A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Former Olympic champion Victoria Pendleton reveals macho MAMILS tryto overtake her



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old June 4th 20, 08:55 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Pamela
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 552
Default 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  
Old June 5th 20, 08:58 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Kelly[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 269
Default 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  
Old June 6th 20, 11:59 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Pamela
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 552
Default 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  
Old June 6th 20, 08:23 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Kelly[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 269
Default 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  
Old June 7th 20, 09:59 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Pamela
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 552
Default 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  
Old June 7th 20, 11:04 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Kerr-Mudd,John[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 374
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 08:04 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 05:27 PM
Talking to Victoria Pendleton Sierraman Racing 0 January 13th 05 07:58 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.