15
   

Help Wife Hoards Junk!

 
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2009 06:16 pm
Seriously, Chumly.
If everything you've posted is true, I honestly don't know what can be done.
I assume your wife is as unhappy with you, as are with her?
People don't, or can't change , who they are. You can do a bit of tinkering around the edges, but basically what you see it what you get. Same for her.
This is making me feel a bit sad, really ...
I really hope you two can sort something out.
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2009 06:17 pm
@BorisKitten,
Nope those are the actual facts expressed directly and to the point. Again see the definition of insult below.

If you construe these facts to be insulting it would be because of the facts themselves, which of course make no sense, as facts do not have the inherent bias you presuppose them to have.

As such, if you consider the given facts insulting, then you misunderstand both the word itself, and the specific, descriptive, to the point context I wrote them in.

Perhaps most interestingly to whom precisely do you claim them to be insulting to? Are you insulted by them? If so how have I by expressing the facts, been 'contemptuously rude' to you?

Are you claiming that they are insulting to Mrs. Chumly? If so how precisely would you assesses this given you do to know her? And given that she has not even read any of this? Do you presume to speak on Mrs. Chumly's behalf in some peculiar fashion I am unaware of?

Physic powers perhaps? I am intrigued!

Recall however that the word "insult" is not only context specific but intent driven, and as such you would (at the least) need to show I had intent to be 'contemptuously rude' to whomever you claim I have presumably been so to.

Sorry but the bottom line is you're barking up the wrong tree, albeit I am kind'a entertained by this perspective you now voice, and I am not without good humors.

a. To treat with gross insensitivity, insolence, or contemptuous rudeness. See Synonyms at offend.
b. To affront or demean: an absurd speech that insulted the intelligence of the audience
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2009 06:23 pm
@tsarstepan,
Oh I'll accept this as my lack of interpretation. Yes an after the-fact consideration would defiantly be in oder (oops Freudian slip).

I would like to say thanks for your constructive conciseness and my appreciation for your reading this stuff (which by nature can ranble on).
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2009 06:31 pm
@msolga,
Yes everything I've posted is true, and yes she is as unhappy with me as I am with her, however I feel that deeper down she is disappointed with herself foremost, and is in fact hardest on herself, and this internalized self-criticism is in part expressed in her actions towards me. She often will espouse (with what seems like insufficient context to me) "I am a good person".
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2009 06:42 pm
@Chumly,
So is this (what's happening between you now) crunch time?
0 Replies
 
BorisKitten
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2009 06:49 pm
@Chumly,
Quote:
I am not without good humors.

a. To treat with gross insensitivity, insolence, or contemptuous rudeness. See Synonyms at offend.

"Offend."

How did she feel when you complained about her "cooking smells," which "lingered for days"?

How did she feel when you actually banished her from your (marital) bedroom due to her farts?

How did she feel when you locked her out of the room? Do you think, just possibly, she might have been offended, even hurt by your actions?

You criticize her almost constantly on a public message board, then claim there is not, and cannot be (because of your superior intelligence) any fault on your part.

Quote:
Again see the definition of insult below.

Do you say things like this to her? Does it occur to you that you might not like such schooling from someone else?

Quote:
Perhaps most interestingly to whom precisely do you claim them to be insulting to? Are you insulted by them? If so how have I by expressing the facts, been 'contemptuously rude' to you?


No, I'm not insulted in the least. And where did you obtain, exactly, the phrase 'contemptuously rude?' Given your single quotes, I thought for a moment you might have been quoting me. Wrong.

It's your wife who clearly is insulted. Not me.

Quote:
Are you claiming that they are insulting to Mrs. Chumly?


YES. Especially coming from the one person who vowed to love and care for her for the rest of her natural life.
Mame
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2009 06:51 pm
@Chumly,
Okay. You are very insulting about your wife here. You speak derogatorily about her. Her mess, her smells, her insistance, her nagging, her complaining, whining, complaints, anger, temper, attitude, her inconsideration of you, her stubbornness. The state of the yard and her rooms was put so baldly badly, Chumly. I was embarrassed for her. Imagine if she could see what you'd written about her.

I would be appalled to be spoken of that way, and very hurt. So I am, yes, am assuming you treat her, talk to her the same way. You say you speak to her politely but you don't speak OF her politely to us. So I don't believe it. Those are all very negative and damaging adjectives. Very negative and damaging. Corrosive, in fact.

Have I clarified my position?
BorisKitten
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2009 06:52 pm
@Chumly,
This is so very sad. I wish the best for both of you. May happiness cloud your futures, together or apart.
0 Replies
 
BorisKitten
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2009 06:53 pm
@Mame,
Thank you, Mame.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2009 06:55 pm
@sozobe,
We are both very conservative with our finances, we both stay within our budgets, we both have very well paying jobs we both really like, and she has plenty of control of the finances.

However we both did experience a rather difficult financial storm wholly outside our control (perhaps Mrs. Chumly more thane again who can say) and it lingers with her still to some fair degree.

We both did without to a fair degree during large portions of our childhoods. The main difference being the word/concept "poor" was not in my mindset/vocabulary in the same defined way it was in hers.

interestingly, I have never used the word "poor" to describe sections of my childhood, however Mrs. Chumly will, even though there would have been plenty of concurrent times in which by comparison she would have had more material wealth than me (long before we met of course).

When we met we had about equal assets in the monetary sense.
sozobe
 
  3  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2009 06:57 pm
@Chumly,
Seriously... you don't seem to like her very much.
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2009 07:03 pm
@BorisKitten,
You still misunderstand the word as discussed. Why? Becuase her feelings towards my voiced concerns do not inherently suggest I was "contemptuously rude".
BorisKitten
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2009 07:21 pm
@Chumly,
Quote:
Do you presume to speak on Mrs. Chumly's behalf in some peculiar fashion I am unaware of?

Physic powers perhaps? I am intrigued!

Recall however that the word "insult" is not only context specific but intent driven, and as such you would (at the least) need to show...

THIS is rude. I can only imagine the things you say to your beloved.
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2009 07:23 pm
@Mame,
Nope 'contemptuously rude' was not in my intent or context. The facts speak for themselves and are not insulting by definition. You also clearly do not understand what the word means.

I'll quote the definition again but this is the last time given you are simply relying on the logical fallacy argumentum ad nauseum and in conjunction with BorrisKitten imposing the logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum.

As such your claims as per your use of the word are wholly unsubstantiated

insult:
a. To treat with gross insensitivity, insolence, or contemptuous rudeness.
b. To affront or demean: an absurd speech that insulted the intelligence of the audience.

argumentum ad nauseam:
an argument made repeatedly (possibly by different people) until nobody cares to discuss it any more.

Argumentum ad populum
a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it.
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2009 07:28 pm
@BorisKitten,
An association fallacy is an inductive formal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another.

Further to the above is your use of the logical fallacy called Ignoratio Elenchi also known as irrelevant conclusion. It is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that does not address the issue in question.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2009 07:28 pm
@Chumly,
Quote:
a. To treat with gross insensitivity, insolence, or contemptuous rudeness.
b. To affront or demean:


Yup, that's precisely what you've been doing here, Chumly. I can't imagine why you would even seek the help of a bunch of strangers on so intimate an issue. Head on back to the counselor or a lawyer.
Mame
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2009 07:30 pm
@Chumly,
You think giving all the details of your wife's hoarding of garbage and keeping in a pig-sty state is not demeaning? Not insensitive?

You think sharing such personal information as her farts is not demeaning? Not insensitive?

You think sharing all her bad tempers, behaviours, moods, and paranoias is not demeaning? Not insensitive? Not to mention contemptuous?

In every situation you made her wrong. You were perfect. You were polite. You pointed out her errors, her faults. That is contemptuous. That is demeaning.

Your entire conversations about her are an affront to ME, and even thinking I'd buy your story was an insult to me. You are the affront in this relationship. I think you're obnoxious and a bully and I pity your wife. It's a surprise she's still hanging in there.

And go look up the meanings of all those words and see if they aren't true. We just obviously have different dictionaries.

And as for your I'll-Lord-It-Over-You tone, only extremely insecure people resort to that.
Chumly
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2009 07:33 pm
@Mame,
Argumentum ad nauseam or argument from repetition or argumentum ad infinitum is an argument made repeatedly (possibly by different people) until nobody cares to discuss it any more.
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2009 07:35 pm
@Chumly,
Okay then. I'll leave you to your happy domestic situation.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Nov, 2009 07:41 pm
@JTT,
If you are asking a question you're welcome to ask it.

If you are claiming that the definition of insult has been met as per the context and my intent then you are simply relying on the logical fallacies as discussed. Being factual and descriptive and to the point is not insulting by definition.
 

Related Topics

Hoarding? What do you think? - Question by JD3P
Hello Everyone - Discussion by Odiliangosselin
DOCUMENTIA - Discussion by Setanta
Hoarding Severity Scale - Discussion by Chumly
Are you a cyber-hoarder? - Discussion by tsarstepan
"Clean House" vs. "Hoarders" - Discussion by sullyfish6
Why are some people packrats? - Question by Mame
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/18/2024 at 10:39:44