Originally posted by FMF This rings false to me, but ~ seeing as it's your bog-standard scorn ~ I don't imagine you gave it even a moment's thought before typing it. 🙂
You imagining she didn't give it a moments thought before typing rings false to me, as do many of your musings and 'questionings'. If you weren't so concerned with keeping up appearances (and fearful of rejection) you might have something interesting to say now and and then.
Originally posted by lemon lime You imagining she didn't give it a moments thought before typing rings false to me, as do many of your musings and 'questionings'. If you weren't so concerned with keeping up appearances (and fearful of rejection) you might have something interesting to say now and and then.
Her thought-free swing-and-a-blurts are much in evidence on the Spirituality Forum.
I've lived in several different cultures around the world and worked in different contexts and, it has to be said, her sweeping jaundiced blurt about politeness hasn't been generally true anywhere. It smacks of some degree of both paranoia and default-setting misanthropy on her part ~ also much in evidence on the other forum.
I am saying this in this civil manner in the hope that she can digest it and give it some thought, and not because I am concerned with "being seen as polite".
You can stick with your sweeping generalizations by all means - it's your prerogative. 🙂
Originally posted by FMF Another sweeping statement with little basis in fact. 🙂
Unless you can identity what 'facts' you choose to acknowledge (ignoring other facts) then your statement fits the definition of a "sweeping statement"... so either you meant this as a joke, or the joke is on you.
Originally posted by lemon lime Unless you can identity what 'facts' you choose to acknowledge (ignoring other facts) then your statement fits the definition of a "sweeping statement"... so either you meant this as a joke, or the joke is on you.
'..."those with only a modicum of common sense" agree with lemon lime' is not much a contribution to a discussion. The assertion that 'all people who are polite are concerned with 'being seen' as being polite' is surely not substantiated by anyone's real life experience, least of all mine. Sure there is "fake" politeness, but to suggest that all politeness is for appearance's sake only seems to be sweeping nonsense. I've seen no evidence to substantiate it in 30-40 years of interacting with 'politeness'.
Politeness to me equates with civility, to strangers as well as people known to you.
I don't think you can generalise about a whole gender group, in respect of individual behaviour.
So the original question has no point.
Originally posted by Kewpie Politeness to me equates with civility, to strangers as well as people known to you.
I don't think you can generalise about a whole gender group, in respect of individual behaviour.
So the original question has no point.
Agreed, and it makes just as little sense to ask which is the sexier sex...
Except there might actually be an answer to that question, so...
... um
Aw heck, I don't know! I suppose it depends on who you ask. But this much I do know, common sense and intelligence are not unrelated... common sense is distilled intelligence, so in my opinion it's better than raw unguided intelligence... because it packs more of a punch.
Originally posted by lemon lime Aw heck, I don't know! I suppose it depends on who you ask. But this much I do know, common sense and intelligence are not unrelated... common sense is distilled intelligence, so in my opinion it's better than raw unguided intelligence... because it packs more of a punch.
The topic here is "politeness" and the sub-topic, since you mention me, is the banal generalization that Suzianne has blurted out and your freestanding blurt that "a modicum of common sense" would lead people to agree with it.
Originally posted by FMF The topic here is "politeness" and the sub-topic, since you mention me, is the banal generalization that Suzianne has blurted out and your freestanding blurt that "a modicum of common sense" would lead people to agree with it.
In your own estimation of yourself do you believe you are mostly a 'polite' person? If so then do you believe your 'politeness' has anything to do with (your) gender?
On a scale of 1 to 10 how polite do you think you are? 10 being supremely polite, and 1 being a horrid stinky rude little troll.
Originally posted by lemon lime In your own estimation of yourself do you believe you are mostly a 'polite' person? If so then do you believe your 'politeness' has anything to do with (your) gender?
On a scale of 1 to 10 how polite do you think you are? 10 being supremely polite, and 1 being a horrid stinky rude little troll.
When I am polite and/or impolite it only has to do with "appearances" in certain cases and for certain purposes. At other times it is genuine, serves important and sincere purposes, and reflects the actual nature of certain relationships. In one of my work environments, it is simply diplomatic to be polite even in situations or with certain people where it would probably be quite satisfying to dispense with politeness. However, the assertion that "there are 'fake' polite people, and there are 'truly' polite people, but all of them are concerned with 'being seen' as being polite" is a terribly flawed sweeping generalization that amounts to little more than nonsense.
Originally posted by FMF When I am polite and/or impolite it only has to do with "appearances" in certain cases and for certain purposes. At other times it is genuine, serves important and sincere purposes, and reflects the actual nature of certain relationships. In one of my work environments, it is simply diplomatic to be polite even in situations or with certain people where it would ...[text shortened]... ite" is a terribly flawed sweeping generalization that amounts to little more than nonsense.[/b]
Can you give me an example or circumstance where someone might be polite (for whatever reason) but isn't at all concerned over whether the person they are being polite to perceives them as being polite or not? And do you think women (or men) are generally more polite or less polite than men (or women) who are generally not polite?
Can you give me an example or circumstance where someone might be polite (for whatever reason) but isn't at all concerned over whether the person they are being polite to perceives them as being polite or not?
People who are polite by nature, for whom it is the default setting regardless of circumstances and regardless of what the 'recipients' of the politeness might think.
And do you think women (or men) are generally more polite or less polite than men (or women) who are generally not polite?
I pretty much agree with you and Kewpie in so far as... "I don't think you can generalise about a whole gender group, in respect of individual behaviour" and that the OP is kind of pointless.
Originally posted by Homer1Simpson For example: You walk into a pub or a club for the first time. (Forget the barman or barmaid for this example) Which is the first sex to greet you?
Originally posted by Homer1Simpson For example: You walk into a pub or a club for the first time. (Forget the barman or barmaid for this example) Which is the first sex to greet you?
Question: Why are some men threatened by anything new while women tend to be receptive?
09 Sep '15 02:19
Who are the more polite sex?
Back to Top