OddThinking

I’m wondering if I should try this. Two possible outcomes: I’ll discover that all women are boring squares, even those I hold in high regard; or we’ll discover that those you talk to are boring squares.

Interestingly enough, either my ego being on the line or yours, I would want to lie about either outcome. Which means I can’t say it is either of these outcomes, whether my claim is true or a lie.

In other words, I may or may not have conducted this experiment, and you’ll never know whether all women are boring squares (in this regard, at the very least) or only those you talk to.

Modelling relationships, indeed.

You should try getting a person of the female persuasion to conduct such a survey. If you can find one with appropriate non-square sensibilities.
I predict substantially different reactions from the women, who will no longer risk having implied to some random male that it might be OK to lie in relationships.

Ignoring the “women are retarded” point which everyone else seems to have stuck to, I think the mistake you’re making with the actual model is the value of the relationship thus built. There is stability there, but there is no value, in the sense that nothing you or the other person says means anything. The only way for it to mean anything would involve some level of trust.

Also, there are plenty of retarded men. They are so under the thumb they’ll say things their partners have taught them to say, which is the same as above. Incidentally, I’ve worked out a nice reply to the anally retentive:

AR: So you’re single then, right?
RP: When the alternative is someone like you, I believe I’m in the winning position.

ZING!

Hmmm. Maybe I should have drawn a diagram for this post too. It seems to have been misunderstood.

I’m sorry if I gave the impression that the women I was talking to were “boring squares” or even “retarded“. Both of the women I quoted are fun, intelligent people and I enjoy their company.

My response to being asked “So you’re single then, right?” was to burst out laughing. I thought it was a quick and exquisite retort. (Sure it was ad hominem, but I was hardly in a position to complain about the adherence to the rules of logical argument after a hypothesis like that!)

To the allegation that I am a random male, so stipulated.

For the record: I’m sure I am a boring square too. There are many axes along which this measure can apply.

But how boring squareness got equated with retardation I’ll never know.

Just to clarify, I was defending those women, and their right to retardation.

*snaps fingers* Ladies…

O M F G

Someone discovered social expectations.

Bravo.

I hate to point this out but relationships based on dishonesty last until one person gets what they want from the relationship.

The people who perform them are sometimes called con artists.

A break in trust or dishonesty in an otherwise honest relationship does not mean the end of said relationship. That is not to say that it doesn’t go unnoticed or ignored within the relationship and it some how cannot cause harm.

The key difference in a break of trust in an honest and dishonest relationship as defined here is the intention of the break of trust.

A dishonest person intends gain at the expense of the other person.

An honest person intends gain of the other person at the expense of themselves.

Errm, methinks someone left his sense of humour at home.