|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Former Olympic champion Victoria Pendleton reveals macho MAMILS try to overtake her
On 19:39 4 Jun 2020, Kelly said:
Pamela wrote: On 19:52 2 Jun 2020, Kelly said: Pamela wrote: On 11:11 2 Jun 2020, Kelly said: Pamela wrote: Hi Pam, I think I have found your problem. You are clearly prejudiced against people with tattoos (as well as cyclists, of course). And unfortunately for this gentleman who was kicked off his bike, he was both a cyclist and had tattoos. We all know that if you don't recognise your problem then you can't do anything about it, because, obviously, you don't even know it's there. I have therefore taken the trouble to just explain the following for you. Either take note of it or, indeed, disregard it, as you wish. It seems to me that you see this gentleman cyclist as deviating from the mainstream in terms of a physical appearance and you have thus subject him to rejection and prejudice. You will know that stigma is the relationship between a socially undesirable characteristic and a stereotype. It appears that your behaviour over this issue is down to the preconceived notions you hold. And it's worse with you in this case because the person you have stigmatised is not only a cyclist but someone who you additionally see as being 'responsible' for their lot. That, incidentally, is known as 'controllable stigma', and it includes tattoos because they arise as a matter of choice. As an aside, this is going to be the last of our glorious sunny days, for a while. A perfect opportunity to nip down to the beach, making time for some fish and chips with a nice strawberry sundae to finish - don't miss out, will ya! I provided the research evidence to support my statement but, even after it was explained to you, you remain in denial. You hold onto some strange notions and refuse to change despite the evidence. I am not in denial, I accepted the evidence supplied. And so I accepted that the tattooed cyclist is more likely than the average person to have a diagnosis of mental illness (but not to a degree that is significantly related to his overall health status.). In fairness I should also acknowledge that you now also go with this version (even though you have added embellishments which are, strictly speaking, still within reason). Anyway, it is a definite improvement on your initial claim that the tattooed cyclist is clearly short of a shilling. On a similar note, I can say people who have extensive body piercings are also more likely than not to have mental health problems. FLIP!!! (That's you over-reacting just now to a simple truth.) That does not make me FLIP!!! What could make me over-react (possibly) would be someone claiming that another person was clearly short of a shilling based on nothing more than the fact that they had a few piercings. The research indicates that the gentleman is more likely than not to have mental health problems is based his proclivity to have extensive tattooing. Hi, Pam, I don't know how you manage it but where has your opening sentence come from? The research I've seen (the link you initially gave and a Daily Mail piece) does, in fact, not indicate that the gentleman in question is more likely than not to have mental health problems. What it indicated was that the gentleman is more likely than the average person to have mental health problems. Yes you are quite correct. "More likely than the average person" is what I had in mind but expressed it poorly. Thank you for the correction. You don't need research as common sense would reach the same conclusion but I suppose the research gives it a scientific basis. I am sorry you have had trouble with that. I suppose it could be because the research (including your initial link) didn't give any real detail and was pretty vague. I have just looked up what the chances are of the average person having a mental health problem, and find it's surprisingly high at nearly 25%. So, someone with a certain amount of tattoos will have a higher probability than that. Okay, but we don't know what the figure is, although we do know it can't be too much higher because we were told it wouldn't significantly affect the overall health of the tattooed person. We have already discussed that that is a reference to dermatological health. Thus a tattooed person's chances of having a mental health problem could be anywhere from what? 1% or more than the chances of an average person. I mean, how do you get from that to making your opening sentence assertion? You are inventing facts now. I do notice news reports today that the incidence of drinking during the lockdown has gone up and wonder if that underlies your recent uncontrolled emotional states: you use emotional logic in your Vicky Pollard thinking and separately you display emotional over-reaction to comments here. See how quickly you jump to conclusions? And extreme conclusions at that. Then run with them? You recently mentioned you wished you had some recreational drugs and I wonder which are your favourite. Perhaps you will say and it may explain things. Yet more extreme conclusions. I once tried to make a small joke of a previous extreme drug related conclusion of yours, but it obviously went over your head and now you are running with this new improved and enhanced version. I can't be bothered to go back and find all the relevant message id's - but, of course, could do if necessary). What you wrote is a tell. Perhaps you inhabit the drug taking ethos that you can't see what it gives away. Let me reframe it and reverse the situation. If you had asked me if I'm taking drugs (or alcohol to excess), I would not reply "I should be so lucky" because I don't consider people who take recreational drugs to be lucky at all. They on the other hand don't understand that way of thinking at all. I didn't take the question you asked to be a serious one, and so answered it in a lighthearted way. There is nothing more to it than that, really. Anyway, my recent drug test came back negative... between you and I, my dealer has some explaining to do. Your liberal attitude to law breaking is noted. You talk of my uncontrolled emotional states but do you really think you hold dispassionate views about cyclists and about people with tattoos and piercings? If I have over-reacted in interacting with you it is probably because I have taken some of your more provocative views too seriously. But that is my fault - I know life is 90% how you respond, but it's not only about having the knowledge, the wisdom to use it also needs to be gained. There are dozens of studies which show extensive tattooing is correlated with mental health problems. Pick and choose from he https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q...+mental+health You must be kidding? There's no way I'm going to work my way through that lot. I'm with Mr Nugent on this 'appeal to authority' thing. Anyone can post a URL to a site which may or may not contain relevant material. You're making this claim, it would be far better that you precis what you feel is relevant and, where appropriate, provide a link that backs it all up. Do you want me to choose a few for you? I provided a list so you could pursue those you felt were of most interest. The point is this effect is established and various studies have looked at various aspects. Extensive tattooing is associated with high risk behaviour. I don't want to conflate a group of hardcore tattoo wearers like this cyclists with some teenager who has a tiny little design on her foot. Which is why I wrote: "More intriguing is the mindset behind the gentleman's extensive tattoos" yet it seems to upset you greatly Well, let's see, it was speculative and it should take something more substantial than a few tattoos to write off someone's credibility basically covers it. None of us are mind-readers any more than we are fortune-tellers. Then on top of that, tattoos are quite in fashion at the moment - deciding upon where one draw the line (so to speak) on what is acceptable and what is not, is getting ever more subjective and how this relates to mental illness can't be that straightforward either, I would have thought. Apart from that, yeah, not upset at all, everything's great. You are switching from the correlation with extensive tattoos to referring to trivial tattoos, as I mentioned above. I've posted about this and reminded you once of what I wrote. I have to draw the line at reminding you any more as we are going round in circles. |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Former Olympic champion Victoria Pendleton reveals macho MAMILS try to overtake her
Pamela wrote:
On 19:39 4 Jun 2020, Kelly said: Pamela wrote: Hi, Pam, I don't know how you manage it but where has your opening sentence come from? The research I've seen (the link you initially gave and a Daily Mail piece) does, in fact, not indicate that the gentleman in question is more likely than not to have mental health problems. What it indicated was that the gentleman is more likely than the average person to have mental health problems. Yes you are quite correct. "More likely than the average person" is what I had in mind but expressed it poorly. Thank you for the correction. Nice touch. (I mean that, it's not sarcasm.) I know you end this post of yours by saying that you "have to draw the line" as we "are going round in circles" and you are quite right, I feel the same way. This post of mine is not intended as a "I want the last word", but felt I couldn't go without making just a few more points. You don't need research as common sense would reach the same conclusion but I suppose the research gives it a scientific basis. I am sorry you have had trouble with that. I suppose it could be because the research (including your initial link) didn't give any real detail and was pretty vague. I have just looked up what the chances are of the average person having a mental health problem, and find it's surprisingly high at nearly 25%. So, someone with a certain amount of tattoos will have a higher probability than that. Okay, but we don't know what the figure is, although we do know it can't be too much higher because we were told it wouldn't significantly affect the overall health of the tattooed person. We have already discussed that that is a reference to dermatological health. I have a sneaking admiration at the skill at which you skip across that point but it still kind of hides that you are obfuscating what to me is an important point. I am often not sure if you get things accidentally wrong or whether it's deliberate - again I think this is a part of your skill, so it could well be a bit of both that you engage in (I could see that as a kind of style, as in 'the ends justifies the means'). But if I could take you back to the first link you gave to back up your assertion about tattoos and the correlation between people with them and their mental health, you missed out this important sentence from the quote you referenced: "the survey-based study also found that having tattoos was not significantly related to overall health status." Just to be clear, it's your contention that 'overall health status' is a reference to dermological health - that's what you saying has already been discussed, isn't it? Yet when I look up overall health status, back comes this definition: "Overall health is related to a balance of the six dimensions of health. The six dimensions of health a physical, mental, social, spiritual, environmental and emotional health." https://brainly.com/question/8181958 So how can you claim that 'overall health status' is solely a reference to dermaological health? Thus a tattooed person's chances of having a mental health problem could be anywhere from what? 1% or more than the chances of an average person. I mean, how do you get from that to making your opening sentence assertion? You are inventing facts now. Nah, look at all the question marks - I'm baffled, yes, again. I am still awaiting clarification regarding what you say about how tattooed people are more likely to suffer mental health problems than your average person. Specifically, how much more are people likely to be affected by mental health and to what degree. It's your claim but you have never detailed it. [...] There are dozens of studies which show extensive tattooing is correlated with mental health problems. Pick and choose from he https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q...+mental+health You must be kidding? There's no way I'm going to work my way through that lot. I'm with Mr Nugent on this 'appeal to authority' thing. Anyone can post a URL to a site which may or may not contain relevant material. You're making this claim, it would be far better that you precis what you feel is relevant and, where appropriate, provide a link that backs it all up. Do you want me to choose a few for you? No, just still waiting for you to clarify your claim Which is why I wrote: "More intriguing is the mindset behind the gentleman's extensive tattoos" yet it seems to upset you greatly Well, let's see, it was speculative and it should take something more substantial than a few tattoos to write off someone's credibility basically covers it. None of us are mind-readers any more than we are fortune-tellers. Then on top of that, tattoos are quite in fashion at the moment - deciding upon where one draw the line (so to speak) on what is acceptable and what is not, is getting ever more subjective and how this relates to mental illness can't be that straightforward either, I would have thought. Apart from that, yeah, not upset at all, everything's great. You are switching from the correlation with extensive tattoos to referring to trivial tattoos, as I mentioned above. You have never yet defined at what point acceptable tattooing becomes unacceptably extensive - this is one of my questions you keep dodging. I've posted about this and reminded you once of what I wrote. But never satisfactorily, I have to say. I have to draw the line at reminding you any more as we are going round in circles. Okay, then, here is the crucial point, as I see it. (And I apologise for it having taken so long to dawn on me - in my next life I'm hoping to be smarter.) All of the foregoing has been about the "intriguing .... mindset behind the gentleman's extensive tattoos". It is all about your speculation on the significance of this guy's tattoos. But when you really think about it, isn't that just a 'strawman', isn't it just a speculative smokescreen obscuring the fact that is there for us all to see? The fact is that there are seven images of the injuries a man sustained from both a kick (delivered by a passing motorcyclist) and the subsequent fall from his bike travelling at some speed: https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/ne...cked-off-bike/ And, there, that is the main issue and what all of this should be about - a cyclist who has been unlawfully abused (that is regardless of his tattoos) by a motorcyclist. So, by all means draw the line at reminding me anymore of your speculatory circles. Although, in fairness, revolving around your strawman has been an education for me and, believe it or not, I'm sincerely grateful for that, in a necessary sort of "something's lost but something's gained" kind of way. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Former Olympic champion Victoria Pendleton reveals macho MAMILS try to overtake her
On 08:58 5 Jun 2020, Kelly said:
you end this post of yours by saying that you "have to draw the line" as we "are going round in circles" and you are quite right, I feel the same way. This post of mine is not intended as a "I want the last word", but felt I couldn't go without making just a few more points. [...] So, by all means draw the line at reminding me anymore of your speculatory circles. This discussion has been going round in circles. I have made my points and there's no merit in reminding you of them in repeated replies to your "whataboutery" and zigzag logic. It's not possible to make progress when you freely reverse the direction of causality, saying it doesn't matter. Genuine causality is a central part of understanding cause and effect of mental illness amongst those with extensive tattoos. Reversing causality reverses the argument. Tattoos do not cause mental illness and no one has ever said so, but it appears you still want to discuss your misunderstanding about that. Read one of the links I have provided or one which comes up in a search of your own and see if that helps. I have no idea why your logic is so scrambled. Assuming you don't have psychosis, I've suggested intoxication while posting which is common but you say not. You must work within your own understanding as I'm unable advise you further. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Former Olympic champion Victoria Pendleton reveals macho MAMILS try to overtake her
Pamela wrote:
On 08:58 5 Jun 2020, Kelly said: you end this post of yours by saying that you "have to draw the line" as we "are going round in circles" and you are quite right, I feel the same way. This post of mine is not intended as a "I want the last word", but felt I couldn't go without making just a few more points. [...] So, by all means draw the line at reminding me anymore of your speculatory circles. This discussion has been going round in circles. I have made my points and there's no merit in reminding you of them in repeated replies to your "whataboutery" and zigzag logic. It's not possible to make progress when you freely reverse the direction of causality, saying it doesn't matter. Genuine causality is a central part of understanding cause and effect of mental illness amongst those with extensive tattoos. Reversing causality reverses the argument. Tattoos do not cause mental illness and no one has ever said so, but it appears you still want to discuss your misunderstanding about that. I can not imagine how you get the idea I still want to discuss a misunderstanding that I don't even believe I have. And, please, give me some credit - do you really think I believe tattoos cause mental illness? Is anybody that stupid? When talking about the direction of causality not mattering, I meant it was the way you were going on about it in a particular instance that didn't matter. Read one of the links I have provided or one which comes up in a search of your own and see if that helps. Yes, well, I would if I felt I needed help. But I have absolutely no problem in accepting people with extensive tattos are more likely to have mental health issues than the average person - in fact, I have seen people with tattoos that made me wonder about their mental health. Other than that, I don't unduly worry about people and their tattoos - some I like, some I don't. I have no idea why your logic is so scrambled. I think that's a 'begging the question' thing here, isn't it? As in: "Begging the question is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. It is a type of circular reasoning: an argument that requires that the desired conclusion be true." Assuming you don't have psychosis... Well, psychosis would mean that I had a severe mental disorder in which my thoughts and emotions where so impaired I had lost contact with external reality. ...I've suggested intoxication while posting which is common... So, what you have suggested, in effect, is either I could be a psychotic or an alcoholic. Your line of reasoning, however, fails by limiting my options to two when there are truthfully plenty more options to choose from. Your reasoning failure is, I believe, also known as the 'black-and-white' fallacy. Also, I can't help but notice, the two options you have given me are themselves nothing more than 'ad hominem' fallacies. It's quite amusing, isn't it, you using all these reasoning fallacies to attack my logic? Talk about an irony overload! You know, I can not believe someone as skilled in 'working' usenet as you are could be employing all these questionable tactics accidentally, but that would mean you were doing it all knowingly and deliberately, wouldn't it? I suppose different individuals have differing objectives for posting on usenet and therefore set about how they go about things accordingly. I further suppose it's a good idea for me to appreciate that, and the sooner the better - it may not always be straightforward to get thing right but that just adds to the fun and fascination. You must work within your own understanding as I'm unable advise you further. Okay, then, guess I'll have to continue struggling along as best I'm able. But thanks for your help in getting me this far - my notes, by the way, are progressing well. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Former Olympic champion Victoria Pendleton reveals macho MAMILS try to overtake her
On 20:23 6 Jun 2020, Kelly said:
[BINNED UNREAD] Move on. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Former Olympic champion Victoria Pendleton reveals macho MAMILS try to overtake her
On Sun, 07 Jun 2020 08:59:09 GMT, Pamela wrote:
On 20:23 6 Jun 2020, Kelly said: [BINNED UNREAD] Move on. Dominic Cummings is alive and well. -- Bah, and indeed, Humbug. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Victoria Pendleton | Squashme | UK | 1 | May 28th 13 08:52 PM |
Interview with Victoria Pendleton | Clive George | UK | 2 | October 28th 08 07:04 PM |
Victoria Pendleton | Tim Hall | UK | 0 | April 7th 08 11:44 PM |
Victoria Pendleton Wos 21st March | David Lloyd | UK | 1 | March 15th 08 04:27 PM |
Talking to Victoria Pendleton | Sierraman | Racing | 0 | January 13th 05 06:58 AM |