She Keeps Sucking The Life Out of Me

[John V]

Argumentum ad populum fallacy. Your point remains invalid.

No, with regards to definitions, what most people think is not an argumentum ad populum fallacy. A lot of people hear this fallacy and charge it incorrectly, not considering its limitations.

Unless those who enact the union later desire to bring them into it in some way.

So far, marriage is considered a union of two people and two people only.

Aaactually, that's not-so-subtly suggesting that there is something wrong with others' definitions of marriage and the directions that they take with them. Sure, that's not what you said verbatim, but the sting of the wasp doesn't need to be lethal for it to hurt.

Key word: "If." Didn't notice that? Twice? Once upon reading it, once more upon quoting it? o_O She didn't tell you anything other than a hypothetical in the event that it happened to be true.

LOL...my general statement to no one in particular has the sting of a wasp, but Losty's direct comment regarding me and my wife shuold be ignored because of the "if." I find it amazing that you made those arguments back-to-back.

Awfully defensive about that, though.

No, actually I let it go for many pages, and only brought it up to show the hypocrisy of people who were complaining that others' marriage is none of my business.

I imagine that if she had said "SINCE your wife doesn't trust you..." then, yes, that would actually probably be the case, and if it had not been, then you would have been vindicated in your claim of "revisionist history." As it stands though...that protest thing...mmm...

None of her business means just that...none of her business, as in refraining from making hypotheticals.

Also note that she was more honest than you, and when this was noted she agreed her comments were not in accord with her own stated standards and apologized.

Subjective claim. Invalid.

Refraining from going to strip clubs is a higher bar than allowing them.

Seems to me, so far, to be "having intercourse with another."

With the comment that things he does with them might be considered rape if not paid for, I'm not sure about that any more.

Are you truly so dense as to not grasp that implication??

What's the logical implication of the rape comment?

Never heard of "look, don't touch," eh? Some people take it further; "look, but don't fuck."

I think you mean "look and touch, but don't fuck," and even that's in question with the rape comment.

"Some manner." Key words. Please read, stop being so literal, and stop blowing things out of proportion. If she's not being paid, and she's being forced to display herself and perform provocative actions, that is a form of sexual assault.

Yep, but it's probably not a form of rape. And regarding being literal, consider you "if" argument above. Please stop being so hypocritical.

Says the man whose actions would be rape if not paid for.

*pinches the bridge of his nose* For fuck's sake. If she's being paid for it, and she accepts the money, she is doing it willingly. This is not some philosophical matter of freedom of choice; if she accepts the money, and it's the career path she opted to take, and has no qualms about doing it, it's not rape. The fact that she is paid for it, and accepts payment, and does it all willingly means it cannot by any means be considered rape.[/quote]
Point is that it indicates that he's paying for more than the lap dance that he's admitted to. A lap dance wouldn't be rape if it weren't paid for.

And as he only has sex with his wife, and they both don't bother adhering to the unimaginative conservative puritan bullshit point of view that looking at another individual who is negative because they are confident in their sexuality with one another, it seems your strategy is actually not any better (but no worse, either) than his own. You're looking down at him...but you're looking at his shoes, because you're on equal footing here.

So why didn't you take him to task for starting this by disparagingly referring to others as puritans? Why didn't you tell him that he's looking down at me, but looking at my shoes, because we're on equal footing?