Cynique

@Pioneer1 CAN YOU READ? IF YOU CAREFULLY READ MY LAST POST ON PART 1, I SAID THAT I DIDN'T AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH YOUR OPINION ABOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN! WHAT I AM CALLING YOU WRONG ABOUT IS YOUR DRONING ON AND ON ABOUT ME BEING IN LOVE WITH WHITE MEN, YET CANNOT SUPPLY EVEN ONE NAME TO BACK UP YOUR SILLY ACCUSATION SO YOU HAVE NO PROOF. AND EVEN IF YOUR PATHETIC ACCUSATIONS WERE TRUE ABOUT ME LOVING WHITE MEN, WHY THE HELL DO YOU CARE? BTW, IF YOU CANT TAKE THE VITRIOL, DON'T DISH IT OUT. I'M DONE. GOOD GRIEF.

No surprise that you are led wrong, because you are wrong and all of your verbal acobatics and distortions won't distract from the fact that, as usual, you don't know what you're talking about. You have evaded every challenge i have put to you in regard to your unfounded accusations and declarations and just keep resorting to the same old repetitive litany. If you were the only choice, i would love white men, but fortunately there are other black men around who are different from you. Thank goodness! (You obviously haven't read the last 2 posts on Part 1 of this thread. Troy is who you need to be trying to make your points with.)

Pondering is not a synonym for obsession. It is an exercise in deep thought which i indulge in from time to time. Something you ought to experiment with. Being curious is not a aberration. It's a quest for knowledge. And of course, you never pass up an opportunity to inject your swill into the subjects i bring up. BTW, Tyson and white scientists are in accord, so where does that leave you? And, indeed, he wouldn't bother arguing with you because he knows people like you who never let facts get in their way, can't be separated from their opinions. And never once have you given a specific example of a white man that i am enamoured with. You're are neurotically deluded about this, previously admitting, yourself, that you are filled with envy. SMH.

@Pioneer1Neil DeGrasse Tyson is not a white man; he is a premiere black scientist and he would challenge and even refute just about everything you imagine you know about science. Can you come up with any black scientists besides him who I should be listening to? You keep advancing the irrational lie that i am in love with white men because i am curious about the origin of the universe and prefer spirituality to religion. You're obsessed and paranoid in this regard and come across as an unbalanced individual with a personality disorder. Seek help.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL YOU JIVE TURKEYS!

I have an open mind. And i like to ponder. My mantra is: i don't know. So i don't agree or disagree with Pioneer. And I don't think his opinion is illogical or invalid or unreasonable. He is, after all, voicing what the intelligent design community believes and this school of thought includes reputable scientists and philosophers. There is order to our universe. The sun comes up every day. The moon goes through phases. It can be predicted when stars will line up in certain configurations. The seasons change on schedule. This can be called proof; but it's a proof that others obviously don't accept because it conflicts with their beliefs. I am also intrigued by the question posed asking who created the intelligent entity who created the universe. This could be responded to by saying that just because our minds are not advanced enough to comprehend the answer, doesn't mean that there isn't an answer. I never tire of considering the suggestion that our existence is just a blink of the eye of someone who is to us what we are to fruit flies.

So it is, what it is.

OK. You don't think that the creator is a person but you agree with Pioneer's assumption that the creator is a person because it is a reasonable one from your perspective.

I was confused about who was saying what in this sentence.

@TroyOh, Puleeze. I'm not trying to pull anything. Or am i trying to harass you. I just respond to what you put out there. i thought the conversation was over; I had my say on the use of mansplaining being beyond my control and i accepted this and was done. But you decided to reopen the subject and mansplain what you had already expressed during the course of the discussion, then further decided that i didn't know what you were talking about and was therefore at fault for giving my reasons for not sharing your opinion, - all of this before patting yourself on the back, convinced that your rigidity is a virtue when it comes to the use of certain unique words you don't approve of. Good for you. To me, your stance is akin to the accusations you make against Pioneer and his obstinancy about race. The only difference is that your personal rejection of certain morphed words occurs in a situation where there is another accepted point of view, something which seems to frustrate you. You, of course, have a perfect right to balk at being labeled a victim, and i accept your denial. It's also your prerogative to disagree with my philosophy about words. So be it. Suddenly everyone is at each other's throats on this board that is currently mired in the mode of a dysfunctional family. This excerpt from an old poem comes to my mind because it appropriately applies to everyone. Oh, would some Power give us the giftTo see ourselves as others see us!It would from many a blunder free us...

@Pioneer1 "Stable" mind as in a stagnant mentality? In other words, you don't think outside the box, because you are trapped in the box of your dull mindset, void of an imagination. You don't know the origin of the universe. All you are doing is parroting the intelligent design theory, taking the easy way out. And your reference to schizophrenia has nothing to do with "uncommon" (rare) sense. I'm neither hearing voices in my head nor suffering from paranoia. Those traits apply to somebody like you who listens to the voices inside your head filling you with a consuming suspicion of THE WHITE MAN plotting against you - as you hover there, bug-eyed, shuffling from foot-to-foot, waving the American flag. BTW, Del. A creator is not synonymous with being a person. Gravity can create a black hole.

@Pioneer1And got you i did!

@Troy Now you're playing the victim. SMH. I wasn't exactly in the dark about your sentiments. There was never any doubt that you didn't agree with where i was coming from, or that you despised the word mansplaining and all it brought to mind. So you proceed to reiterate your sentiments in the guise of a "different approach", and have now accused me of not knowing what you're talking about just because i don't share your opinion; typical male reaction. I'm sorry, but i don't care about "sexism". I think "bromance" is a really cool merger. "Fuck" is my favorite curse word, "nigga" my favorite sobriquet to express the love/hate relationship i have with my people. So shoot me. How many times do i have to say that i'm a cynical ol bitch? And just to prove it - you should've written "I said my piece on the word; not peace."

@Troy Why are you belaboring the point about mansplaining in its current usage??? Didn't i say that i accepted what i have no control over? Didn't i imply that the essence of the word was preserved because patronizing presumptuousness transcends gender? And your opinionated deconstruction and rejection the legitimacy of this word doesn't really register with me because i don't agree with you. I tend to like colorful, creative words. The ongoing battle of the sexes spawned mansplaining and it has found a place in the vernacular of pop culture. Nobody is saying you have to accept the word. But, by the same token, nobody has to defer to your disapproval of it just because it offends your sensibilities. Language is the living instrument of human communication and if it's flawed, it is because humans are. Deal with it. BTW, how often do you encounter women who toss the word manspaining at you? Is it a constant in your life? And can you bring yourself to consider that women who use this term are just as often right as they are wrong? If they're wrong you do have the option to get things off our chest by telling them this. You can squelch Pioneer's obstinacy about race being an authentic classification, and Del's postulation about climate change being suspect, but you cannot place yourself on the side of right when it comes to the controversial nature of the word "mansplaining". You want to bad-mouth Oxford Dictionary because it is based in England, as if the English language is not spoken in America. And i don't think Merriam Webster really supports your personal distaste for the word. Words are their business. To them, mansplaining is simply a word they are watching with interest to see if it will eventually fall out of usage. Unlike you, they are objective.

Me and my daughters hangin' out. Aim for the center to hit the Bulls Eye.

The epitome of mansplaining. I well aware of the "soup kitchen" community. You just need to be kept in check when you resort to hyperbole as was the case with you declaring that white college students were being paid $50,000 a year for serving hot meals to drug addicts, and subsequently contradicting yourself by saying these white kids serving hot meals to drug addicts were ones sentenced by the court to do community service. Keep it real.

@Pioneer1 Like i said, you can't wrap your finite mind around the idea that the universe created itself. And that voids everything else you said as far as I'm concerned. I prefer uncommon sense when i ponder.

@Pioneer1According to your previous post, these people feeding drug addicts are white college graduates earning $50,000 a year until they can find a job in their profession.

@Pioneer1Who says the universe was created by a someone? Apparently your mind can't conceive that this wasn't the case.

@Pioneer1I'm not a feminist. You don't have to be one to agree with the definition of mansplaining because it's something all women encounter. And as i previously stated, there are Urban Dictionaries that supply a definition of mansplaining, using street slang to do this. And i do know the origin of the word manslpaining. How many times do i have to tell it! Del is who used, "Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday". So he knows as much as you do. in fact you weren't even sure about what it meant.

Well, apparently college graduates care about the poor. They're serving hot lunches to drug addicts. Or are they???

@Troy Well as far as i'm concerned, you overreacted to my supplying a definition of mansplaining, immediately going on the the attack.Why did my parsing this word offend you so much? instead of resenting my correcting you, why didn't you just let my definition just roll of your back since you had not intention of accepting it. You ought to be used to me correcting people by now. After i supplied the definition for purposes of clarity, i don't think i did a whole lot of protesting. There was nothing else to protest. I knew there was no way you were going to change your mind. i just like to argue. You're who went all off on tangents trying to obliterate the word and i offered my rebuttals. Or have i denied that i started this. So what if i did? What's your point? The Oxford Dictionary is utilized by the whole English-speaking world and is found on the shelves of all American schools and libraries. Why do you think its recognition of mansplaining as a word was such a big deal to the Huff Post? And just because i cited Oxford as a reference doesn't mean that i dismiss Merriam Webster. Unlike you, I respect them both. Speak for yourself when you say nothing was accomplished. I learned a few things - even if you didn't.

@TroyWell, you continue to see what you want to see in my posts. Here is a direct quote in regard to your accusation about me not conceding the word isn't in Merriam Webster "...I surmised there was a possibility that M-W might add this pop culture word to their dictionary at a later date. They left the door slightly ajar in regard to their doing this." And i never said it was in Merriam Webster. i said that Merriam Webster's "definition" comes up when you google mansplaining. Because, as you are so quick to point out, the link to the article was broken, i didn't get to read it until i clicked onto another link. Or was i nearly as adamant as you were in insisting that mansplaining wasn't a word. And characterizing my quote taken from Huff Post, the Internet's most popular blog as being something i had to scour around to find, is a rather ignorant observation on your part. ("This week, Oxford Dictionaries announced some new additions to their online database. Listed alongside “clickbait,” “douchebaggery” and “side boob” is everyone’s favorite uncomfortable experience — “mansplaining.”The etymology of “mansplain” can be traced back to 2008, when Rebecca Solnit wrote an essay titled “Men Explain Things To Me.” The author touched on the idea that being talked down to and corrected — primarily by men — was a common occurrence in almost every woman’s life... ) The fact that you attempt to belittle Oxford Dictionary's says more about you than it. This prestigious, world famous dictionary has been around since 1857 and is considered "the last word on the English language". Its definition is the one which comes up when you google mansplaining. Instead of you conceding that there are 2 schools of thought about this word, you prefer to shackle yourself to Merriam Webster, clutching it like a security blanket while regarding what was almost an op-ed piece, as the gospel according to Merriam Webster, - albeit an ambiguous one. Furthermore, i don't really care how you choose to use the word mansplaining. It ain't that serious, and where did you get the idea that i thought it was? i was amused by your frothing-at-the-mouth rants about how men flipped the word and women abuse it. Or am i particularly upset about how it has become "bi-sexual". it's not like i'm tearing my hair out about something i can't control. To a cynic like me, it is, what it is. Its message about presumptuousness remains in tact. And so it goes.

@TroyTalk about cherry picking! You only responded to the comments that you had a "retort" for. The other things i pointed out to you, you ignored. And when you cast yourself as being an authority on "good journalism", then you invited the "diversionary" comment i made about your lack of proofreading. And to add insult to injury you proceed to mansplain - oops, i mean critique my "debate" tactics as if yours were any better. Sheeze! First you said that mansplaining was not a word. Now you say Merriam Webster didn't give a definition of what you have apparently reconsidered to be a word, but you refer to M-W's definition of this word in trying to make your point. What is your definition of a definition?? Just because a word doesn't appear in a dictionary doesn't mean that it has no definition. And what does the phrase "it's not going to be dropping out of sight any time soon" convey to you? When will this word which, for some reason M-W is watching, disappear? In 5 years, 10? 20? And why will it disappear? When people decide to acquiesce to Merriam Webster's decree that they should stop using it? This was an article about a very fluid subject. Not hard science which is what you are so devoted to. Finally, what did i say that contradicted this article? I surmised there was a possibility that M-W might add this pop culture word to their dictionary at a later date. They left the door slightly ajar in regard to their doing this. Since you completely ignored my reference to Oxford Dictionary, a reference book which is on a par with Merriman Webster, here is an excerpt from Huff Post: This week, Oxford Dictionaries announced some new additions to their online database. Listed alongside “clickbait,” “douchebaggery” and “side boob” is everyone’s favorite uncomfortable experience — “mansplaining.”The etymology of “mansplain” can be traced back to 2008, when Rebecca Solnit wrote an essay titled “Men Explain Things To Me.” The author touched on the idea that being talked down to and corrected — primarily by men — was a common occurrence in almost every woman’s life... I really am not sure what is fueling your persistence in discussing this word. i keep saying that mansplaining is a word Feminists came up with and it was meant for the exclusive use of women but its original usage has been neutered by those who took it upon themselves to now apply it to anyone who patronizingly explains a subject to another person. What about this is buggin' you?? Other than that you personally find the word mansplaining offensive. What is it that you are disagreeing with me about??