You're viewing part of a thread.
There may well be other context not communicated in the post that changes things. All I'm saying, is that based off this, it just sounds like he's passionate about something and maybe she missed out on a good conversation. Of course, I could be wrong and more context may change things.
You do have context. Hers. But for some reason you aren't taking her context into account. WEIRD
The context we have: "On my flight was talking to a guy next to me & it came up that I run. He starts telling me how I need to train high mileage & pulls up an analysis he'd made of a pro runner's training on his phone. The pro runner was me. It was my training."
I don't see how I haven't taken all that into account. No doubt context was left out of that post. I'm not taking that into account because I don't know it. If I did, my opinion would probably be different.
I don't see why I'm not allowed to think it would have been better for her to tell him.
You didn't take into account that she was there and chose how to respond. She has more context than you. But you still don't see that. I honestly don't know how else to spell it out. You're saying her perspective of an event that she was present for is incorrect and your perspective of an event that you weren't there for is more correct.
You're questioning her judgement when there's literally no reason to. And then you're defending that. So why should your judgement be above questioning but not hers?
My judgement isn't above question. I don't know why you think that I think it is.
You’re saying her perspective of an event that she was present for is incorrect and your perspective of an event that you weren’t there for is more correct.
I never said that. I don't believe that.
I think that, given the context provided, he was excited about a topic he was passionate about, nothing more. If there's more context, I may well be wrong. But we don't have that and in the absence of more information, my opinion is my opinion.
I have offered an alternative that believe is more compelling. I might be wrong, but given the information provided, I think my reasons are good.
She had more context, and she might be right. But that hasn't been provided to us, so I can't respond to any of that.
Ugh. Dude. Are you literally programmed to ignore women as a source of information? You have more context. She implied he'd be upset if she told him that was her plan. Why do you disbelieve that? You're literally creating extra information that isn't there to question her narrative that she's given you zero reason to not believe. Why is your default to simply not believe her?
And buddy, if your judgement isn't above questioning, you're trying really hard to argue that it's more legitimate than hers.
Edit: so to summarize your point. Given a bunch of made up information, you disbelieve her, for no reason, other than the hypothetical you made up in your head. Got it. Totally normal way to respond to this. Not at all toxic or unhealthy in any way. You're totally a positive influence on society.
None of that accurately describes my position. Please reread my posts. I have doubts you are giving a good faith effort.
I'm starting to doubt that you have actual capacity for comprehensive reasoning. That is absolutely a direct inference of your position. Just saying "no it's not" doesn't just make it so. All of that is true if one holds your position.
BECAUSE MEN ARE BAD OF COURSE