Is it ok to be just a guy? I always get in trouble for it.

I mean, getting dirty, not cleaning up, being a slob, fighting, drinking, being a layabout, fishing, bbq, dirtbikes, pubs (never clubs), mates with no hopers who have menial jobs but are really good guys, live for Friday and Saturday etc.

Is there anything wrong with this? I mean I still get the girls and have fun. I'm a decent person. I can't be that bad can I?

fucking drunk chicks

what?

Sects and affexion.

This is not sex and affection. Sack that moderator.

...Why post it in humanities though? If anyone should be sacked it should be you.

This question is meaningless since the concept of "guy" is an ambiguous social construct that has no objective nature, and therefore no analysable properties we can observe and comment on.

quote:Originally posted by fullcircle:

This question is meaningless since the concept of "guy" is an ambiguous social construct that has no objective nature, and therefore no analysable properties we can observe and comment on.

Or, in terms that everyone else can actually understand "There is no such thing as being a Guy and not being a Guy. We're all different, so be yourself. And send my booze."

Ok, the last part was mine... >_>

It's the traditional aussie lifestyle, and everyone else's dream.

Is it okay to just be a giant ape?

Stealing women, climbing tall towers and the like?

Well while you might get the hot chick, you will be shot off of a tall building and die. Not the best choice.

quote:Originally posted by fullcircle:

This question is meaningless since the concept of "guy" is an ambiguous social construct that has no objective nature, and therefore no analysable properties we can observe and comment on.

STFU moron, anyone can blab that shit about the definition of "a guy".

If you honestly do not understand his question to an answerable extent, go fuck yourself and GTFO.

quote:Originally posted by Gold n Green:

This is not sex and affection. Sack that moderator.

Correct.

quote:Originally posted by Sailor-Boy:

Originally posted by fullcircle:

This question is meaningless since the concept of "guy" is an ambiguous social construct that has no objective nature, and therefore no analysable properties we can observe and comment on.

STFU moron, anyone can blab that shit about the definition of "a guy".

If you honestly do not understand his question to an answerable extent, go fuck yourself and GTFO.

It seems you do not understand the message in fullcircles post.

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

It seems you do not understand the message in fullcircles post.

Ok, dude. Don't get involved. I am of much higher intelligence than you.

I understand exactly what fullcircle stated. Although what he said is correct, it does not contribute to the OP what-so-ever.

"the concept of "guy" is an ambiguous social construct that has no objective nature"

Correct.

"no analysable properties we can observe and comment on"

Also correct.

But hang on a second. Are we trying to analyze anything? We are not discussing the concept of "a guy" here. Someone is asking a question - whether it is ok or not be "a guy". And he has very clearly described his own definition of "a guy".

We are not analyzing and observing objective properties of the "guy" character.

Therefore, fullcircle's statement has no use and does not affect this thread in any way.

quote:Originally posted by Sailor-Boy:

Ok, dude. Don't get involved. I am of much higher intelligence than you.

I understand exactly what fullcircle stated. Although what he said is correct, it does not contribute to the OP what-so-ever.

"the concept of "guy" is an ambiguous social construct that has no objective nature"

Correct.

"no analysable properties we can observe and comment on"

Also correct.

But hang on a second. Are we trying to analyze anything? We are not discussing the concept of "a guy" here. Someone is asking a question - whether it is ok or not be "a guy". And he has very clearly described his own definition of "a guy".

We are not analyzing and observing objective properties of the "guy" character.

Therefore, fullcircle's statement has no use and does not affect this thread in any way.

It's refreshing to see smart folks on totse.

quote:Originally posted by Sailor-Boy:

Ok, dude. Don't get involved. I am of much higher intelligence than you.

I understand exactly what fullcircle stated. Although what he said is correct, it does not contribute to the OP what-so-ever.

"the concept of "guy" is an ambiguous social construct that has no objective nature"

Correct.

"no analysable properties we can observe and comment on"

Also correct.

But hang on a second. Are we trying to analyze anything? We are not discussing the concept of "a guy" here. Someone is asking a question - whether it is ok or not be "a guy". And he has very clearly described his own definition of "a guy".

We are not analyzing and observing objective properties of the "guy" character.

Therefore, fullcircle's statement has no use and does not affect this thread in any way.

And your "higher intelligence" added nothing to this thread either, just attempted to start an argument. Way to go.

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

attempted to start an argument.

No. I ended an argument that you started - when you said:

"It seems you do not understand the message in fullcircles post."

quote:Originally posted by Sailor-Boy:

No. I ended an argument that you started - when you said:

"It seems you do not understand the message in fullcircles post."

I said "it seems". I was suggesting perhaps you didnt understand what FC said, obviously you do.

However, you tried started the argument when you replied in a quite angry way to FCs post, which was actually before i posted.

As this isnt bringing anything to the thread, which, you yourself said (and youre not following your own advice?) i say yes, its fine to be however you want to be. Have your feet up, leave things layign round, be yourself and dont let others try to change you.

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

I said "it seems". I was suggesting perhaps you didnt understand what FC said, obviously you do.

However, you tried started the argument when you replied in a quite angry way to FCs post, which was actually before i posted.

As this isnt bringing anything to the thread, which, you yourself said (and youre not following your own advice?) i say yes, its fine to be however you want to be. Have your feet up, leave things layign round, be yourself and dont let others try to change you.

Go away. You bring nothing to this thread or forum. Judging from both your posting, he's quite a bit smarter. (overall in S&A, not just this thread)

Oh, and please shut up. Thanks

quote:Originally posted by RogueWarheart:

Go away. You bring nothing to this thread or forum. Judging from both your posting, he's quite a bit smarter. (overall in S&A, not just this thread)

Oh, and please shut up. Thanks

Well thats your opinion and obviously its your right to have it but as he said himself, others brought nothing to the thread yet then he carried on and argued where as i actually answered the OPs question.

Telling someone to shut up over the net is kinda pointless though.

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

Telling someone to shut up over the net is kinda pointless though.

True. I shall rephrase my request!

Please disconnect your keyboard from the computer.

Orr... Smash it and post pix.

quote:Originally posted by RogueWarheart:

True. I shall rephrase my request!

Please disconnect your keyboard from the computer.

Orr... Smash it and post pix.

No thank you

I read "Rogue war heart" in a book the other day and its annoying em trying to remember which it was.

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

...

We have concluded the discussion on "It seems you do not understand the message in fullcircles post."

Have we not?

I like to end discussions, not hang-up on them.

The only reason why I have posted irrelevant (to the OP) posts is to conclude discussions.

You are unnecessarily changing-the-subject and provoking further arguments.

Unless you want to finish something off, stop posting space-filling bullshit. Everything you have said has been 'dragging on' and 'changing topic' type statements, which come across as immature and unfocused.

Stop this shit now. I am, once again, concluding what you have provoked.

quote:Originally posted by Sailor-Boy:

STFU moron, anyone can blab that shit about the definition of "a guy".

If you honestly do not understand his question to an answerable extent, go fuck yourself and GTFO.

If you cannot read my posts to the extent that you understand what I have said, don't comment on them.

quote:Originally posted by Sailor-Boy:

Ok, dude. Don't get involved. I am of much higher intelligence than you.

No comment.

quote: I understand exactly what fullcircle stated. Although what he said is correct, it does not contribute to the OP what-so-ever.

Care to point out where you have contributed ANYTHING to the OP, despite posting ten times as many words as I did in this thread?

quote:But hang on a second. Are we trying to analyze anything? We are not discussing the concept of "a guy" here. Someone is asking a question - whether it is ok or not be "a guy". And he has very clearly described his own definition of "a guy".

We are not analyzing and observing objective properties of the "guy" character.

Congratulations on not understanding my post. I'll explain it for you, slowly, piece by piece, since you're obviously not the sharpest tack in the box.

The point of my post was not to initiate a discussion about the semantic nature of the term "guy".

Try working backwards from the end of my post:

comment on

What's this? Why it's none other than the point of my post!

What might "comment on" be referring to?

properties

Properties of what, pray tell?

"guy"

I see, but what does all this mean?

Hmm... comment on... properties... "guy"

But why would we want to comment on the properties of "guy"?

quote:Originally posted by Gold n Green:

Is it ok to be just a guy?

Aha! Because that's what the fucking thread asks in the opening sentence! The fucking thread is called "to be a guy"! What a fucking discovery!

What exactly do you think "being ok" is in relation to being "a guy"? Might it be a property?

Gadzooks, it is! And in order to comment on the properties of an entity, how do we achieve knowledge of it? By analysis of the concept!

So what happens when we analyse the concept of what "a guy" is, in order to comment on its properties so that we might claim if being "ok" is present? We discover that it is not an objectively quantifiable object. There is no unequivocal description of the fixed properties corresponding to "a guy", therefore we can't make any definitive statements about its properties.

The question, therefore, is meaningless.

Need me to run over that again using smaller words?



quote:Therefore, fullcircle's statement has no use and does not affect this thread in any way.

Your ignorant bickering has brilliantly derailed this thread, congratulations.

quote:I am of much higher intelligence than you.

I changed my mind, I have a comment about that after all:

hahahahahahaha

quote:Originally posted by Sailor-Boy:

Ok, dude. Don't get involved. I am of much higher intelligence than you.



I couldn't help but laugh... you two do not know the history or intelligence of each other. All you have to work with is the other's post. Thus being said they could be some magnificient genius, but not shine so brightly on the net... seriously don't underestimate people without empirical evidence. It just shows that you are infact less intelligible, making assumptions and thinking it's fact. Anyways, what was this thread about...?



[This message has been edited by iSoape (edited 09-19-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

No thank you

I read "Rogue war heart" in a book the other day and its annoying em trying to remember which it was.

It wasn't from a book. ^_^

Well excluding all the psuedo intellectual bullshit....

I can't stay in a relationship for long. The girls say stuff to me like, you're really great and fun and will make some girl really happy one day, but you are so immature I can't be with you. You take nothing seriously.

That always happens to me. Every single time.

But I do, everyone just thinks I am too laid back.

Jamie I miss you.

op you sound like very like me and theres nout wrong with that

Gold n Green - Don't worry about nothing. I suggest you find a teenage girl, and manipulate her into being you're bitch. Teenage girls are a sucker for older guys, with jobs, and good looking. Take her to the pub, spend sometime with her. Make her feel important, and grow up. Before you know it she'll have herself convinced she's in love with you. Then you can act how ever you want, and she won't leave you. It's best if she's a virgin, and hasn't had a real boyfriend.

You're in Australia, yes? And you're asking if it's ok to be a guy...?

Mate, 'guy' is an American term picked up by Australian soldiers from American GIs some time back in the past. Sounds more like you're a bloke.

And yes it's fine. As long as you don't drink XXXX, or Fosters. In fact it should be fosters, no capital 'f'. I can't believe they market that crap as Australian beer. The world must be laughing at us.

Yeah mate not many people know what a bloke is.

Nah I drink Extra Dry or New.

quote:Originally posted by Gold n Green:

Nah I drink Extra Dry or New.

Crown FTW

Out of the bottle they're good, but where can you get it on tap?