Grr, part 2
Sep. 17th, 2009 10:38 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tripathySo the jackass didn't take the hint in my last message and replied.
"I'm not familiar with the conscience laws. And you're right, it isn't fair to treat smokers for cancer, which I'm also against, even though my died from lung cancer, due to smoking. Maybe if people were a bit more responsible and less waiting on the gov. to pay for their mistakes, we'd all be paying less taxes or at least getting better services. Nor do I agree about liver transplant for an alcohlic. BUT, I must admit, you're right too, [my name]. Who am I to judge? Personally, I believe that women are blessed with the ability to create life, not cursed. And if I was lucky enough to have that power, I would protect it, and be careful with it. We will maybe have another discussion about male/female sexual behavior, but this might not be the time. What's a fu? I hope it doesn't mean Fuck you, because that would mean you are not open to the free exchange of ideas without insulting others that don't agree with your point of view. Everything is subjective, based on individual past experiences, core values, environment, etc... and I personally believe NO ONE has the whole picture. We're just talking and having fun, no?"
Got to love how he tries to look like he's taking the high road but comes off as an enormous hypocrite. "Who am I to judge?" he says. Well:
1) Right before that he mentions being against smokers getting treatment for cancer. Wow, heartless much? I mean, I detest smoking, seriously detest it. But I wouldn't deny someone treatment for their smoking-related cancer and leave them to either die a painful death or drive themselves to bankruptcy paying for the medical fees to not die. Obviously he's got some bitterness towards whoever it was that died of lung cancer, but come on. Apparently he'd rather see nobody treated for the medical results of their life mistakes or accidents caused by their life choices, while I would rather see everyone treated. And yet he goes on to say that he would protect life?
2) He is obviously judging women who don't protect that "power" to create life. Because he would, if he were "lucky" enough to have it. Nothing like the self-righteous male point of view, huh?
And no, buddy, we won't be having another discussion about anything related to this, especially not male/female anything, because you're arguing from the self-righteous high horse that only a guy can truly have, and I really doubt that anything I say can knock you off it.
I also love the line about "you are not open to the free exchange of ideas without insulting others that don't agree with your point of view". Oh, BAW. If I don't respect your ideas, then I don't respect them, and since this was my Facebook page I also don't have to allow open discussion if I don't want to. You judge women; I think you're misogynistic. Yeah, we're communicating now! This would be an excellent discussion!
The "FU" wasn't even directed at him. It was clearly directed at the federal conscience laws, which he admits to not having even looked at. And there is nothing subjective about the wrongness of those laws.
Here was my carefully-measured response to him:
"The FU means what you think it means, but it was directed at the federal conscience laws. And that's all I'm going to say.
Because no, we're not having fun. I thought that I made that clear before. You don't know me, so you have no previous knowledge that this is my hot-button issue, but now you do, so no further leeway will be given.
This subject is closed. Any further posts about it will be deleted, followed by defriending."
In my mind, the FU is definitely for him as well, but I held back.
Personally, I think I've been too nice. Facebook is one place on the internet where I'm not supposed to have to deal with this kind of bullshit.
"I'm not familiar with the conscience laws. And you're right, it isn't fair to treat smokers for cancer, which I'm also against, even though my died from lung cancer, due to smoking. Maybe if people were a bit more responsible and less waiting on the gov. to pay for their mistakes, we'd all be paying less taxes or at least getting better services. Nor do I agree about liver transplant for an alcohlic. BUT, I must admit, you're right too, [my name]. Who am I to judge? Personally, I believe that women are blessed with the ability to create life, not cursed. And if I was lucky enough to have that power, I would protect it, and be careful with it. We will maybe have another discussion about male/female sexual behavior, but this might not be the time. What's a fu? I hope it doesn't mean Fuck you, because that would mean you are not open to the free exchange of ideas without insulting others that don't agree with your point of view. Everything is subjective, based on individual past experiences, core values, environment, etc... and I personally believe NO ONE has the whole picture. We're just talking and having fun, no?"
Got to love how he tries to look like he's taking the high road but comes off as an enormous hypocrite. "Who am I to judge?" he says. Well:
1) Right before that he mentions being against smokers getting treatment for cancer. Wow, heartless much? I mean, I detest smoking, seriously detest it. But I wouldn't deny someone treatment for their smoking-related cancer and leave them to either die a painful death or drive themselves to bankruptcy paying for the medical fees to not die. Obviously he's got some bitterness towards whoever it was that died of lung cancer, but come on. Apparently he'd rather see nobody treated for the medical results of their life mistakes or accidents caused by their life choices, while I would rather see everyone treated. And yet he goes on to say that he would protect life?
2) He is obviously judging women who don't protect that "power" to create life. Because he would, if he were "lucky" enough to have it. Nothing like the self-righteous male point of view, huh?
And no, buddy, we won't be having another discussion about anything related to this, especially not male/female anything, because you're arguing from the self-righteous high horse that only a guy can truly have, and I really doubt that anything I say can knock you off it.
I also love the line about "you are not open to the free exchange of ideas without insulting others that don't agree with your point of view". Oh, BAW. If I don't respect your ideas, then I don't respect them, and since this was my Facebook page I also don't have to allow open discussion if I don't want to. You judge women; I think you're misogynistic. Yeah, we're communicating now! This would be an excellent discussion!
The "FU" wasn't even directed at him. It was clearly directed at the federal conscience laws, which he admits to not having even looked at. And there is nothing subjective about the wrongness of those laws.
Here was my carefully-measured response to him:
"The FU means what you think it means, but it was directed at the federal conscience laws. And that's all I'm going to say.
Because no, we're not having fun. I thought that I made that clear before. You don't know me, so you have no previous knowledge that this is my hot-button issue, but now you do, so no further leeway will be given.
This subject is closed. Any further posts about it will be deleted, followed by defriending."
In my mind, the FU is definitely for him as well, but I held back.
Personally, I think I've been too nice. Facebook is one place on the internet where I'm not supposed to have to deal with this kind of bullshit.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-18 03:55 am (UTC)*Scratches ears*
This makes no sense. This man -- who you say is a father of three? -- has he not realized that he did not in fact become a father because his spouse practiced parthenogenesis? That in humans, the male also plays a critical role in the creation of life, which also entails responsibility? (Or is birth control just up to the woman, because he does not have the awesome power and responsibility of possessing the magical uterus?)
Pfft. And he accuses others of not being open minded, when in fact he can't conceive that others may not agree with his very parochial, self involved views. I'm sorry to hear that this person is a parent, because he's a sullen, selfish child in an adult's body, and apparently completely lacking in empathy.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-18 06:45 pm (UTC)If you've seen my latest post, his most recent Facebook status update looked like a huge dig in my direction, which just goes to show how immature he is...because if I'm not allowing him to have a "fun" discussion of his sexist views on my personal page, then I'm against free speech.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-21 12:34 pm (UTC)Also, people who leave the house know there´s a risk, so I don´t think they should be rewarded for engaging in such behaviour.
Same goes for people who use electronical devices, stairs and ovens.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-21 06:55 pm (UTC)Consequences are only for people who make choices that he doesn't agree with!