Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If a person never really tried meeting women offline, or if they tried, failed, and gave up, then they can't rightly say that online gets better results than offline.
But then you're making assumptions. (i.e. that the person in question would try, or even feels capable of trying, to approach strange people). And if we're going to make assumptions, why stop there?
It's not a matter of assuming "if A, and B, and C, then all results are the same". You can't make those assumptions, because they're factors that affect the outcome. If someone is incredibly shy, they will be do better online because they won't try live (where their results would be nonexistent).
I see what you're saying (and you're right in what you're arguing above, but that's making assumptions that I'm not). You can hypothetically say that all men "could" do better online, but that's assuming certain aspects of their personalities. I "could" possibly do better in a foreign country IF I lived there and IF I spoke the language and IF I understood the culture, but all those are hypotheticals. As it stands, I would not, because I don't meet those criteria.
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
Offending people is not a big deal. If offending people is an obstacle to approaching women offline, then that goes back to Point A - they never really tried it in the first place.
A lot of these guys will do and say anything to avoid this type of risk, up and to the extent of claiming it is impossible. It doesn't mean it is impossible, it just means they've given up.
That was only one example. You're responsible to see past that and/or extrapolate your own if you want to understand what I'm trying to say. Replace "offending" with whatever other social faux paus an awkward person might commit to shoot themselves in the foot. Since I do better IRL myself than online, I'm not the guy to ask about those things, but that doesn't mean I'm ignorant about their existence.
But then you're making assumptions.(i.e. that the person in question would try, or even feels capable of trying, to approach strange people).
If the person in question would not try, or feels incapable of trying, that's evidence that they did not try.
Quote:
That was only one example. You're responsible to see past that and/or extrapolate your own if you want to understand what I'm trying to say. Replace "offending" with whatever other social faux paus an awkward person might commit to shoot themselves in the foot.
It doesn't need to be offensive, it can apply to other faux pas. They're all just mostly-interchangable excuses that men create so they won't have to approach women offline in the first place.
If a guy tells me that he does better online than offline, that is not a testament to the quality of online dating, that is evidence that he sucks at the offline side of it.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 37,092,024 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
If a guy tells me that he does better online than offline, that is not a testament to the quality of online dating, that is evidence that he sucks at the offline side of it.
Or it is evidence that he excels at the online side of it.
You haven't considered that as a possibility, because you have determined that offline is inherently better than offline, which is a fact that is not in evidence. You just believe it, and if someone disagrees, you seem to think they're the one with the flawed thinking. Which, ironically, shows an incredible lack of self awareness.
Personally, I just think you suck at OLD and therefore think it is inferior.
If the person in question would not try, or feels incapable of trying, that's evidence that they did not try.
Do you see what I'm trying to say? The whole "if they would try" bit is an assumption that's being thrown into the mix. You don't get to make that assumption, because if you do, then you open up a whole other slew of assumptions that throw the entire theory off.
Someone who finds it difficult to talk to people in person will, very likely, fare better online. They might fare better in person if they talked to people anyway, but they'd fare better in general if they were better looking, or wittier, or had a better job, or any number of other things.
Edit: If it starts with "if", it's an assumption...and probably one we don't get to make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
It doesn't need to be offensive, it can apply to other faux pas. They're all just mostly-interchangable excuses that men create so they won't have to approach women offline in the first place.
If a guy tells me that he does better online than offline, that is not a testament to the quality of online dating, that is evidence that he sucks at the offline side of it.
The reasoning doesn't matter. If he does better online, he does better online. Someone could pose the argument (and have, I think) that if someone does worse online, they just suck at the online side of it.
IRL approaching is easier for me than OLD approaching, but I'm not going to tell those who feel otherwise that it's a fact, because for them, it's not. It doesn't matter why.
Edit: And don't get me wrong...I'm very much of the opinion that MOST men would fare better live. But if someone is content to make the argument that ALL men would, I'm happy to argue back.
If a guy tells me that he does better online than offline, that is not a testament to the quality of online dating, that is evidence that he sucks at the offline side of it.
Or, he prefers the online process because it is far more efficient and effective for the type of woman he's looking for. Far more convenient and saves energy and time.
Your argument makes a lot of assumptions. That because you view a particular method as ideal for you then it must be the case for all others, nevermind that meeting potential dates offline is not something everyone seeks out or cares much about. Not everyone puts this medium of meeting potential dates on a pedestal.
I'm curious, say you have a child-free atheist like Ohio or Dissenter living in a small city in the South or Midwest where people they're interested in are few and far between. What do you suggest they do? Where do they find these purple squirrels? Where can they expect to find this unicorn woman? An atheist/child-free meetup group? Bahahaha. No. These types of groups will not be found in such places. At Trader Joe's? At social events, art galleries, museums, etc.? Probably not. Maybe the local Piggly Wiggly or in line at the bank?
Please, if you can, advise what is to be done here. What if they want a partner with a graduate, professional or doctorate degree, or what if they prefer specific ethnicities? What if Dissenter prefers black or Hispanic women. Does he just hope he stumbles into a black atheist woman with a masters degree at Barnes & Noble?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
