Setanta wrote:Not at all--a distinguishing characteristic is one which makes a person stand out among others. Therefore, someone whose appearance makes them attractive as compared to those around them would have that as a distinguishing characteristic, and yet could be just as intelligent as those around them, but not more so. That would make them ordinary in regard to intelligence, and not "dumb."
None of which explains your second remark, which appears to refer to the person who considers someone to be attractive, and not to the person so described.
The point is not whether it is clear to you or not, because communication only works if you can make it clear to others.
you're being a little subjective. just take what you can from people and don't criticize so much especially when you don't need to and you're just harassing people. thanks.
and since all people are unique, the things that separate them from other people should be more than one, discrediting your normal intelligence idea.
First, it is ludicrous for you to give me orders, you have no power to enforce them.
Second, there is nothing subjective about what i wrote. Having a distinguishing characteristic does not axiomatically imply that the possessor of that characteristic is lacking in other areas. My entire point is to criticize, because the original remark was an especially stupid remark, and one which slanders someone whom you do not know.
Hee hee. Nice advice, clear, I agree. (Ahem.)
Meanwhile, hoping this works out -- I'm liking J_B's theory that it has to do with the sister in the workplace, and that his reticence is about either honoring an outright request (that seems somewhat unlikely) or picking up on unspoken vibes. And a guy who can accurately pick up unspoken vibes can be cool.
clear wrote:and since all people are unique, the things that separate them from other people should be more than one, discrediting your normal intelligence idea.
This is a specious statement. There is no logical basis for saying that the possession of an extraordinary trait precludes the possession of an ordinatry trait. Now you're just making it up as you go along.
Setanta wrote:First, it is ludicrous for you to give me orders, you have no power to enforce them.
Second, there is nothing subjective about what i wrote. Having a distinguishing characteristic does not axiomatically imply that the possessor of that characteristic is lacking in other areas. My entire point is to criticize, because the original remark was an especially stupid remark, and one which slanders someone whom you do not know.
ok, i'll say it differently to please you. his only feature is that he is attractive. out of all the features that people have, he only has one. ok?
Some would say logic is overrated.
That was by no means established. You have assumed that this is the only "feature" the individual possesses, and used that as a reason to slander said individual. The remark was unwarranted, and subject to a justifiable criticism.
George wrote:sozobe wrote:...And a guy who can accurately pick up unspoken vibes can be cool.
To say nothing of rare.
That's why we have only one rule at my house.
The point is that you had no basis for the assumption in the first place. For several pages now, you've added nothing to the discussion except condemnations. You've described the thread as "slutty." You've told Lil' Kay she needs to give you more information, because you cannot otherwise give her advice. Apart from the obvious rejoinder that there's no reason to assume that this thread was started to seek your advice, the character of your response has been to slander an individual you do not know, as a starting point for that advice. The odds that you are "right" are very low indeed, because you know next to nothing of the individual concerned, and have shown no especial insight into personal relationships.
If you set yourself up as an advice "guru," you set yourself up for criticism when you come out with witless statements about people who are strangers to you.
he and his behaviour was described very thouroughly and other people are drawing conclusions about it to i'm sorry if you can't i guess you don't have anything usefull to add then.
You've added nothing useful either . . . you continue to refer to someone as "dumb" when it is obvious that what you mean is stupid. The "conclusions" others were drawing were lighthearted remarks about the man in question, but you continued to harp on the individual being "dumb" despite it being obvious that no one took your meaning at the outset. When asked to explain yourself, you come up with a lame contention that someone who is attractive must be "dumb."
Not much of a contribution from you in this thread.
Setanta wrote:You've added nothing useful either . . . you continue to refer to someone as "dumb" when it is obvious that what you mean is stupid. The "conclusions" others were drawing were lighthearted remarks about the man in question, but you continued to harp on the individual being "dumb" despite it being obvious that no one took your meaning at the outset. When asked to explain yourself, you come up with a lame contention that someone who is attractive must be "dumb."
Not much of a contribution from you in this thread.
i've identified his primary characteristic based on his behavior. any guy that sensitive is dumb.
Ah, yet another statement from authority from someone who has no basis for claiming to be an authority. I see absolutely no reason to think that you have the necessary wisdom or experience to advise others on relationships. All you've demonstrated here is a propensity to judge others on superficial evidence, and to judge ill of them.
I shall end this debate.
I am considered a hottie.
My beauty is sensous, somewhat dark, they say.
Often the first thing a woman thinks about me is: "Hmmm... attractive".
I have been labeled bratty, disperse, mad, brilliant, charming, innovative, rotten, presumptious, ... but never "dumb".
Læknir Scrat wrote:I shall end this debate.
I am considered a hottie.
My beauty is sensous, somewhat dark, they say.
Often the first thing a woman thinks about me is: "Hmmm... attractive".
I have been labeled bratty, disperse, mad, brilliant, charming, innovative, rotten, presumptious, ... but never "dumb".
so where were you when l'k needed you?
