I was trying to think, maybe you are just being ironic here 2duck . But your continuous insistence throughout this debate on refuting points that didn't bear any resemblance to what was being said, I really believe you are serious, that you really do think you 'have a knack for getting to the heart of the matter' and that you really do understand what people mean better than they do themselves.
Not all people just some people.
How can you tell?
and I believe my characterization of what they say is totaly accurate, and their denials totally strange.
I think you should get some help here.
ex. I say dresses are for women and not men. they say in response, "i wear a saronge and I"m a guy." or "guys wear kilts" I conclude from that that they are justifying men wearing dresses because of thier assertion that men wear kilts and saronges. , They conclude that there response to my assertion that men shouldn't wear dresses has no relevancy to my assertion. this is the typical really wierd thing i deal with over and over in debating with people.
The conversation was about dresses being used as a form of social control on women, it was you and JWN who brought up the question of men wearing dresses.
When I say 'dresses are for women" they should say "yea right on, you got it dude." then they are agreeing with me.
But we don't agree with you, not because we believe that skirts and dresses are for men too, but because we believe dresses are not the only acceptable fashion for women and because they should not be forced to wear dresses in church as a form of social control.
or they should give examples of men wearing dresses which would disagree with me.
But just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean it is for the reason you think. You have to listen to the reasons people give for disagreeing with you, and what they say that actually believe, rather than thinking if they disagree with you it must be for what you think is the only other option.
This is actually the one area where there was some sort of agreement, that it is not the construction of the cloths that is intrinsically masculine or feminine as sarongs and kilts show us. No one is suggesting men go into the local boutique and buy a pink flowery dress for themselves there.
guess which option they choice? yet they say "we didn't say men can wear dresses." totally blows my mind ,,
Because your imaginary view of what they think has just been contradicted by what they actually think. You need to get over the shock and try to understand what they are saying, rather than retreat back into an illusory view that you can really understand what they mean better than they do.
How can you guys do that and keep a straight face? Then you guys look at me like I'm some kinda wierdo cause I figured your response to my assertions had something to do with my assertions. really really really strange.
No we look at you that way because you are not dealing with our responses but a fantasy version of our responses.
then why bring it up when I say dresses are for women and not men? remember the pic of the pres in a dress brought up cause I said dresses are for women not men. no relation to anything I said right?? man i can't believe this.
No. It was brought up because you asked if Tony Blair wore a dress.
You addressed this to Karen, because she had talked about cultures where the men wear kilts or sarongs, without looking feminine in them.
all i said was dresses are for women and i get all these things about men in kilts and men in saronges and pictures of famous men in dresses, and I'm not suppose to take that as anyone trying to prove that men should wear dresses and cause I did I'm so dumb right?
No not dumb, living in an delusion where you refuse to accept we not saying something we tell you we are not saying. But as long as you think you understand our meaning better than we do, you will keep having this problem.
twillight zone time folks.
Exactly. It is time for you to get out of it.
I noticed all the men ran for cover when I asked them what dress they were wearing lol. kinda put a screetchin halt to them tryin to prove men should wear dresses when it got personal.
Yep, you really pwned this fantasy land version of what we think, completely undermined all the arguments you gave us in you imagination.
Except, we never were trying to prove men should wear dresses.
Wisdom opens her mouth and "a law" is there (the law of kindness) is "in her tongue". 
