no chance of it being a debate once you started telling me what I feel, what I think, who I am, and why I'm attracted to what I'm attraction to (right after I just told you why).

A person who seemingly doesn't listen instead tells you what you state doesn't really appear to be interested in a debate to me.

Do tell what did you seemingly want to debate about before the bs you appeared to pull?

You pulled your own BS but anyway you think it's not wrong for a girl to not view a guy's full profile (his other qualities) when seeking a romantic/sexual partner if she's stopped by not being attracted to his short height right?

[udolipixie]

"See that's that flip flopping I was talking about."
That's not flip flopping...I've said this repeatedly. Note how I begin with 'Again'.

It seems you don't know what flip flopping means. Do you mean contradictory?

It's not lying to state something doesn't have to be based on facts to be logical or illogical. It seems you're under the impression logical = true and illogical = false?

Your logic is illogical as the terms you used in your reasoning don't apply by a general definition. That's what makes it illogical.

[udolipixie]

"LMAO!!! Nah you got that backwards."
LOL. Nah I know what I've been doing.

[udolipixie]

"You pulled your own BS"
LMAO..Nah you got that backwards.

[Asker]

Yes. Like if you said you like only oranges but then said you like only apples you switched (flip flopped) and contradicted yourself. Do you contradict?

It's not lying to state something doesn't have to be based on facts to be logical or illogical. It seems you're under the impression logical = true and illogical = false?

Your logic is illogical as the terms you used in your reasoning don't apply by a general definition. That's what makes it illogical.

Oh.

[Asker]

Well it's still logical to me even if it's illogical to you.

[Asker]

LMAO..Nah you got that backwards.

"BS own your pulled you"? :D

[udolipixie]

It appears you're using terms in an incorrect manner:
When you state 'logic' do you mean your perception on things as in your outlook?

When you use 'logical' do you mean true?

When you use 'illogical' do you mean false?

If so then it seems this seems to be a 'communication issue'. Logic is generally defined as reasoning, 'logical' is generally defined as what is reasonable and 'illogical' is generally defined as what is unreasonable.

When I state something is illogical in regards to your romance/attraction statements I'm talking about a term you used as in 'unjust', 'unfair', 'wrong'. Since the definition of the term doesn't fit how you applied it.

[udolipixie]

"Yes. Like if you said you like only oranges but then said you like only apples you switched (flip flopped) and contradicted yourself. Do you contradict?"
I didn't contradict myself as I'm repeating what I already said. Note how I began the sentence with 'Again'.

I've already stated it doesn't have to be based on facts for it to be logical or illogical. Recall:
"It not being based on facts doesn't change that logic can be logical or illogical.

If it was based on facts then the matter would likely be if it's a fact or opinion or it's false or true."

[Asker]

Ok I'll admit I don't understand what your saying here. LMAO!!!

It being wrong to me and some others is part of my reasoning as to why a girl shouldn't let a guy's height cut them off from viewing a guy's full profile (his other qualities) when seeking a romantic/sexual partner and therefore isn't that my logic?

[udolipixie]

You can call it logic however 'perception' and 'outlook' are more suitable.

So based on you saying that's your logic then it is illogical. It's illogical to state a gal shouldn't cut off short guys because it's wrong to you.

It's not logical reasoning to state gals shouldn't do something because it's wrong to you and some others.

No different than it's not logical reasoning to state you shouldn't watch tv because it's wrong to me and some others.

[udolipixie]

Again by illogical I'm not stating the statement is true or false I'm talking about it being unreasonable.

[udolipixie]

* edit
So based on you saying that's your logic then it is illogical. It's illogical to state a gal shouldn't cut off short guys because it's wrong to you and others.

(I'm aware I added 'and some others' in the next statement however you seem touchy so I'll repeat it again)

[Asker]

It's not logical reasoning to state gals shouldn't do something because it's wrong to you and some others.

It's illogical to "seem" to think you get to determine what is illogical and logical.

[Asker]

What's illogical to you isn't necessarily illogical to others.

[Asker]

It's no unreasonable to me.

[Asker]

Or others.

[Asker]

*It's not unreasonable to me.

[udolipixie]

It is illogical reasoning to state gal's shouldn't do something because it's wrong to you and some others when it doesn't fit the literal or general definition of wrong.

It is unreasonable to you for others to tell you what to do in personal matters/decisions because you feel it is wrong as it's 'beyond the limits of acceptability or fairness' and it's 'not guided by or based on good sense' which are definitions of unreasonable.

So it's not unreasonable to you for a gal to tell you not to wear a certain color because it's wrong? Or for a guy to tell you not to ever have sex because it's wrong

[udolipixie]

A gal choosing to exclude guys from having sex, dating, relationships, or marriage for reasons outside of hatred/superiority isn't 'wrong' as it doesn't fit the literal or general definition of being 'not correct or true' or 'unjust, dishonest, or immoral'.

Just because you don't like it doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

Your mindset of what others should/shouldn't do is unreasonable. It is not guided by or based on good sense to determine what others should or shouldn't do because you feel it's wrong. WTCupcake are you to tell others what they should/shouldn't do with personal matters such as this? o.o In this case it is beyond the limits of acceptability or fairness for you to seemingly dictate who others can choose to forge relationships with. It's not really 'fair' for you to tell others who they can include or exclude for themselves.

[Asker]

If you think it's illogical then that's your view.

No it's not unreasonable. I don't understand what your trying to say.

[udolipixie]

It's illogical because it fits the definition of illogical.

It's unreasonable because it fits the definition of unreasonable.

It's not my view it's the definition.

What don't you understand about what I'm trying to state? That your claim that it's wrong is illogical because it doesn't fit the word wrong? Or that your claim about what gals shouldn't do is unreasonable because 'beyond the limits of acceptability or fairness' and it's 'not guided by or based on good sense' which are definitions of unreasonable?

[Asker]

It's not unjust to you. You no justice is fairness. To some it may be wrong and to some it may be right. I believe in this situation we were talking about it's wrong you believe it's right. However, it is definitely unfair.

Now of course everybody has what they like and don't like but the level of unfairness here is high.

And just because you think it's illogical doesn't mean it is.

Well let me ask you should girls "stop at first base" if the guy is short?
Ah fairness. What's fair. Fairness is unbiased. Fairness is equal opportunity. Unfair is when one limits opportunity. We all limit to some degree when it comes to attraction but again the level of degree is high here.

[Asker]

*You know justice is fairness.

[Asker]

*I believe in this situation we were talking about I believe it's wrong you believe it's right.

[udolipixie]

It's not unjust based on the general definition.
Unjust is generally defined as 'not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.'

Morals are generally defined as 'pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical'.

Outside of laws, nonconsent, hatred, and superiority there aren't really morals regarding who a person can choose to include or exclude as a romantic/sexual partner.

[udolipixie]

Your belief is incorrect as in this situation we're not talking about me believing it's right.

I'm talking about:
1. Your claim that it's wrong is illogical because it doesn't fit the definition of wrong

2. Your claim on what gals should do is unreasonable as it fits the definition of unreasonable

[udolipixie]

"And just because you think it's illogical doesn't mean it is."
Nowhere have I stated it's illogical because I think it is.

I have repeatedly stated it's illogical because it fits the definition of illogical.

Again I'm stating it's illogical because it fits the definition of illogical.

If it was simply because I think it's illogical I would state so.

It's illogical to state something is wrong when it doesn't fit the definition of wrong.

[udolipixie]

Again note how you talk about fairness when 'wrong' is generally defined as ''not correct or true' or 'unjust, dishonest, or immoral'.

You seemingly have to twist words to have fairness apply to what is wrong. Just because it may be unfair doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

It may be unfair that not everyone passes a class with an A however it doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

You applying equal opportunity further supports that your claim is illogical as dating is not equal opportunity. Just because you seemingly don't like how much a person limits who they will consider doesn't make it 'wrong'.

[Asker]

Oh so you want to talk about if I think it's right, but you don't want to talk about whether or not you think it's right.

[udolipixie]

This is your question and my statements have been about your claims so clearly I would be talking about what you think.

I'm unsure why you seemingly thought otherwise other than again your lacking reading comprehension or your lack of care to read others responses...o.O

I've stated what I wanted to talk about:
1. Your claim that it's wrong is illogical because it doesn't fit the definition of wrong

2. Your claim on what gals should do is unreasonable as it fits the definition of unreasonable

[udolipixie]

By 'I've stated what I wanted to talk about' I'm misusing the words to refer to what I've been talking about. My wants in the literal sense in this discussion are quite few other than amusement and entertainment.

[udolipixie]

If what you think or commentary on what you think is not what you intended to discuss then it seems the discussion is over. (?) o.o

[Asker]

"It may be unfair that not everyone passes a class with an A however it doesn't necessarily make it wrong."

That's not unfair if everyone had a equal opportunity and major (high level) events didn't happen to such person. As compared to stopping something completely because of something unchangeable.

[Asker]

To you unless law addresses it it's not wrong.

[Asker]

If what you think or commentary on what you think is not what you intended to discuss then it seems the discussion is over.

Aren't you a female? The point of the question was to find a reasonable reason as to why some girls might stop at first base because of height. It wasn't about me.

[Asker]

And to see if girls thought it mattered. Yet you never answered that on here.

[Asker]

And since your a female that applies to you.

[udolipixie]

I gave a reasonable answer- physical attraction.

It is 'having sound judgment; fair and sensible' to use physical attraction as a factor on deciding for a romantic/sexual partner as most partnerships seem to involve sex and most people seem to require such attraction to have sex.

Rather then talk about what I think you responded with what you think and made illogical unreasonable claims which I stated. Then you seemingly threw a tantrum.

[udolipixie]

If this wasn't about you then why rather than stick to my answer did you seemingly go on an angry rant about what you think, what you claim is wrong, what you think gals should do, what you think gals shouldn't do? o.O

I would imagine if this wasn't really about you then you would stick to my answer, physical attraction, and how seemingly to you physical attraction isn't reasonable to exclude a person as a romantic/sexual partner.

[Asker]

LOL!!! This girl.

What about the other part I wanted to know? The individual part.

[Asker]

Because it's not about me it's about girls and their dislike for some short guys. LOL!!

You make it sound like it's a hundred things that I said "gals" should or shouldn't do.

What you think I'd ask the question and not reply? Not get you to explain yourself?

[udolipixie]

LMFAO @ your reading comprehension.

I already answered that part...repeatedly when you seemingly when into extremes and biased comparisons. I find most people want physical attraction, personality, and compatibility.

I'm unsure why you seemingly think that physical attraction excludes the individual. Is the concept that a gal can get/want a guy she's physically attracted to and likes as an individual some rarity to you? o.O

[udolipixie]

You've seemingly ranted on and on for days about your thoughts. None of those thoughts seemed to be about explaining myself but what you think is wrong.

I don't see how it's getting me to explain myself for you to state you think it's wrong and that gals should do this or that gals shouldn't do that.

If anything it's talking about what you think...o.O

I would imagine it's common sense that physical attraction would be a deciding factor for most people for a romantic/sexual partner and I explained that...repeatedly.

Do you want me to explain myself as to why physical attraction is a deciding factor? What else do you want explained? o.O

[Asker]

You completely misunderstood what I meant by individual. I meant you. Not "a gal".

[Asker]

You again have a misunderstanding.

[udolipixie]

My answer of physical attraction still stands with what you meant by individual.

If you wanted individual personal answers then perhaps not ask in a general manner with 'Why don't girls like short guys?' and instead as 'If you don't like short guys why?'

[udolipixie]

Again do tell how is you seemingly ranting for days about what is wrong, what is unfair, what gals should do, and such trying to get me to explain myself.

It seems more like you making this about you something you've denied with 'this isn't about me'

[Asker]

Yet all the other girls (mostly) gave a individual answer but you. I wonder why?

[udolipixie]

"You again have a misunderstanding."
Coming from the guy who repeatedly lied saying I said something I didn't.
LMFAO

[udolipixie]

I had a 'misunderstanding' as you didn't clarify what you met so I had to infer. We had been talking about attraction and your mentions of individual had been about personality so I thought you meant personality when you brought it up.

Again it seems suited not only for you to look into your reading comprehension and the definition of certain words but how you phrase things as well. It appears you think people are mindreaders and will get what you mean without appropriate context.

[Asker]

I'll just say:

Yet all the other girls (mostly) gave a individual answer but you. I wonder why?

[Asker]

Again it seems suited not only for you to look into your reading comprehension and the definition of certain words but how you phrase things as well. It appears you think people are mindreaders and will get what you mean without appropriate context.

Your telling me?

[udolipixie]

Likely the other gals gave individual answers as they are used to answering individually.

Are you really using crowd mentality as a support...and support for what? LMFAO

Your question was general just because most gals answered individually doesn't mean the question wasn't general.

You asked 'why don't girls like short guys' not 'why don't you like short guys if you don't'

[udolipixie]

Again I'll say:
"Your question was general just because most gals answered individually doesn't mean the question wasn't general."

[udolipixie]

It's interesting you seemingly rant on and on for days about what you think yet when it comes to addressing how it's illogical or unreasonable as it fits the definition it becomes- it's not about me.

You ask a general question yet seemingly fault me for not answering personally and individually...o.O

This is quite amusing considering your earlier false claim that I just look for anything to argue. LMFAO

[Asker]

For what? Because it seems logical that they would apply such question to themselves. But I guess it's just the crowd and not you. LOL!!

[udolipixie]

Yes it's just the crowd and not me. "why don't girls like short guys" is not an individual question LMFAO

Again: "Your question was general just because most gals answered individually doesn't mean the question wasn't general."

[udolipixie]

It's actually logical to answer generally or individually if the question applies to the person. I'm unsure why you're faulting answering a general question with a general answer.

Are you again seemingly just looking for something to argue? o.O

[Asker]

I read none of that. It's always those few isn't it? I think this discussion is over. You obviously don't want to say whether or not you want your romantic/sexual partner to be short and you have already made your statement.

[udolipixie]

Okay then. Again if you wanted to individually ask gals want if they want a romantic/sexual partner to be short it's suited to ask 'do you want a guy who is short' rather than 'why don't girls like short guys'.

[udolipixie]

By again I don't mean that this is something I've repeated to you. By again I'm repeating my suggestion of phrasing your statements/questions to reflect what you mean.

[Asker]

Well I asked you and you still didn't answer. I didn't ask them and they answered anyway. So again is it them or you?

[Asker]

Well you know what I mean now don't you?

[udolipixie]

Don't bs and lie. You asked me and I answered.
You: Would you date a short guy? Or a black person? or a Hispanic? or a Asian? Or a Indian?
Me: "No I would not date a short guy, black guy, hispanic guy, Asian guy, or Indian guy. I'm not attracted to them and I date what I find attractive."

Then you seemingly faulted me for answering I would not date these guys rather than answer with what guys I would date.

[udolipixie]

It's them as likely they are used to answer individually regardless of how a question is phrased.

You asked a general question so I answered with a general answer.

[udolipixie]

It appears you don't know how to phrase your questions for what you mean.

You ask 'why don't girls like short guys' when you seemingly mean 'why don't you like short guys'.

You asked me 'if I would date short guy?' when you seemingly mean 'what type of guy would you date'.

Again it seems suited for you to look into how you phrase your questions.

[udolipixie]

Once more: "Your question was general just because most gals answered individually doesn't mean the question wasn't general."

Are you attempting to deny your question was phrased in general terms? o.O

Though that would be no surprise to me as you just lied seemingly saying I didn't answer if I would date short guy when I already did. An answer you seemingly faulted me for not answering with what guy I would date...o.O

[Asker]

You asked me 'if I would date short guy?'

And you didn't answer.

[udolipixie]

Again you lied and show your lacking reading comprehension.

I didn't ask you 'if I would date short guy'? o.O

Why would I answer a question I supposedly asked you. LMFAO

[udolipixie]

You: Would you date a short guy? Or a black person? or a Hispanic? or a Asian? Or a Indian?

Me: "No I would not date a short guy, black guy, hispanic guy, Asian guy, or Indian guy. I'm not attracted to them and I date what I find attractive."

Don't bs and lie as if you asked me if I would date a short guy and I haven't answered. You asked and I answered right after your question.

[Asker]

"You asked me 'if I would date short guy?'"

And you didn't answer.

[udolipixie]

So first your issue is seemingly that I don't answer what your question doesn't ask.
You asked 'why don't girls like short guys' and you seemingly fault me for not answering why I don't like short guys. For some reason it's odd to you I answered a general question with a general answer.

You asked 'would you date a short guy' and you seemingly fault me for not answering what guy would I date.

Again are you just looking for something to argue? o.O

Or have you switched on your seeming rants and hostility so much you can't keep up and recall that I answered this question and you seemingly took issue that I didn't respond with what guys would I date? LMFAO

[udolipixie]

I didn't ask you 'if I would date short guy'? o.O Why would I answer a question I supposedly asked you. LMFAO

[udolipixie]

You: Would you date a short guy? Or a black person? or a Hispanic? or a Asian? Or a Indian?

Me: "No I would not date a short guy, black guy, hispanic guy, Asian guy, or Indian guy. I'm not attracted to them and I date what I find attractive."

Don't bs and lie as if you asked me if I would date a short guy and I haven't answered.
You: Would you date a short guy? Or a black person? or a Hispanic? or a Asian? Or a Indian?

Me: "No I would not date a short guy, black guy, hispanic guy, Asian guy, or Indian guy. I'm not attracted to them and I date what I find attractive."

I answered right after you asked me. Seems you're trolling, again showing how much of a liar you are, or again seemingly evading being called on your irrationality and lacking logic. Either way entertaining for me.

[Asker]

You asked 'would you date a short guy' and you seemingly fault me for not answering what guy would I date.

No. All you had to do was say yes or no. LOL!!!

[udolipixie]

I did say yes or no...16 days ago when you asked me.

Don't bs and lie as if you asked me if I would date a short guy and I haven't answered. I've repeatedly requoted our discussion showing I answered.

[Asker]

I didn't ask you 'if I would date short guy'? o.O Why would I answer a question I supposedly asked you. LMFAO

I copied and pasted this from you (I'm putting it in quotes):

"You asked me 'if I would date short guy?'"

[udolipixie]

LMFAO so it seems either:
- you're a liar again

- you severely lack reading comprehension again (I answered this right after you and have been requoting the exchange this time)
- you're a troll

So which is it? Perhaps troll though that would again show you're a liar as you claimed you were trying to get me to explain my answer. LMFAO

[udolipixie]

16 days ago...
You: Would you date a short guy? Or a black person? or a Hispanic? or a Asian? Or a Indian?

Me: "No I would not date a short guy, black guy, hispanic guy, Asian guy, or Indian guy. I'm not attracted to them and I date what I find attractive."

Still going to lie? I wouldn't be surprised as you persisted with your earlier lies.

[udolipixie]

You're now putting it in quotes...earlier it wasn't and it seemed as if you were making a statement claiming I asked you if you would date a short guy.

So instead of a ridiculous false claim you're simply lying...again.

[Asker]

Oh yeah I forgot. That's not a lack of reading comprehension that's just not remembering something that wasn't relevant to me for the past what 16 days? LOL!!! Say no mo. XD

[udolipixie]

It is lacking reading comprehension as I repeatedly requoted this several times each time you claimed I didn't answer.

You didn't have to remember it as I requoted it repeatedly...every time you said I didn't answer. LMFAO

[Asker]

I didn't lie about not putting it in quotes.

[udolipixie]

When you said 'No. All you had to do was say yes or no. LOL!!!' the response before it requotes the exchange TWICE.

Again lacking reading comprehension of yours.

You kept saying I didn't answer and I showed I did...yet you persisted I didn't. That's not a case of not remembering that's a lack of reading comprehension.

[udolipixie]

I said you lied about me not answering. A lie you persisted with despite each time I showed you I did.

I didn't say you lied about not putting it in quotes so I'm unsure why you're telling me such.

[udolipixie]

So you going to admit that you lied about me not answering?

And that you persisted with this lie despite how each time you brought it up I showed I answered?

LMFAO

[Asker]

I only saw you quote what you said 16 days ago once. Again not lacking reading comprehension if that's what your trying to base it off of.

[udolipixie]

It is lacking reading comprehension as I repeated what I said each time you said I didn't answer.

[Asker]

Well I'm going to go eat.

[udolipixie]

You: Well I asked you and you still didn't answer.

Me: Don't bs and lie. You asked me and I answered.
You: Would you date a short guy? Or a black person? or a Hispanic? or a Asian? Or a Indian?
Me: "No I would not date a short guy, black guy, hispanic guy, Asian guy, or Indian guy. I'm not attracted to them and I date what I find attractive."

[udolipixie]

You: All you had to do was say yes or no. LOL!!!
(this was right after I showed I requoted TWICE how I did answered_

Me: I did say yes or no...16 days ago when you asked me.

Don't bs and lie as if you asked me if I would date a short guy and I haven't answered. I've repeatedly requoted our discussion showing I answered.

[udolipixie]

It is a lack of reading comprehension when you persist that I didn't answer each I show you that I did.

You seemingly only noted I did answer despite how I requoted and repeated the exchange for the past hour (?). LMFAO

[udolipixie]

"I only saw you quote what you said 16 days ago once."
Yet I quoted what I said 16 days ago several times. I did so the first time you told me I didn't answer.

Yet you only saw it once and it seems only recently despite how I've been quoting it for the past hour (?). LMFAO

That's a lack of reading comprehension or you seemingly be so focused on finding something to argue that you don't even read just rant and rave. LMFAO

[udolipixie]

"Well I'm going to go eat."
Just saw this.

Guess that means your bs and lies are over with...or do that you want food to sustain energy to do more of your bs and lies so you can find something to argue about so you can rant and rave. LMFAO

[Asker]

"It is a lack of reading comprehension when you persist that I didn't answer each I show you that I did."

No it's called forgetting irrelevant things that were said 16 days ago.

[Asker]

"You seemingly only noted I did answer despite how I requoted and repeated the exchange for the past hour"

You mean TWICE? LOL!! I only saw it once. Am I repeating myself? I think I am.

[Asker]

"Guess that means your bs and lies are over with...or do that you want food to sustain energy to do more of your bs and lies so you can find something to argue about so you can rant and rave. LMFAO"

You can't be serious with a statement like this.

[udolipixie]

No it's lacking reading comprehension when You stated I didn't answer and I reply I did and requote it...then you persist I didn't answer.

I've repeated it more than twice. In fact in one of your responses continuing your lie I repeated it TWICE.

That you only saw it once shows your lacking reading comprehension.

[udolipixie]

I am serious. It seems you're just looking for things to argue.
First it was that I answered a general question with a general answer. Then it's that I didn't answer a question...which I did and showed you I did repeatedly everytime you said I didn't.

[Asker]

I never said you didn't repeat it more than once.

[udolipixie]

It is a lack of reading comprehension as you didn't see when I told you I answered and requoted the exchange the first time you told me I didn't answer.

This isn't a case of not remembering something from 16 days ago as I requoted it at least FOUR times yet you only saw it once...LMFAO

[udolipixie]

"I never said you didn't repeat it more than once."
I'm unsure why you're telling me you never said this as nowhere did I state you said I didn't repeat it more than once...o.o

I am stating that I repeated it more than once suggests your lacking reading comprehension. I requoted this from the first time you lied saying I didn't answer yet seemingly only get it and saw it after an hour. LMFAO

[Asker]

"It is a lack of reading comprehension as you didn't see when I told you I answered and requoted the exchange the first time you told me I didn't answer."

How can I comprehend something I didn't see?

[udolipixie]

That you didn't see it suggests quite some lacking skill on your part as it was an immediate response to yours and there were no other responses for some time.

It really suggests lacking skill on your part that you didn't see something at least FOUR times for the past hour or so. LOL

Or that you were seemingly lying earlier about your intention being about me explaining myself as it suggests you don't even read/acknowledge responses. I mean really wanting someone to explain yet you skim/skip their responses. LMFAO

[Asker]

"I'm unsure why you're telling me you never said this as nowhere did I state you said I didn't repeat it more than once."

Because you seem to feel the need to keep saying TWICE and FOUR times.

I requoted this from the first time you lied saying I didn't answer yet seemingly only get it and saw it after an hour.

When did I say you didn't requote from the first time? I stated already that I forgot you said 16 days ago that you wouldn't date a short guy. You requoting it reminded me.

"I am stating that I repeated it more than once suggests your lacking reading comprehension."

It may be you who is lacking comprehension.

"I am serious. It seems you're just looking for things to argue."

Nah I don't care for it. It seems like you do.

[udolipixie]

You seemingly eliminated lacking reading comprehension so are you a liar or lacking in visual acuity? o.O

I'm going with liar as you earlier admitted you skim/skip my responses which along with how you persisted I didn't answer suggests you don't really read responses and look for something to argue.

[Asker]

"That you didn't see it suggests quite some lacking skill on your part as it was an immediate response to yours and there were no other responses for some time.

It really suggests lacking skill on your part that you didn't see something at least FOUR times for the past hour or so. LOL"

Ehh nah I think it was after the 2nd time. Some of your stuff I don't read. I even said "I didn't read all that."

[udolipixie]

I'm stating how many times to show that it took so long for you to get it. That's not stating that you said I didn't repeat myself.

If you didn't care about it then why did you keep going on and on and on for an hour or so about how I didn't answer the question? LOL

Why did you even bring it up if you don't care. Seems more like now that you were called on your bs that you don't care.

[udolipixie]

"When did I say you didn't requote from the first time?"
Egh I'm unsure why you're asking me this as nowhere did I state you said I didn't requote the first time. Me stating I did something isn't necessarily accusing you of saying I didn't do it.

"I stated already that I forgot you said 16 days ago that you wouldn't date a short guy. You requoting it reminded me."
That's my point. You claimed I didn't answer, I requoted, you still claimed I didn't answer, I requoted, you still insisted I didn't answer. It took you an hour or so it seems to see something I requoted repeatedly suggesting you're lacking in reading comprehension, a liar, or lacking visual acuity.

[Asker]

"You seemingly eliminated lacking reading comprehension so are you a liar or lacking in visual acuity?"

I'm lacking in care to read all your comments. Like for example the other part to your post with the same above quote I stopped at skim/ w/e.

[udolipixie]

"Ehh nah I think it was after the 2nd time."
No it wasn't after the 2nd time. It was after at least four times.

One time you still insisted I didn't answer right after I requoted it twice in a single response. LMFAO

" Some of your stuff I don't read. I even said "I didn't read all that.""
I'm aware you admitted that hence why I lean on you're a liar with that bs claim about how you were seemingly trying to get me to explain not rant about yourself...yeah that's real credible when you have a tendency to not read my responses.

[Asker]

"If you didn't care about it then why did you keep going on and on and on for an hour or so about how I didn't answer the question?"

I never said I didn't care about it.

[Asker]

"Why did you even bring it up if you don't care. Seems more like now that you were called on your bs that you don't care."

Still never said I don't care.

[udolipixie]

It doesn;t take reading all my comments to see the requote as it was an immediate response the first time you claimed I didn't answer. And it was there for some time before other responses.

It was also the only response several times you claimed I didn't answer.
You: insisting I didn't
Me: requote
You: insisting I didn't
Me: requote

Either way you lied again saying I didn't do something I did and seemingly revealed what bs your claim was about you weren't making this about you but trying to get me to explain. LMFAO

[Asker]

"Either way you lied again saying I didn't do something I did and seemingly revealed what bs your claim was about you weren't making this about you but trying to get me to explain. LMFAO"

If that helps you sleep better at night.

[udolipixie]

"I never said I didn't care about it."
Hence the keywords..."if you"...

LMFAO @ your lacking reading comprehension again. Can't bs that you 'didn't see it' as you quoted it.

[Asker]

Well then good. If that's you said no need to argue about it.

[udolipixie]

By "if you don't care" I am referring to your seeming statement that you don't care to look for things to argue about. I'm unsure why you seem to think I'm talking about you caring about the question.

If you weren't looking for things to argue I would imagine you'd see the first response as it was there for quite some time.

[Asker]

*If that's what you said no need to argue about it.

[udolipixie]

"If that helps you sleep better at night."
Meh I'm not seeing how this 'if' is applicable here as nowhere did I give suggestions that this affects my sleep...o.O

Unless you're projecting and the things on here affect your sleep so you think the same applies to me? Do tell how did you get this 'if' to state? o.O

LOL

[Asker]

"If you weren't looking for things to argue I would imagine you'd see the first response as it was there for quite some time."

Explain your response not argue. W/e the case you've already stated your view. Nothing left to talk about.

[Asker]

"Meh I'm not seeing how this 'if' is applicable here as nowhere did I give suggestions that this affects my sleep...o.O"

The fact that you took a saying literal is funny.

[udolipixie]

I'm not arguing about it. I'm pointing out how it took an hour or so you to see the requote despite how each time you lied saying I didn't answer I requoted showing I did. LMFAO

That's amusement not arguing. It's also amusing to me how you insist and insist on something not reading responses then when you finally see you're wrong you're oh so quick to end it. LOL

[udolipixie]

"The fact that you took a saying literal is funny."
Meh you seem to throw tantrums about what is said such as you seeming angry so I guessed since you're using it this saying may not be a throwaway phrase as it would be with others.

[Asker]

Huh? This has carried over from 16 days ago. What do you mean quick to end it? Do you want to end it? I guess not. Then you say I want to argue. LOL!!

[udolipixie]

Meh there's curiosities I have. Ones I can guess answers to such as you're a liar.

You claimed this isn't about you
...yet most of it has been about what you think, what is wrong to you, what is right to you, what is unfair to you, what you dictate gals should and shouldn't do. If it really was about explaining myself or my individual answer this discussion would have ended 16 days ago...LMFAO

You claimed looking for things to argue about isn't your thing
...yet when I answered your short guy, black person, etc question you seemingly faulted me for not responding to the question with what guys I would date...o.O

[udolipixie]

No I meant quick to end talking about something when you're wrong. Not quick to end the discussion itself.

I didn't see this as arguing which I said from the beginning. It's been amusement to me. LOL

[udolipixie]

It's interesting to me how you were going on and on for an hour about something. Yet when you finally see you're wrong suddenly it's seemingly let's stop talking about it. That's what I mean by quick to end it. LMFAO

[Asker]

It's interesting to me that you say I go on and on about stuff. Funny really.

[udolipixie]

For me this has been an amusing and entertaining discussion.

So it appears it's over as there hasn't been anything to talk about for 16 days if you real intention was an individual answer instead of talking about you (your thoughts, what you want, what you say gals should do) and you looking for things to argue about.

[udolipixie]

"It's interesting to me that you say I go on and on about stuff. Funny really."
You do as for an hour or so you went on and on about how I didn't answer a question. Though you did stfu quite quick and wanted to stop talking about it when you finally saw I did. Hilarious really.

You also went on and on and on about what you think, what you want, what is right to you, what is wrong to you, and things to argue about for 16 days despite this not being about you. Hysterical really.

[Asker]

On and on and on and on. Anything else?

[udolipixie]

So is this discussion over since the seeming intention was explaining myself and answering individually which I did 16 days ago.

Or are you looking for more things to argue about or just want to copycat in your fail attempt at mocking? LOL

[Asker]

Your bringing in more elements to argue about. Ask yourself that question.

[udolipixie]

A comment about what I find funny < you seemingly ranting for an hour not even reading my responses as you were so focused on finding something to argue about. LMFAO

Anything else you want to go on and on and on and on about? I mean you did so for 16 days despite how this isn't about you.

[udolipixie]

These elements were already there.

Seems suited to ask yourself why you see it as arguing to seemingly respond to my curiosities. I mean really you can't answer/respond to something without arguing? o.O

I'm curious as to why you claimed this isn't about you yet for 16 days most of the discussion has been about what you think, what is wrong to you, what is right to you, etc. LMFAO

[Asker]

Hmm. The funny thing about that is you actually reading all my responses (or most of them)& pointing out stuff from them to argue about.

I'm done. Are you?

[Asker]

"These elements were already there."

LOL!!! XD And even better is what you posted below that. You still going on about stuff.

[udolipixie]

Meh I've been done recall I've been asking you are you done and responding to your statements suggesting you aren't.

Whoa just wow that to you in a discussion it's seemingly funny for a person to read most of the other person's responses. The concept of communication seems lost on you.

[udolipixie]

The funnier thing is I'm guessing you're not going to answer either of my curiosities labeling them as things to argue about. Which suggest you're the one who is argumentative.

So are you done on this discussion which supposedly isn't about you yet has gone on 16 days not talking about my answer but you going on and on and on about what you think, what's wrong to you, etc?

[Asker]

We've both said are you done or something to that extent.

[udolipixie]

"LOL!!! XD And even better is what you posted below that. You still going on about stuff."
I'm guessing you're not done going on about stuff considering you're responding to old responses of mine to even earlier comments of yours.
O.O

Telling double standard and hypocrisy it appears that you can go on and on yet but if I respond to your comment it's me 'still going on about stuff'.

[Asker]

You label it differently.

[udolipixie]

"We've both said are you done or something to that extent."
Unsure the point of that as nowhere did I state you haven't said it..o.O

Telling how you say it while still making implied slights, lies, or bs...and when I respond or correct your lies then ask if you're done it's seemingly a double standard that I'm the one 'still going on about stuff'. LMFAO

[Asker]

You know what? I'm going to be the better person here and "walk away". I'm done with you. Respond if you want to you'll just be talking to yourself because I'm not reading your responses to this anymore.

[udolipixie]

"You label it differently."
o.O Quite a non sequitur to me. However don't feel the need to explain your statement as my curiosity is mainly why if your intention was explaining myself or my individual answer then why did you go on and on and on for 16 days about yourself- what you think, what you is wrong to you, etc.

[udolipixie]

Just saw your latest response. Awesome that you stfu. Nice spinning sh*t as if you're the better person AFTER I called you on your bs and lies like the massive fail seemingly trying to twist sh*t as if I've been evading answering the question that was the intention of your discussion.

[notcreativethough]

Holy shit, that's a long argument...

[Mesonfielde]

It's a cultural thing. Don't worry though, even if you're shorter, all you need to do is find an equal height or shorter girl who likes you. Or maybe a tall girl who likes shorter guys because of how tall she is. :P

As for all these answers about "it makes me feel more secure and feminine", kinda shows the perfect "type" of girls who would make me reconsider whether I'd want to maintain contact with them or not. Femininity is a broken concept to begin with, and they're trying to reinforce it through irrational internalized cultural nonsense. I wouldn't want to accept THAT, haha.

[Asker]

Finally, someone who speaks truth in such nonsense.

[biggie90]

Cultural my ass (says every short guy).
Size does matter to women — when it comes to height. We’ve long known that women are more attracted to taller men, and a new study from the University of Utah explains that it’s actually evolutionary.

[Asker]

@biggie90 Yes, we know girls are more attracted to taller guys. That's already been established. The problem is why. There is no good reason as to why. And it is cultural just like here a girl with a hour glass shape is sexy. In other countries big fat girls are desirable. In some countries frail skinny girls are desirable.

[biggie90]

You wanna know why skinny girls are desirable in certain countries? because in some countries there's not enough food so all the people are skinny. I went to Japan and I'm 6 feet tall I not once saw any guy taller then me everyone was staring at me like I was gigantic. That's because in certain countries not everyone is tall. Women still prefer guys taller than them even in Japan. It's not cultural women like taller men everywhere you look. Taller/bigger = better for fathering its biological. If anything is cultural its justin bieber and many girls grow out of that and like tall real men.

[Asker]

Taller/bigger does not equal better fathering. Japanese see you as gigantic because to them you are gigantic.

[biggie90]

But subconsciously it does and bigger boobs and butt mean better nurturing not always true but thats the way we are wired. Media shows skinny ladies and most guys don't like that and studies have shown that to be true. Media can only do so much.

[Asker]

I love all sizes but overly obese girls. Again that's something girls can change. Girls can get bigger boobs, girls can work out, and I don't care about butt size. I don't mind petite girls.

It is a subconscious thing, I agree.

[Mesonfielde]

I'll go at it like this: saying that girls prefer tall guys, or "a guy must be taller than their girlfriend" is a cultural belief. Evaluation of one specific person's attractiveness based on their physical qualities is subconscious. Which means there's still a chance you would find someone attractive even if they don't match what you initially think your preference is.

[Asker]

People don't even understand what preference means. Preference means you'll take any option but you really like such and such option. Some girls say if your not tall than they ain't talking to you. That's not a preference. That's more of discrimination.

[Mesonfielde]

Read this: www.psychologytoday.com/.../why-women-want-tall-men

[Asker]

Napoleon was short by today's standard's but back then everyone was around his height so technically he wasn't short. Cool read though.

[TheStaff_Sergeant]

Height, stature is associated with masculinity and dominance, which is attractive to many women. And that, my friend, is a good thing. Well, at least in my book it is.

The fact remains, tall guys are promoted in their careers significantly more than their shorter counterparts. They are also respected by both men and women more and, unfortunately, for short guys, they are, in most cases, seen as the archetypical male. Being taller simply gives one more opportunities. In other words, taller guys, in general, are iconic and overall more successful than shorter guys.

Personally, I've yet once heard a kid say, "man, I wish I could grow to 5'5feet and stop growing". And by the discontent you've expressed in your post, I'm assuming you would not reject being taller either, correct?

"Why should I have settle if I wanted a taller girl? Settle... you should not. By the same token, why should women settle for shirt guys if they are into the opposite?

[Asker]

Girls settle for tall guys. I settle for any height of girls. Again there have been taller girls that really think I'm attractive. I said me but I meant short guys in general.

I don't care anymore. It just shows the real from the fake and you haven't said anything I don't know. I'm just pointing out the discrimination.

Racism is good to have as well. I mean whites are superior to blacks.

[Asker]

And more dominant.

[TheStaff_Sergeant]

My point is, why settle?

[Asker]

That's the problem. They settle for tall guys instead of considering short guys. Some don't even consider it. When I said settle I meant why just go for one type only? I'm not saying all girls should just want short guys I'm saying they should want short and tall guys and if they are like that and still end up with a tall guy ok. Fine. That's good. Idc.

[TheStaff_Sergeant]

Friend, there are, in fact, girls that would readily date a shorter guy. I actually witness it quite often. Sure, there are girls that will not date short guys, but don't worry yourself over such girls. Instead of viewing dating from a standpoint of approval and rejection, try looking at dating in a context of compatibility and incompatibility. Now, only focus on the girls in which you are compatible with. As you are aware, for many, dating is a numbers game. Continue forward and avoid looking in your peripherals. One person's loss is another person's treasure.

[Slavanna]

That's one of the best answers I've read on this question so far... QA's just gotta understand that the very fabric of the universe won't bend to his needs...

[Asker]

But the ones who have bended to my needs are the ones I shall take. It's a narrow list of those that are real and those that aren't.

[Asker]

Those that aren't take up a wide margin.

[TheStaff_Sergeant]

That may be, but still, there are girls out there that would date you. Attractive girls. I never said the process will be easy.

[Asker]

I was talking to the girl under our comments but yeah man I know. I ain't mad or nothing. I'm straight.

[Anonymous]

It's the internet buddy. Peoples standards here are quite high and sometimes preposterous. In reality most girls just want a guy their height or taller. The women walking around wanting 6'0 men are dreamers on the internet. The kind of girls admire wanting to look "good" in pictures above happiness, commitment, and havinggood communication and honesty with their partner.I always giggle when I hear girls wanting a 6'0 guy. Do these girls walk around with a measuring tape and telling the 5'11 and 3/4 guy to get stepping? What kind of guy would want that girl anyway. Being attracted to taller guys is normally but I think that those who want excessive height may just be compensating."protection,'"wearing whatever shoes I want" has nothing to do with who the guy is, but rather how the girl perceives him. Sitting at 6'1 myself I'd be upset if my height was one of the bigger driving factors to her being attracted to me

[Opinion Owner]

Also purely based on population parameters most guys are no above 6'0 so many girls are gonna be single adieslol

[Asker]

Most guys your height would say I'm bull shitting just because they are tall and don't have to worry about it. Your right though most girls don't even care if a guy's a inch or two shorter. These chicks on here can't be real. Computer simulated trolls or something.

[sherlocked]

That's an interesting question...I don't know why we go for tall guys mostly. Probably because most guys we see of our age are taller than us?
And frankly, for me height is not THAT very important, if I find him attractive over all but he is not tall, I would probably overlook it :) Maybe because I am not tall either :P
And like you said, even guys also like tall girls.
I guess height is attractive to both the sexes but girls can manage being short because there has been this old notion about how women should be small and petite. And guys should be tall, big and strong. So probably that's what stuck in people's minds.

[Michellemily]

After seriously thinking about it. its just one of those "society things" because all i could come up with is it looks wierd, i wouldn't wanna have to bend to kiss my boyfriend and the feel protected thing. there is no practical reason really. its one of those "thats how its suppose to be" things. Stupid but if you're raised like that, you can't help it you just go with it.

[Asker]

Your the first girl to say anything about being raised that way. That is a factor as to why I think it's wrong. What I believe in and find attractive is not based on how I was raised yet how some girls base their attraction is how they are raised. Just like at one time whites didn't think blacks were attractive and vice versa because they were raised that way. Now of course some still don't think the other is attractive but some do because the way they were raised is different. But again there are other factors that play into why girls really want guys that are taller. Good comment though.

[Michellemily]

Its one of those things you don't questions until someone points it out.as soon as you see more "tall girl short guy" couples on tv/movies whatever it will become more "normal" i highly doubt that any girl would turn a guy down when everything else is right just because he is shorter though

[Asker]

Yeah I mean a lot of girls I talk to or have talked to don't mind my height. I guess because of my personality and other appearances (like face) but generally it's a problem for short guys.

I mean if they are dating a tall guy that's fine. I just don't think girls should say they are only going to date tall guys. I think attraction is more than just height and I feel like it's a limit to not even find out more about the guy. I mean what if the guy has a compatible personality? His height shouldn't stop that compatibility.

[biggie90]

It's not really a societal thing its that guys are taller then girls on average and girls naturally biologically desire taller guys (they feel more secure whether consciously or subconsciously) .

[Asker]

@biggie90 It is a society thing but yeah it's biological. The subconscious comes from conditioning and environment (which is nature). Yet some girls still naturally don't like tall guys and some girls naturally don't care.

[fun-weird-guy]

So when you see a tall guy you automatically think he will protect you is a bunch of nonsense because not all tall guys are tough like not all short guys are weak.

[Asker]

@fun-weird-guy LOL!!! It's illogical and a lie they choose to believe.

[Michellemily]

i don't expect anyone to protect me. i wouldn't know any situation i'd be in to be protected anyway. its a feeling of security. Noone said its rational just like noone said short guys are weak. i don't get guys that always want to discuss what girls are attracted to and label it as irrational or shallow.

[Asker]

Secure from what? Why can't a short guy make you feel "secure"? I'm not like most guys apparently so I guess few people would understand me. I just think it's irrational to not view every aspect of a guy.

[Michellemily]

i think we are all old enough to not pretend like physical attraction isn't a thing. And i never said its rational. I tried to think of why i personally don't consider short guys as my "type" and all i could come up with are the things that i listed. As i said its stupid. I've been rejected because im not blond with blue eyes. If i would have asked the guy why excatly that is im sure he couldn't give me any rational answer. its just some feeling you get around certain people. and being short is not a heroin addiction its not a dealbreaker. If everything else is absoulutly perfect no sane girl will reject a short guy. but if guy a is absoulutly perfect and tall and guy b is absoultly perfect but short i'll go for guy a im im not sorry about that.Don't you have a certain type that you find more attractive than others?

[Asker]

It's stupid that you've been rejected because you don't have blonde hair and blue eyes. I wouldn't have rejected you on those alone. Your pretty.

Yeah I do have a very specific preference but less than 2% of girls in the entire world fit it. I am very deviant and I think my attraction changes. I have a general attraction for some types but sometimes I don't want to be attracted to certain types and instead switch...idk I'm difficult. LOL!! My sexuality is always heterosexual though.

[Asker]

Maybe my levels for certain attractions change. I think that's what I'm trying to say.

[YoungAthleticOne]

OP, dude, think of it as a blessing in disguise man. I wouldn't want to be with a girl if I was 6'3, only because she was attracted to my height because she wants to wear heels. Like seriously? What guy in their right mind wants to be with a girl like that? The only girls guys my height 5'7 get are the ones who are actually good and non shallow. Thats why I've never had a bad relationship, ever. Because the only girls who would be attracted to me aren't retarded like those other women are. So it acts like a filter, albeit a good one. Think of it that way, even at your height. I see a lot of dudes out here your height getting love from wome, you just gotta have some shazass to you, some swag, spice or whatever.

[Lilac79]

It may seem shallow, unfair, whatever. It's just our preference. Most girls want to date a guy taller than them, some of it has to do with society, but it's just like guys preferring girls with nice bodies. It's just a preference that I, and a lot of girls, want a guy bigger than me. I want taller, bigger shoulders, legs, waist, and more muscular. It's not a deal breaker in itself, but it will make judging on you harder. I also am a short girl, so not very many guys are ruled out by me, but I want someone taller so my kids aren't really short. I don't really see short as weakness, that's more what I think of skinny guys. it is about security, but not the way you're taking it. It just makes me more secure about my insecurities to have a guy like that. It makes it harder to hide when you're taller than the guy, like if someone was threatening you wouldn't be able to just hide behind your guy. It's not really about protection or security, it's more of a looks thing.

[Asker]

Again a girl can work out her body. I see and hear ads constantly. Just over and over and over about losing weight, getting fit. Yet here I am a short guy, something I can't help.

I get the you don't want your kids to be short thing. Although I don't see what's wrong with that ok. The protection thing is ridiculous. I don't want my girl right behind me while I'm beating up someone. What if I fall backwards or what If the person grabs around me to get to her? You can't grab over someone to get to someone behind you. I guess you could but it would be hard to and who does that?

So what that said I'd want my girl to be further back (not behind me) and at that point height doesn't matter.

[Asker]

*So with that said*

[Lilac79]

I'm just saying as a girl hiding behind him would be my natural reaction, when a fight broke out i'd probably run away a little bit. And not necessarily, we can't change our bodies. I can't just make my legs look like carrie underwoods all of the sudden. I can't get bigger tits unless i pay tons for them. I was born with big legs, and gain muscle easily. I can't get rid of the muscle i've already gained, believe me i've been trying forever. So the standards go two ways...i get where you're coming from, and just make up for it by being an awesome guy :)

[Asker]

I don't care if you have big tits or not. I like all sizes of tits. I like some muscle fit girls. They are sexy, especially with their toned stomach. Your argument is invalid. I'm dealt with a bad hand all I can do is make the best of it.

[Lilac79]

I'm dealt with a bad hand in some ways too, and other guys care. honestly yeah, you just gotta make the best of it and most girls won't brush you off just cause you're short unless theyre really shallow

[Asker]

Yeah I mean people act like girls don't like me. I'm a quiet guy so I listen and either get blank out of this world stares or a "oh he's cute". I'm not a midget, I'm a least as tall or a inch taller than most girls. I'm just speaking in general girls like taller guys.

[Lilac79]

Yeah, I'm gonna agree they do like taller guys. Those people are ignorant and insecure, and that's fine if your an inch or so taller, most girls would go for that.

[Asker]

But I still have those thoughts in my mind because I know that if I was like 5'0 that might change how they view me. This is the only time I'll ask this question on here. I mean I have a clear understanding now. Stick to the un-ignorant and secure girls.

[Lilac79]

Yeah, do that

[restlesswarrior]

this question makes me lol in the fact that it just popped into my mind that featherweight and lightweight boxers are the ones that demostrate alpha behavior
that females want lol

(confidence, strength, courage, and acutal protection abilities)

Case Closed

basically it has nothing to xo wit height, weight etc just confidence

[Asker]

I know. Most short guys are the ones running there mouths. LOL!! I don't but a lot do.

[inamorata]

For women it's vital to perceive a man as more powerful than they are. Everything about him attributes to this image. From the dominance of his personality, some social power, to his height, intelligence, strength, some talent, emotional balance, maturity...

Height is one of the physical representations of power in eyes of women.
You're right. If you behave like a man, hold power of one, women will want you, regardless of height. You're not out of the game by being short. You simply have that one factor that's not working for you.

[Asker]

Agreed. Women are fooled by perception. They think "Guy who is tall = power, guy who is short = weak". LOL!! Perception, perception.

[GoldCobra]

Wow and this didn't get most helpful?

[Asker]

This was my first time asking a question. I should have waited for better answers before just picking something for points.

[Ladyegg67]

I didn't know that. I know plenty of short men who are married. Some to tall women others married shorter. Maybe it's an age thing. Your young your dating pool is probably young also. Wisdom comes with age (so I've heard) maybe date women a little bit older. Sorry for sloppy advice I wasn't aware that this was happening to guys

[Asker]

I got it...I'll get me a MILF. LOL!! I don't even believe in dating at this point. Maybe that's a youth problem too.

[Ladyegg67]

Not wanting to date isn't a problem. At least you can go a do whatever you like. You won't come home to an interrogation. You seem to have a great sense of humor. Good luck with everything.

[ThreeIn]

One thing you mentioned that's not quite right about protection is, the taller the guy, the higher the chances he'll win a fight are.
I know this first hand because I've fought 2 guys that were significantly shorter than me (about 8 inches) and in both fights, they couldn't even land a single punch on me.
Another example is my homie, he's known for beating people up, but when he fought 2 tall dudes (6'7 or so), the fights were fairly even.
So, sorry man, but no, short dudes can't protect the girls as well as us tall dudes can. Otherwise evolution wouldn't have made it so that women prefer tall guys because of protection.

[Asker]

Nah bruh my friend who was in the army said this one tall guy was talking trash to this short guy and the short dude latched on to him and tore him up. Nobody was expecting that. He said he beat the shit out of him. It's possible. It all depends on how many hits you can take when it comes to us short guys.

[ThreeIn]

Yeah its possible, of course, but not likely.

[rthomas43]

There are exceptions to every rule, but the general concept holds true.

[Asker]

If a guy is weak he's not going to be able to beat me up. It's just not going to happen. Sorry. I'd just break his little arms and lay him out when he reaches in too far.

[ThreeIn]

Ok dude

[pr3ttyreckl3ss]

I think it really depends on the girl. Some girls don't care, some like tall, some like short. You just have to find the right one who likes you for you. I know i'm attracted to guys that are taller than me (I'm 5'4), my bf is 6'0. However i have dated guys that were shorter than that mostly because i was really attracted to them for other reasons that it glossed over my natural preferences.

I don't know about most girls but i think most of it has to do with a psychological factor, and yeah not all tall guys are tough, but some girls still like them better regardless, just like many guys like girls with big boobs but, there's guys that don't as well. In the end it doesn't really matter, we have different tastes so there's always someone who likes what we uniquely have.

[Asker]

No it IS a psychological factor. They are fooling themselves. Believing a lie. Why would a guy want big boobs all the time is beyond me. Cutting the BS people are just shallow. Plain and simple. Saying people have "different tastes" is just a cover up. The truth is never popular.

[MrsIzzy]

I think it falls back on the feeling of protection. Personal I prefer tall guys, I actually find it to be sexy. I am married to a guy that 6' and I am only 5'1. But I actually know of a friend who preferred to be with "shorter" guys and she was like 5'9. So I don't think all girl prefer tall guys. I would also like to say I agree height isn't everything, I feel personality has a lot to do with it to. In my dating experience shorter guys have less confidence than taller guys and I feel most girls want a guy to be confident in himself.

[Asker]

So you don't find short guys sexy? It's a form of discrimination. As long as your cool with being a person who discriminates then I have nothing to say. I guess I shouldn't want you since your only 5'1 right? If your white I don't like white girls so I don't want you. See how ridiculous it sounds? Now I was just saying that I like girls of all heights and colors. Just making a point.

There's that protection thing again. It's a illusion (as said by another girl in the comments). I'm confident. Matter of fact stuff like this makes me laugh because it shows how pathetic and sad our society is. The fact that people actually try to justify their discrimination is laughable. Let me put it this way.

"In my dating experience Asian girls have shown to be smarter than girls of other races and I feel most guys want a girl that's smart."

"In my dating experience scrawny girls are better lovers than fat girls and I feel most guys want a girl to be a great lover."

[MrsIzzy]

I agree with you, you do make a valid point. And I have found shorter guys sexy too. But its just my personal preference. I can't speak on behave of society but people male or female like what they like and there isn't always a justifiable reason as to why. But in my past dating experiences shorter guys never asked me or me ask them for that matter, but again I wasn't trying to sound discriminating I just giving you my personal preference. However you make a valid point on the topic. It does seem/sound discriminating and your are right it is pathetic of society to assume that a persons height is a determining factor.

[Asker]

Sorry to sound mean It's just things that I see in the world other people act like they can't see and it's overwhelming sometimes. It's like the boy crying wolf when there's an actual wolf and no one believes him.

[Asker]

And I see they type of...stuff you like. Smh. That's sad you missing out and don't even know it.

[Asker]

*Wrong person.

[Anonymous]

as a tall girl, yea i guess protection and security is instinctive, i may be silly, but i also think of us dancing together, standing together, or me wearing heels on a fancy night out, sometimes its nothing personal about the guy being short, but its rather about the girl herself. like me, i just would feel like a giant next to him and fat and huge. sometimes i wish i was shorter, so i can be with short guys. every guy i meet or like is short. i never even meet tall guys.

its not a dealbreaker, if i like a guy, i like him. but i do have insecurities of feeling bigger than me or looking like a giant. thats just my fault.

[Asker]

So girls care more about themselves? What's wrong with feeling like a giant? So? I'm starting to realize how deviant of a person I am. Is there anyone like me? I guess not.

[Opinion Owner]

i can't help how i feel =[

[Asker]

Well you say you wish you were shorter so that you can be with short guys why can't you still be with short guys? You can still wear heels your already taller than dude. I don't like dancing (I'm terrible at it) so I don't know what to tell you there. You could be short and I still would be reluctant to do that. Tall girls are not fat and huge just by being tall. Most tall girls seem skinny to me. And yes I like skinny girls too. Why can't everyone be at least half open minded? Am I wired differently? I don't understand.

[Mesonfielde]

You know, that's kinda the reason why I never understood why a 6'6" guy would date an 5'4" girl. Doesn't it feel awkward that he's like 10 inches taller? Even kissing seems like a hassle. Everything is a hassle. And considering the height difference, there's a chance the baby will be gigantic and break the mother from the inside and she'll need a C-Section. I don't really get why anyone would say "fathering" by a giant guy would be such a good idea.

[been_waiting]

"Why should I have to settle for a girl that's shorter than me?"

Settle? So you're saying you don't like girls that are shorter than you? Yet you're angry that girls like guys taller than them? That makes you a hypocrite dear.

Anyway, being tall gives the *illusion* of being a better defender. Also on an evolutionary level tall men are more attractive because things like famine and disease prevent full growth so being tall basically says "I am disease free and well feed." Furthermore, testosterone (male hormone) encourages bone growth while estrogen inhibits it. That's the technical answer.

But, tons of girls will date short guys.
My best guy friend is like 5'5" and always gets girls taller than him. I had a crush on a guy who was 5'6". There's a guy I know who's way shorter and gets girls. Your height may not be what most girls prefer but most decent girls won't reject a guy they like because he's short

[Asker]

This is suuuch a old question. I remember explaining that what I meant was why should my only option be girls who are shorter than me if the ones who are taller don't want me? It was hypothetically speaking. Not literally.

If you want to talk literal then literally a higher percentage of tall girls want me as opposed to shorter girls. I like girls of all height. That was just a hypothetical question that many of you took completely out of context in a attempt to try to dilute the point.

It's not hypocritical at all. It's a question used to show a perspective. Why not also have access to tall girls? Why just girls shorter than me? That's the point. Why not girls of all height?

"Evolution evolution" all that's bullshit. Evolution doesn't exist. Evolution comes from the same man who believed finches change species and they don't and never have.

"nature nature" since it's natural why don't you go have sex with a random person?

[Asker]

We are beyond our nature. We have a consciousness. Otherwise there's no need for laws. No need for order. Nature is a factor, but how much of it it's a factor depends on the person. Typically girls who exclude tall guys let nature effect them more than it probably should. It's also a clear sign of insecurity.

Also the disease prevent thing is false. Shorter men typically are less diseased than taller men. So I guess that's another "illusion". Also, testosterone while it does play a role in bone growth doesn't really mean that a short guy doesn't have a ton of testosterone. The biggest factor isn't testosterone but genetics. Genetics is THE single largest factor in height.

I know tons of girls will date short guys and typically it's girls who are taller than the guy because they embrace their height. They feel feminine and powerful with their tall height and love that shorter guys remind them of that.

[Asker]

A factor into why most girls prefer tall guys probably has more to do with the fact that there are more short girls than tall girls out there.

[been_waiting]

😧😧😧😧 son. Let me tell you. The "Theory"of Evolution has so much evidence backing it up that it is no longer technically considered a "theory."

That's another story anyway.

Allow me to educate you further.
Attraction is animalistic, and biological. Yeah we have conscious minds. But reproductive cues are what spark attraction. Women with hourglass figures are sought after because high estrogen levels and fertility express themselves in fat stores- in the breasts, hips, bum etc.
Um, we all love symmetrical faces subconsciously because it indicates good genes.
I can go on. But all attraction is, is a bunch of chemicals responding to someone elses genetic makeup. I mean hell we even subconsciously smell other people's IMMUNE SYSTEM. Go to school. Read a book. Learn something

[been_waiting]

*****REGARDLESS I'm telling you there's a shit ton of girls that will date dudes your height. Chill.

[Asker]

Blah blah blah. Evolution is stupid and doesn't exist.

Well I guess it's like what I said to the other girl. Maybe we should exclude shallow people? People who's action potentials make them shallow? You're not educating me LOL. You think tall guys are less diseased when it's the opposite typically.

[Asker]

***************************************** I know. There are plenty of girls into me. I still can point out the shallowness of others can't I? Is that a crime? **************************************************************

[been_waiting]

😩😩😩😩😩😩 what's your IQ? 72?

Dude, your reading comprehension sucks ass.
I never said short guys are diseased.
*one* repeat after me *one* reason women *may* be attracted to tall guys is bc back in the days of famine and disease people didn't grow to their full potential; anyone with an inkling of logic skills can see that that does NOT mean short people are inherently diseased.

It isn't shallow to like a certain trait. I'm guessing there's absolutely NO trait you like? So you'll go out with an ugly ass girl? One with horse teeth? Half bald? 6'6"? Obese? IF NOT YOU'RE SHALLOW.

[been_waiting]

But u rite man, god created this world and every species alive today was dropped onto the earth from the heavens billions of years ago. You are right. No species has EVER changed in ANY way despite the evidence that they have and natural selection is a myth! Every species just chooses silly traits to like at random and these traits don't benefit reproduction in any way! U r so rite. Going to bible study on Sunday? ?😇omg

[Asker]

LOL Honestly I don't know what my IQ is. Never took a test for it. I'm smart enough to graduate college soon though.

"tall basically says "I am disease free and well feed." " <------ No it doesn't LOL. If anything it says you ARE diseased. That's my whole point. It think YOUR reading comprehension is lacking. I never said you said short guys are more diseased. I just said tall guys aren't "diseased free". Also you didn't say that other girls say that (and not you). You just said it. Not specifying if you believe in it or not. I think you need to re-read what you wrote.

[Asker]

*I think

[been_waiting]

I'll repeat it one last time: IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT TALL MEAN ARE INHERENTLY DISEASE FREE and short ones are inherently diseased. Do you take everything literal?
Its a fact that... oh jesus. I'm done. You're dumb, willingly ignorant, think any kind of preference is wrong and shallow so you're prob a hypocrite... are you @Red_Dragon?

[Asker]

If a girl is ugly to me why would I go out with her? That's subjective. To girls who want tall guys only technically short guys are ugly to them.

Let's go through your list:

-One with horse teeth? Horses have very good teeth from what I've seen.

-Half bald? What do you mean? Like going bald or like the hair style? I like bald headed girls. Of course not ones with a giant bald spot in the middle of their hair, but they can shave that off. Not only that but how many girls do you know have that? I've never seen one. I've never even seen a bald girl in person... okay actually I have.

-6'6"? Hell 7'6 is fine by me. Again the thing you pointed out originally was a hypothetical question not to be taken literally.

-Obese? No I don't like obese or anorexic girls. You could call that shallow if you want, but to me height is typically a good measure for someone who is overall shallow. Maybe I'm shallow in some areas, but not most.

[been_waiting]

So its okay for you to have some preferences but not for others?

'B-but... my preference is for weight! Not height! It's more shallow to care about height because... uh.. cause... cause I'm short and apparently feel the need to be desired by every woman on earth. Otherwise she's a shallow bitch!"

[Asker]

No I don't go to church and the church I technically belong to doesn't believe the same things I do. I consider myself a Christian, but at the same time not really. Do I believe in a creator? Sure, but I also have a agnostic/atheists approach. Meaning I seek answers. I don't just accept any of it.

Thanks for the assumption though :). That made me feel good.

[Asker]

Oh you're accusing me of taking things literal when your very first statement is this:

""Why should I have to settle for a girl that's shorter than me?"

Settle? So you're saying you don't like girls that are shorter than you? Yet you're angry that girls like guys taller than them? That makes you a hypocrite dear."

Hahahaha.

[Asker]

Oh good another list:

-You're dumb: Hmmm you mean literally? Nah I'm not mentally retarded.

-Willingly ignorant: Says the girl who supports people who think protection and height correlate.

-Think any kind of preference is wrong: Ehhh not really. I just think some people are more shallow than others and I'm pointing it out.

-Shallow: I like girls of all races, ethnic groups, skin color, height, most sizes (expect anorexic and obese), most "types" (from talkative to shy to Gothic to girly etc.), etc. Doesn't sound like a shallow person to me.

-Hypocrite: Maybe in some ways. I don't think I am here though.

You seem mad. Are you?

[been_waiting]

- Dumb and retarded are not synonymous. Retardation refers to a certain IQ.

-ignorance is defined as: lack of knowledge and information. So "supporting" something you deem "shallow" isn't ignorant as it has nothing to do with knowledge/information.
Also, I didn't say I support them. You asked a question, son and I gave you the answer. You didn't like it and threw a fit.
I'm not incredibly insecure so I'm ok with people having preferences. I've got small boobs. If a guy says he prefers big ones I'm just like alright I'm not your flavor then. I don't cry about how unfair life is.

-like I've already said most girls will date a short guy so what's the deal? They may prefer taller dudes but will date short ones. How's that shallow? At all?

[been_waiting]

Do you know what "settle" means? Maybe you misworded that statement. You asked why you should have to settle for short girls. That implies that you don't like them but can't get tall ones so you're just "settling." so yes if that statement was taken the way its written it would make you a hypocrite because it implies you got a preference.

[Asker]

Ohhhh you meant that kind of dumb. I can talk LOL.

Yes ignorant because you support it. Makes sense to you. It seems you are unaware.

[Asker]

***************************************** I know. There are plenty of girls into me. I still can point out the shallowness of others can't I? Is that a crime? **************************************************************

I think I needed to repost that since you didn't get it the first time.

[Hephaestus]

Gawd dang
This back and forth has made my morning lol

[Asker]

Settle is a part of the question which was a hypothetical question.

If I say "Why should I have to jump off a building?" That doesn't necessarily mean I feel I have to. It seems you are trying to interpret my own question... the one that I know the intention of more than you... since I asked it LOL.

[Asker]

by the way Been_Waiting... yes.

[been_waiting]

How the hell was I supposed to know that you were being "hypothetical"? Am I supposed to operate under the assumption everyone's speaking hypothetically?

Whatever. People have preferences. You can get over it. Or be sad about it forever. Idc 😒

[Asker]

Yes I know you didn't know but I told you. I apologize for saying you tried to dilute the point because you didn't know. I guess you don't have to apologize for calling me a hypocrite. I mean that's up to you. I'll be the better person there though.

I'm not sad about it. Girls want me. I've been upset today because I denied a couple recently. Still kicking myself. I just was pointing it out and by the way this is the very first question I've ever asked LOL.

[been_waiting]

I'm not gonna apologize for calling you a hypocrite.

Its not my fault you say things you don't mean.

How don't you understand that?
Actually don't answer that. You don't seem to have the capacity to understand much at all...

[Asker]

Well you called me a hypocrite which was a bad assumption by you. You also called me some other things out of anger I guess, but okay. Again I didn't say you have to. I don't care. It speaks for itself.

Understand what? I know the reasoning and I understand why many of the females on here at least say they like tall guys. I can't understand why you can't understand why they have come to that reasoning.

[Asker]

With all these insults it's clear you are upset. You normally never do that even in our arguments.

[been_waiting]

Again, how don't you understand? You said "why should I have to settle for short girls" which implies that you have a height preference. I realize now that you were speaking "hypothetically" but that was not articulated. If you say something, it will be interpreted the way it sounds. Most people aren't gonna assume you're being "hypothetical." If you wanted that to be obvious perhaps you should've said so.

If you understand why some girls like tall guys then why did you literally ask why girls like tall guys? Come on man. Think.

I'm frustrated because you are frustrating.

[Asker]

No I understand. You seem to want to keep arguing about after I already said I agree with you and even apologized. I did say this was my very first question in a update. I said that because looking back on it I realized I should have specified that. Instead I had to tell plenty of people on here what I meant.

[Asker]

The question was to debate on the reasonings more than likely. Then again the question was so long ago who knows why I asked it. Maybe I don`t know my intention, but you sure as hell don`t.

Your assumptions and name calling is frustrating, but it`s okay. It`s whatever.