As VZ eluded to in his comment, he will providing a counter-theory next week so the debate continues...
I feel like this has been a great week for my first post. Thanks for all your comments and insights. You really made me think about the theory in a new way.
Chad, I stand by your brilliance.
Laurie, thank you for fleshing out the biological component of the theory. That was a strong argument I had neglected. I have also heard that Jenna is in agreement with my theory so women are not universally opposed to it.
Brian, maybe we need to have a week debating the meaning of subjective. By your definition, if you own experience or perception comes into play at all then that means my theory is subjective. I don't think anything could be considered objective under that formula that involves the actions of human beings.
Let me also say this to all the guys who are trying to disprove my theory by one example from your whole lives. First, you are admitting my theory is correct in 97.8 percent of all cases then saying but I have one exception. That only proves the strength of my underlying argument.
Basically, all of you amount to astronauts telling me the theory of gravity doesn't apply to you because you went to space one time. The general trajectory of male-female relationships is to end up in romantic entanglements. If you have one example from your twenty-something year existence on this planet where that didn't happen, that doesn't disprove my theory. My theory is more accurate than the statement: "Men and women cannot fly." I've flown on airplanes more times than I have been friends with a woman. That doesn't mean I am going around telling people I can fly.
VZ, I hope you have more than anectodal evidence like one case you can come up with your past. As a fellow lawyer, you know that in rhetorical debate anectdotal evidence stands next to slippery slope arguments as the last bastion and hope of desperate men.
(BTW, transference has two aspects to its definition. The first applies to transference of people. The second applies to transference of emotions. Please do your assigned reading before coming to class.)
Finally, I will just see that I have taken great pains this week not to air anyone's dirty laundry or say anything that could lead to potential embarassment for the people who read this blog. However, I am quite certain that I could draw a web diagram of everyone on this blog and how they are connected by romantic entanglements. I'm still not going to do it.
Thanks for reading, folks. Good talk.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I am sorry for not posting this thought before the final thoughts of Brent.
Guy is dating girl 1. Guy has a "only friends and no romance friendship" with girl 2. Guy goes to hang out with girl 2 because it has been a long time and they want to catch up. Girl 1 would be pissed/jealous. Unless... transference and she was also friends with girl 2 (couple friends). Your girlfriend and her assumptions that your relationship with girl 2 can not purely friendship and nothing else shows that in general all people believe this theory.
AJ put this girl-"friend" out there so I will use this. If AJ was spending a crazy amount of time with Madison and he was dating another girl she would not be happy. Let me shut down a few objections quickly. She might not verbalize her distaste but she would have it.
Let me elaborate. Kristen has told me that girls often rant amongst themselves in disapproval of girls who are good friends with their boyfriends.
Again, a persons general disapproval of their significant other's close friends of the opposite sex, without transference, gives strong evidence to the truth of this theory.
Post a Comment