Re: Hmm - here's a topic to spark off a nice social commentary thread..

David Friedman wrote:

In article <xtSsg.56728$181.4925@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Chris Dollin <eh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I can imagine someone writing those
words, but, given the rest of the discussion, it would mean something
more like "the purpose of dating is to explore the possibility of a
relationship that will eventually become sexual--which might mean
anything from a one night stand to marriage."

I'm sure it could be interpreted that way if one tried hard
enough. Of course, if the poster had shown any signs at that
point of wanting to make such a nuanced statement, it would
have made things a little less heated.

Since I don't know which poster you mean, I can't tell if that's true.
My impression of this thread is that the people on the side of the
argument you are referring to have explained, over and over, to
apparently deaf ears, versions of what I just posted. Certainly I have
and David H. has.

If you could point at the actual post, perhaps I could look and see
whether your view of the conversation or mind is correct.

When I google for "the purpose of dating is sex" the earliest hit I find
is David H. writing:
---
On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 12:16:23 +0000 (UTC) in rec.arts.sf.composition,
"Nicola Browne" <nicky.matth...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote,

Certainly I ought to have said that you seem to believe that
the purpose of dating is sex.

It's the definition of the word. That doesn't make me a "kind of
person".
---
I'm assuming that's what you are referring to.

I'm touched by your effort on my behalf.

If David H's response is not agreeing that (he believes that) the
purpose of dating is sex, then it's astonishingly badly written.

And later you cite David H and append:

Or in other words, assuming I've got the reference right, and I think I
do, your "if the poster had shown any signs at that point of wanting to
make such a nuanced statement" means "if I had bothered to read the
poster's response," since he did make such a nuanced statement
immediately after the simpler statement (affirming Nicola's statement)
that you are objecting to.

Um, David, "at that point" means "at that point" - in that post, not
a different post, not a later post, not even in an earlier post (although
earlier posts in a more temperate vein might have modified my reaction):
at that point, where I encountered it.

Am I missing something, or do you owe David H. an apology?

Yes, you are; no, not on the evidence so far.

David H also said:

A woman who "INTENDS NEVER TO" (Dorothy's phrase, my emphasis) have
sex with a particular man should not accept an invitation for any
kind of "date" with that man.

Which is the post to which I gave my ultra-rational "bollocks" response
to. He is of course entitled to his opinion, but if he /really/ believes
what he wrote there, I may finally be forced to believe in incomeasurable
paradigms.

--
ParaHedgehog
Notmuchhere: http://www.electric-hedgehog.net/
Otherface: Jena RDF/Owl toolkit http://jena.sourceforge.net/
.

Relevant Pages
Loading