Disqus - Latest Comments for ejronin

Re: This Is The Unbelievably Thin, Beautiful, Strange New MacBook

Shawn Gordon — Thu, 12 Mar 2015 18:08:41 -0000

So, it's an iPad plus with a keyboard and an 80 dollar dongle so you can do everything a Dell can do, at twice the price while looking posh.

And here I though technology was about function over form. I get it, functional art; art I can do things my phone does, but in a space that anyone can see me doing it, stylishly. Crippled and non standard in-house branded "business" software does great, can't do anything really artistic on it except maybe GarageBand or stock filter photo edits to my innumerable selfies, but it's got that partially eaten fruit on the back that screams "money I'm too stupid to keep or invest wisely."

Take my money!

Re: Destiny: Xur, Agent of the Nine, location and exotic items (10/31/14)

Shawn Gordon — Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:22:30 -0000

Third week in a row for mainly, the same stuff.... Different weapon, but still a sniper rifle. They need to change up the offerings and not also offer what drops that particular week like crazy.

Re: Just Have the Baby? A New Mom Reveals Why There Is No ‘Just,’ and Not Necessarily Any Justice Either

Shawn Gordon — Tue, 02 Jul 2013 10:13:07 -0000

You quoted me evidencing what I admitted - the woe is me attitude which is in fact there. The other allegations you have y to support but you fell back to "it sounds like that is what you meant, therefor perception is context (a false argument also).

Lady, I didn't make an offer, there was no question mark. Again with assumptions. I get you might think you're pretty enough or have enough worth, and, great - but you assume I don't respect my marriage. Again your self absorption abounds. And yet, I'm given the impression that you still have to bait your sexual prey. . .

Re: Just Have the Baby? A New Mom Reveals Why There Is No ‘Just,’ and Not Necessarily Any Justice Either

Shawn Gordon — Tue, 02 Jul 2013 09:30:52 -0000

Too funny. You've done EXACTLY that. You've misrepresented my position and argued against the misrepresentation. Well, among a list of things such as avoid seeking substantive discourse and instead post to placate other like minded people for the purpose of acquiescence. I've got better things to do than sit around and let you feel good about yourself and rationalize egocentric modes of thought. Simply put - fuck off. I you've worked very hard at twisting the discussion about you or your world view, asking few u n prompted questions to qualify anything said. You're not here to discuss, you're here to vilify and feel good about it.

Re: Just Have the Baby? A New Mom Reveals Why There Is No ‘Just,’ and Not Necessarily Any Justice Either

Shawn Gordon — Mon, 01 Jul 2013 20:48:47 -0000

really? because there are two subjects in that sentence - the other, first, and comparatively placed against your pick - "anyone capable of becoming pregnant."

Which as has been made violently obvious - is "not" men. So, you're saying that the compare and contrast portion here is "women" because only they can get pregnant and would thus understand, and "forced pregnancy advocates," "some" of which are women who would also understand because the aforementioned qualifier as "can get pregnant" and "men," who obviously cannot. Which is she arguing to - "men" who according to this group, inherently lack an ability to understand risk and cost (false) since they can't get pregnant (true), or women who can get pregnant but feel strongly in the opposite direction. There's no distinction and your pullquote evidences exactly how.

You do an excellent job of creating a plethora of strawman arguments and avoid actual substantive points. And, that's what this has digressed into - you're debating what you think is my character rather than my points (which were in agreement for the most part, with the substantive portion of the main article). And you dare try to force the notion you're in some way luminous. Again, either get focused on the actual topic and stop trying to project and engage in poorly executed ad homeneim (to which I'll also back off of) and let's get back to the point, or just walk away and evidence your asserted maturity and intelligence.

Re: Just Have the Baby? A New Mom Reveals Why There Is No ‘Just,’ and Not Necessarily Any Justice Either

Shawn Gordon — Mon, 01 Jul 2013 20:36:33 -0000

I'm sorry you're used to people implying rather than directly stating things. I generally state exactly what I mean. If I meant to say she was hypersensitive, I'd have said so. Why that is so difficult to believe defies logic. Of the two, you're the on dictating what a gender should do, and have failure to recognize that IS intellectually lazy. Failure to be critical of yourself and admit you might be wrong without supposing my stance is not gender based IS intellectually lazy.

This is the second time you've asserted I dictate "as a man" - yet zero times have you shown where I have actually said that. You do, however cower behind implication that doesn't exist.

At no point did I say anything about what a woman should or shouldn't do. I did remark about what I expected an individual should do in context to presentation. It is YOU that keeps attempting to draw upon my words to mean something other than what they do. That IS intellectually lazy.

Generally, when someone says "goodbye" it means they're bowing out, and for as much complaining as you've done in an argument ad homeneim, you simply return again and again. You're living to mentally mastrubating and revel in the acquiescence of your tiny peer group. Again, herd mentality. You've yet to dispute any real points, only what you think I meant without a single question to qualify your opinion or perception. Magically, you believe yourself beyond reproach in your assertion to my character without qualification. Now, either make good on your parting words or come out with your actual intent.

Re: Just Have the Baby? A New Mom Reveals Why There Is No ‘Just,’ and Not Necessarily Any Justice Either

Shawn Gordon — Mon, 01 Jul 2013 19:32:51 -0000

and how is "I disagree with presentation but not the point" synonymous with "she's wrong" and or any other reaction you've projected? Again, discounting a method of conveyance is not discounting the result or conclusion. And the author does have a woe is me tone - it's how she attempts to draw sympathy to direct her point. It's not wrong, I just think it devalues an objective process to reach out to people who would disagree with her point.

II never said she was being hypersensitive but your inferences as such do make YOU hypersensitive. You're looking for things that are not there and then concocting justification to call things something they're not. That's border line delusional and blatantly intellectual laziness

Re: Just Have the Baby? A New Mom Reveals Why There Is No ‘Just,’ and Not Necessarily Any Justice Either

Shawn Gordon — Mon, 01 Jul 2013 19:09:20 -0000

No dear, being right is inherent. If you have to tell someone, you're not.

Re: Just Have the Baby? A New Mom Reveals Why There Is No ‘Just,’ and Not Necessarily Any Justice Either

Shawn Gordon — Mon, 01 Jul 2013 19:07:56 -0000

.. . No.... It's got to tough to be consistently that wrong about what I said, but please - post a dire t quote where I state she should have been happy, take it in stride, "just have the baby" or that pregnancy and birth was easy and she was just being hypersensitive. Show me that, and at the same time defend your rampant (apparently hypocritical) sexist remarks. And, it would be nice if at any point you'd attack my argument instead of me - what you're doing is usually a sign of having zero ground to stand on. But hey, solidarity irrespective of logic is what extremists do often and is the hallmark of herd mentality.

Re: Just Have the Baby? A New Mom Reveals Why There Is No ‘Just,’ and Not Necessarily Any Justice Either

Shawn Gordon — Mon, 01 Jul 2013 18:38:01 -0000

No. I don't wonder if I'm original. I do wonder if you think you made any sense in that gibberish output from what I hope is that brain. I agree with what the author said, most of what she conveyed, understand her point, but not with the way it's presented, not with the woe is me tone and, bam, because a handful of people either can't or won't read for comprehension, I'm Satan. Sorry ladies, I've too many extra parts and unwilling to blow fruity kisses all over everything for your equally materialistic pro "you" false sense of self gratified entitlement.

I get it pregnancy is hard. It's generally also a choice and often entails several other harder life changing decisions. There are flaws in the system, they should change. Life is equally unfair for us all. No one here is special. Have a cookie.

Re: Just Have the Baby? A New Mom Reveals Why There Is No ‘Just,’ and Not Necessarily Any Justice Either

Shawn Gordon — Mon, 01 Jul 2013 17:55:48 -0000

Prove a negative? hardly - I'm asking you to assert what makes you think she was talking about someone other than men. It's a counter question. If she had addressed it to "anyone" then we agree the premise is already a broad generalization concerning both audience and defaco, opinion. Out of the gate, it's a flawed argument because it makes a character assumption she cannot know and an assumption about their mode of thinking based on the former assumption. That alone makes the piece nearly useless. Framing it in a tidy stream-of consciousness mish-mash of personal feelings from experiences after the fact doesn't make a good support structure.

You asserted that I wasn't satisfied with "cold hard fact" yet there are none beyond the scope of what she's observed. It's called a perception based model. That's a fact. It can be boiled down to "these statements are her reality, FOR her it is true." This si false logic. Nothing if "FOR" anyone, but rather "TO" them. If "FOR" was true, then I could say that when I remove my glasses, the world is out of focus FOR ME, and it would imply that the world changes. No, TO me, the world is out of focus. Her article isn't written based on any facts outside her perception, which many agree with - but it doesn't justify a generalized opinion about something toward non-specifics. It's an example of technically bad writing. But, her point wasn't to have good writing (her title might imply otherwise, but that's not the point of debate here, so I'll leave it alone)

You write:

"You think that she didn't have good enough reasons, or something, for writing her first-person story about the challenges she faces as a first-time mom of a much-wanted, medically compromised infant and how this situation has further entrenched her belief that "just have the baby" is simplistic nonsense. We get that, too."

Incorrect assertion. I think that she had a very goods reason to write about this topic - what I think is that it was poorly presented and projected on certain groups, a character trait that she did not sufficiently substantiate to justify the projection. In other words, she speculated from a series of disconnected assumptions and jumped from point to point with minimal coherence, and cohesiveness. If, in reading it I make baseline assumptions based on what I THINK she means to say, it makes sense. If I read it to an actual standard of writing, not so much. Again, I'm not judging her writing - only the method and presentation as very lacking to stress an otherwise much needed point, but to whom?

And, although you say that you're not presuming to speak for anyone, you use "we" enough to countermand that point as well. "WE" who? "we" women? "we" everyone? "We" my cat, my neighbors bird, and I? "We" the People of these United States? WE who? Apparenlty, "WE" includes you and someone who isn't me - so explain how "WE" think this isn't divisive.. wait.... sorry... to refrain from making you/ them/ we/ they think I've asked to prove a negative - explain how "WE" think this IS constructive.

To that point, I didn't say "real" men needed to have it explained - in fact, I said that they didn't.

I believe everything can be somehow managed because when we bring our children into it - there's not an option. Whether it is easy is not for anyone to say because that's an entirely subjective term reliant upon the unknowable personal capacities of others - maybe you missed it but I delved in to that in a rare moment of succinctness.

Why or if, you wear thin explaining anything is beyond me. I didn't ask you to explain it once let alone more than once. That was a choice you made of your own volition. You obviously think it's important enough to attempt, and facing a self-standard of failure, continue. Yet, I'm apparently the one that has a problem. I know motherhood and all it entails isn't sweetness... I made that acknowledgement in my original post - but at least now I know you can read.

Fin.

Re: Just Have the Baby? A New Mom Reveals Why There Is No ‘Just,’ and Not Necessarily Any Justice Either

Shawn Gordon — Mon, 01 Jul 2013 17:25:26 -0000

What makes you think she wasn't directing it at men in general? Surely you didn't assume about whom she was talking, or did you take her article to be generalized (which is immediately a logic flaw). In either case, perhaps I assumed she was directing it at men, just as you assume she is not, but there's no real context given I am the article and it becomes narrower still. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

To this point, I do believe I've been more civil for much longer than some others, but that is wearing very thin.

Re: Just Have the Baby? A New Mom Reveals Why There Is No ‘Just,’ and Not Necessarily Any Justice Either

Shawn Gordon — Mon, 01 Jul 2013 12:32:14 -0000

Ok. She's right - the opposing view she's combative against is a single and rather uncommon viewpoint among most "real" men. I actually don't know any man who thinks that way. I'm sorry some of you do, but it is still a very narrow band to attack. Maybe the author knows men like that, I won't presume to know.

Any extreme viewpoint is generally wrong, that's a given and really doesn't need an argument against it because it's an inherent fact. And, her point is good but not well structured. Like I said, it appears geared toward people with a formed opinion that is the same as hers. And, it's not persuasive, which is what people are trying to tell me it is. I guess what I'm not getting is why someone with the viewpoint she's arguing against would be inclined to change their view. It's not my view, but I'm also not compelled to really deeply consider the scattered points if I did.

It's her article, she's a right to express how she sees fit. I was just hoping that both the article and certain discussion participants didn't approach it from a generally sexist point of view - it's part of why a divide of opinion exists and to argue that the view should change for X reason dictates that you shouldn't simply say "you're Wong, this is what happened to me" and we're it the case, I should expect to write an article on why it's a terrible idea for women to be front line soldiers - it would making a generalization about a group based on a singularly narrow experience, regardless of how similar others may feel or how "like" an experience was had.

Re: Just Have the Baby? A New Mom Reveals Why There Is No ‘Just,’ and Not Necessarily Any Justice Either

Shawn Gordon — Mon, 01 Jul 2013 12:18:46 -0000

Wow. Such arrogance. I call it how I see it. If you're so self involved that you're unwilling to understand that this entire time you've taken shit out of context just to be "right" then, well... You prove so many points made by your counterparts.

The quote was from Lyn. When I said it was safe for women to say, it meant that women are saying these things and not being lambasted by a majority of others. Yes, few will, but a majority listen and hear their words. My wife expressed how miserable she was during parts so I saw how she was effected and affected. She was very open about her experience and no one put her down or called her whiney. That's what was meant - but hey, you need to fight someone... Great.

Re: Just Have the Baby? A New Mom Reveals Why There Is No ‘Just,’ and Not Necessarily Any Justice Either

Shawn Gordon — Mon, 01 Jul 2013 08:35:52 -0000

I repeated exactly verbatim what another woman on this blog commenting wrote, verbatim, and agreed with it bad on my observations as a husband and father with two of my own children and been through pregnancy with my wife, watching it happen, being there in person - and based on the account of several women I have spoke with with or who talk about it. Agreeing based on these not dismissive.

Nice little dig at the end, implying that because I have a penis I'm stupid. It is women who act like you, that really dent a general opinion of the other women. Continue to move goal posts... You t get far.

Re: Just Have the Baby? A New Mom Reveals Why There Is No ‘Just,’ and Not Necessarily Any Justice Either

Shawn Gordon — Mon, 01 Jul 2013 07:43:40 -0000

I'm sorry, gauging the popularity of what you said as a metric of validation is, for all intents and purposes, self important when you're the one using it as a metric to promote your view. It says "people agree, therefor it must be true or valid."

Per the second part - I acknowledge it, but it doesn't explain at all how I was dismissive. I didn't discredit or devalue any opinion. I parented what another female commenter said regarding birth and agreed that as a man, I can imagine it as true. So, be true but be honest

Re: Just Have the Baby? A New Mom Reveals Why There Is No ‘Just,’ and Not Necessarily Any Justice Either

Shawn Gordon — Sun, 30 Jun 2013 23:19:22 -0000

Yes. If gauging self importance on the popularity of my comments

I simply stated what another woman said, verbatim. Was she being dismissive?

Clearly you're disinterested in actual discourse by the response to my questions. They were valid and relevant in context to the article. Still I didn't dismiss anyone's opinion at being a parent or their trials as one. It's not different experience for all.

Re: Just Have the Baby? A New Mom Reveals Why There Is No ‘Just,’ and Not Necessarily Any Justice Either

Shawn Gordon — Sun, 30 Jun 2013 21:00:11 -0000

That's not what I said or am attempting to say, but it's also irrelevant to the topic and not worth further address either.

Re: Just Have the Baby? A New Mom Reveals Why There Is No ‘Just,’ and Not Necessarily Any Justice Either

Shawn Gordon — Sun, 30 Jun 2013 20:45:03 -0000

You realize that you're taking what I said way out of context? What I said was that I am aware that pregnancy for women is not all happy and fun as they seem to think men think it is. I also think you missed that the books I have read were written by women, who were mothers and doctors. So, they too were describing their experiences from a first person perspective. If being a man negates what I took from those books, written by mothers and doctors, adds nothing - then who are you really discounting here, me or them? And, if me, isn't that a bit sexist?

I'm in no way telling you or any other woman to "shut up" about your experience, but falling back to "you can't have kids" (which is essentially the veiled point of your ridiculous question) is exactly that argument: Shut up, you can't have kids, you'll never understand.

Great - I wont understand and you're approach and mindset institute understanding by exactly 0%. So, I've never been pregnant, but I am a human being with a degree of empathy for those I truly care about. I can only imagine the struggle women have for 9 months (sometimes more) with pregnancy - but it seems you're attempting to draw a broad segregating line between the genders so that there isn't some kind of shared experience or understanding. In return, I'll ask - how many women do you kow who've played professional football in the NFL? ZERO. How many females do you know that have died as an Infantry soldier in the US Army? ZERO. So, why is there a female commentator on ESPN telling me about football if they've zero experience in the game - why are there women attempting to convince my male counterparts that they're capable of being infantry if they've no experience in it? they're talking about an experience that for them, is currently completely unknowable. Yet... are they disqualified from making a statement of belief, perception, or opinion on the matters.

Wait, perhaps that was a bit off topic and a little unfair given that much of that is gender based (or was it?) - I'll frame that into something more personal and relevant and not reliant upon gender - how many times have you been adopted? I'm going to guess and say ZERO. How many children have you given up for adoption? Probably ZERO. How many kids have you adopted? Probably ZERO. Oh, I'm sure you know someone who has one of the three, or you might know someone who has any combination of them, and I'm sure you've met someone that would speak on it candidly using humor to make the topic approachable and not awkward - but let's face it - it's something you cannot know because you've never experienced it. And yet, the fact you've never experienced it is in no way a means to disqualify any opinion you might have on that issue. It's not even a valid reason to try a reversal "shut up" argument because I suspect that you can compile information and compare it to your personal experience, use empathy and draw a rational conclusion based on all portions of data. But, because I lack a uterus, I can't have a valid opinion on the topic. That's good to know.

Re: Just Have the Baby? A New Mom Reveals Why There Is No ‘Just,’ and Not Necessarily Any Justice Either

Shawn Gordon — Sun, 30 Jun 2013 18:19:59 -0000

I don't think she's being discounted (at least by me). I'm discounting the method by which she's expressing it, but not her thoughts, feelings, or reason to have either. I think there's something lost in the translation of my words here. To be clear, I'm not necessarily paternistic toward women (it's sexist if done BECAUSE the person is a woman - but don't confuse pateristic behavior with general respect - If I hold the door and say "after you" it's not because you're a woman), and I don't feel I've been dismissive of the author or her experience - and if I were, I think it could be understood because her experiences to me are literally unknowable and there's no real attempt to provide total clarity in a universal manner.

Re: Just Have the Baby? A New Mom Reveals Why There Is No ‘Just,’ and Not Necessarily Any Justice Either

Shawn Gordon — Sun, 30 Jun 2013 17:59:38 -0000

Fiona64 - Yes - TOTALLY misread it. I didn't say it was a bad article - in fact I don't even imply it wasn't good or that it was bad. That's your perception and I'm sorry you have it, but I can't change it.

What I said was that a lack of presented understanding of why other views exist or still exist, was absent. She is trying to convince people that an opposing view is wrong or at least unjustified - but to do that effectively you have to also demonstrate you know what their view is and work it from that end.

I can tell you that I like vinyl records all day long, but if I'm trying to convince someone set on CDs why 4 tracks are justified, I have to make counter arguments to their claims, not just make a bunch of claims to my own opinion from experience. Do that make sense?

So, yes, I was unmoved but to move someone or challenge an opinion, you've got to push against them. This was "this is my experience, this happened and here's how. Here's how I feel." If that was the objective, great - mission accomplished. I understand yet another single point of view. What I didn't understand was why it was important to her to share it or what she actually intended to convey other than a point reference; what was the direction and intended destination. I don't think it's wrong to have that opinion about what's been written or to challenge it in a response based on how I think it would have been better or more effective. I tend to go into things with a degree of expectation based on things like... I don't know, being an author with a title of "director" on a website that is designed to challenge flase perceptions.

I'm terribly sorry that you consider that hand-waving, but I'm also sorry you confused "objectivly rational" with "rationalization." Just as I'm also sorry you seemed to miss that on numerous occasion that I very clearly stated it was not bad. I'd appreciate few strawman arguments, please.

Re: Just Have the Baby? A New Mom Reveals Why There Is No ‘Just,’ and Not Necessarily Any Justice Either

Shawn Gordon — Sun, 30 Jun 2013 17:29:21 -0000

True - which is why I feel that it wasn't a persuasive article so much as it is simply a unification piece designed to appeal to those who already have a similar opinion. It's not wrong or bad - just... that's how I take the piece. BTW - I'm personally pro-life. Iv'e given a child to adoption, and I'm adopted. I however, am political pro-choice. It gives me a very.... difficult position to justify to both parties.

Re: Just Have the Baby? A New Mom Reveals Why There Is No ‘Just,’ and Not Necessarily Any Justice Either

Shawn Gordon — Sun, 30 Jun 2013 17:26:40 -0000

Lynnsey, I think it is pretty safe for women to say that pregnancy and childbirth is not all rainbows and unicorns. I've read books for men written by women for first time fathers that get very in detail on the process of pregnancy and they're not always terribly happy through the process - in fact, a couple stress this fact ad nauseum. But, I think that to a point, because we've struggled to save everyone from everything, a certain sickness within our species have set it and it becomes problematic to do most anything.

Re: Just Have the Baby? A New Mom Reveals Why There Is No ‘Just,’ and Not Necessarily Any Justice Either

Shawn Gordon — Sun, 30 Jun 2013 17:21:40 -0000

First, I'd just like to clarify that to be rational and rationalizing, are two different things. Rationalizing is a fancy way to say "make an excuse" - to be rational, is to participate in reason. My idea behind both is that an excuse is a reason without result. That said, In no way would I prefer any author to rationalize anything they've written (or how they've acted).

However, I guess what I was looking for was starting point from a central position - evidence of understanding of an opposing view rather than a straight in viewpoint from a singular personal position. It wasn't "wrong" per se, of her to start in any way so long as it was how she honestly felt and what she truly believes. It was just my personal opinion regarding how I think addressing an audience that will flock from polar opposites to converge. I wanted to know she understood how and why the opposing view is generated and what it entails before I could really find myself understanding her opinion - in short, I wanted to see she knew the entire argument, not just her own. But, it isn't a requirement of any kind by any means... just... what I would have liked to see, that's all.

Re: Just Have the Baby? A New Mom Reveals Why There Is No ‘Just,’ and Not Necessarily Any Justice Either

Shawn Gordon — Sun, 30 Jun 2013 17:02:47 -0000

Hey - we're human. I can't say I've never misconstrued things either. It's a hot button topic and judging by the other comments on here, it's natural to assume most replies, especially by men, would be.... shall we say... under-educated and narrow minded. It's difficult to write a piece like this and be removed from politics, and it's difficult to respond and keep them out.

I think part of the problem with a situation like the authors is that she's also combating the mindset of a previous generation. For example, my generation (I'm 36) are generally aware that pregnancy is difficult. Evidence of this lies in the numerous women praising their husbands or partners for being thoughtful and doting. My father's generation (he'd be 65 this November were he alive) - while loving their wives, still had a heavy injection of a purely patriarchal system in place. Prior to that, well... it was a "mans world."

I remember the first time I became a dad - unfortunately that child was put up for adoption because I had to realize neither myself or the mother were "in love" and... our maturity wasn't where it needed to be to raise a child (in our opinion). However, those books people read on parenting did detail the hardship women face during pregnancy. We're (as men) very aware. But I think because we live in an 'instant' society, there's a social upheaval that occurs when it realizes that the changes it would like aren't instantaneous. From there, it simply compounds the mis-communication between both parties and then there's this.

Additionally, men struggle with self-identity. In a world where there are a growing number of single mothers, we deal with what our peers consider "strong" and what our mothers teach us in way of compassion. This isn't to say women aren't strong - they are. But it's a different kind of strength much like the difference between strong will and strong muscle. What is "a man?" I guess it depends on what women define us as? Clearly we have a difficult time agreeing upon that ourselves, no?