Are You Verbally Abusive?

[acropolis]

How many of these could you put down 'true' for about your significant other. Then estimate how many your significant other could put down for you.

1. He seems irritated or angry with you several times a week. When you ask why he's mad, he either denies it or tells you it's in some way your fault.

2. When you feel hurt and try to talk with him, the issues never get resolved. He might refuse to discuss your upset feelings by saying "You're just trying to start an argument!" or claiming he has no idea what you're talking about.

3. You frequently feel frustrated because you can't get him to understand your intentions.

4. You're upset—not so much about concrete issues like how much time to spend together, but about communication: what he thinks you said and what you heard him say.

5. You sometimes think, "What's wrong with me? I shouldn't feel so bad."

6. He rarely, if ever, wants to share his thoughts or plans with you.

7. He seems to take the opposite view from you on almost everything, and his opinion isn't stated as "I think," but as if you're wrong and he's right.

8. You sometimes wonder if he perceives you as a separate person.

9. You can't recall saying "Cut it out!" or "Stop it!"

10. He is either angry or has "no idea what you are talking about" when you try to discuss an issue with him.

If you don't have a 'significant other', then use your most recent relationship. If you've never been in a relationship, then you are a loser.

Thanks.

PS: example: my scores:
I would say 4ish.
I would guess my girlfriend could put down 6 or 7.

[Sunday8pm]

What a load of shite.

I am verbally abusive but there is no way any of that could be globally relative, even relative to anyone else but maybe a few select cases.

I piss on these tests then make the test maker lick it.

p.s. Can we add something on top of posting irc logs of 10 lines or more that involve pasting e-mail forwards/retarded tests aimed at a dumb market.

[Knight Theamion]

Originally Posted by acropolis

If you don't have a 'significant other', then use your most recent relationship. If you've never been in a relationship, then you are a loser.

heh

[IncubusGod]

This is retarded.

[Dilly_D]

yes I am verbally abusive you mother ****er, so **** off and **** **** **** and **** all this ****in shit



someone was gonna do it, so it may as well have been me.

heh

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

This is retarded. And thought up by someone who is quite severely mentally spasticated

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

This is retarded. And thought up by someone who is quite severely mentally spasticated and should have his balls removed with a pitchfork.

[Superpig #1]

Originally Posted by Dilly_D

yes I am verbally abusive you mother ****er, so **** off and **** **** **** and **** all this ****in shit



someone was gonna do it, so it may as well have been me.

heh

**** you you mother ****er i was ****ing gonna do that you little ****



i am verbally abuse

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

This is retarded.

That's easy to have as an opinion, but slightly more difficult to prove.

To prove it, probably the best way would be to do a survey over a reasonably large population size and from the data point out that by their definition everyone is both a verbal abuser and being verbally abused, and you have proof via reductio ad absurdum.

But thanks for pointing out the obvious, it really made a difference in the world.

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by acropolis

That's easy to have as an opinion, but slightly more difficult to prove.

To prove it, probably the best way would be to do a survey over a reasonably large population size and from the data point out that by their definition everyone is both a verbal abuser and being verbally abused, and you have proof via reductio ad absurdum.

But thanks for pointing out the obvious, it really made a difference in the world.

Or to have the majority of those within the forum who have chosen to respond to this thread state their opinions. And if a majority (which on this forum, can be as low as 20-30 users) were to file that same opinion, then the majority feeling would be accepted, within this community, as being the truth.

[Nodrog]

I dont this is valid at all. Youre using negative feelings experienced by the individual as a measure of how openly abusive their partner is towards them. However, surely in most relationships its the unspoken things, the body language, the tonality, the 'things you just pick up', (whether these things are actually there, or invented) that foster discomfort and feelings of inadequacy, rather than explicit verbal (or physical) abuse.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by acropolis

That's easy to have as an opinion, but slightly more difficult to prove.

To prove it, probably the best way would be to do a survey over a reasonably large population size and from the data point out that by their definition everyone is both a verbal abuser and being verbally abused, and you have proof via reductio ad absurdum.

But thanks for pointing out the obvious, it really made a difference in the world.

Not really, it's possible to disprove it by showing that it's presupposing a false view of how people function, like most studies that primarilly use a person's private mental states to infer the existence of objective circumstances that affect them. It treats people as being passive receptacles to whom things 'just happen' without their being involved - "person X experienced Y which caused him to feel Z". You want to say that something happening to a person somehow 'causes' them to feel a certain way, regardless of their own wishes , thus completely absolving them of any responsibility for their own feelings and emotions. How many people who 'feel' abused are 'actually' being abused? How many people who believe that their feelings of insecurity and lack of esteem are caused by their partners are basing this on events that actually happened, rather than interpretating things in a way consistent with what they already believed?

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Not really, it's possible to disprove it by showing that it's presupposing a false view of how people function, like most studies that primarilly use a person's private mental states to infer the existence of objective circumstances that affect them. It treats people as being passive receptacles to whom things 'just happen' without their being involved - "person X experienced Y which caused him to feel Z".

Even assuming you could demonstrate that it is presupposing false notions, working from incorrect assumptions, and basing itself in premises that are categorically untrue does not demonstrate that the conclusions it arrives to are incorrect (i.e., that the set of people who take this test and are scored as verbal abusers does not have a perfect coincision* with the set of people that take this test and happen to be verbal abusers, assuming there is some objective determination of the status).

And while ironclad mathematical proofs are better in the scientific sense, I'm not planning on submitting a paper on the topic or anything. For practical purposes, basic reductio ad absurdum arguments (e.g., "100% of people taking this test, both men and women, determined that not only are they verbal abusers, they are also being verbally abused. It also turns out that at least four pieces of office and lab equipment have been verbally abusing me for some time now...") are much more effective at convining the lay person than a strict logical argument.

It's also visibly dripping with manhate. But then, men could be evil.


*Not technically a word.

Originally Posted by Nodrog

You want to say that something happening to a person somehow 'causes' them to feel a certain way, regardless of their own wishes , thus completely absolving them of any responsibility for their own feelings and emotions. How many people who 'feel' abused are 'actually' being abused? How many people who believe that their feelings of insecurity and lack of esteem are caused by their partners are basing this on events that actually happened, rather than interpretating things in a way consistent with what they already believed?

I don't wish to support that test in any way.

However, I would say that given time and effort I could cause any person on this planet to feel any emotion I wanted them to. Would they be unamimously choosing to be affected in an identical manner, or am I making them feel that way?

In context, it doesn't matter, because even if people are choosing to be affected, we can slide our definition of 'verbal abuser' to "someone who makes it very difficult to choose not to be hurt by in relationships" or somesuch...

[Deepflow]

youre a ****ing jew

and you smell

[Dead_Meat]

Someone should get Madi's bf to take this test.

I predict a 10 !

[Sunday8pm]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

youre a ****ing jew

and you smell

:dance: