It would seem that you were doing precisely that: Because you had never seen it, because your experience was so completely different, then it couldn't possibly have any validity.
I would have hoped that my repeated use of "in my experience", etc. would have made clear that I expected my statements to be taken in the context of
my own experience. I guess, however, that I was mistaken. Perhaps you could point to the specific phrase where I implied that because it was true in my experience, it must be true for everybody.
My response was directly related at that statement: The idea that women are less easily beguiled doesn't hold water. They might be better able to identify subterfuge in certain areas, but that is a far cry from the generalization you were making.
Well, it
was just speculation. I didn't realize you were directly trying to counter that speculation. In that, I think you are correct. A greater ability or potential to
detect subterfuge does not mean a greater ability to
reject subterfuge. I guess we are in agreement?
So where's the argument?
Now that we know that we agree, there isn't one, I guess.
Sorry. I'd suggest the theme to the Smurfs, but I don't think that'd help....
Yeah, about that - my parents never let me watch the Smurfs because they felt that it didn't promote wholesome values - all those guys, one girl, some kids out of wedlock, and an obvious homosexual. So, since I don't know the smurfs theme, no, it wouldn't help to suggest it.