Guest ElizabethLee

Romances formed per year At Conferences

103 posts in this topic

Hi Danielle,

I like you and I understand that you are quite young, but to be honest, I am appalled by your attitude and ideas. I hope you will continue posting and reconsider your positions.

If you can understand our views on this subject, you may also be better able to understand our views on the problems of trading with China. Imho, the causes for disagreement are related. Perhaps this topic is less emotional for you and so is easier to discuss. As you will see, it is more emotional for me! Lol. I think there's a fair amount of redundancy in my writing here, but possibly seeing my ideas in several flavors will get the message across better.

I apologize in advance for this post being so severe and long. And as I've said before, one of my top goals is to help more Objectivists find their mates. I love romance, and everyone should have a good one! Your ideas can definitely hurt my chances of helping people in this matter, so I must speak up.

The argument, as I understand it, is that walking into a Singes [sic] event when you are not single is an act of implict [sic] deceit

No, it's an act of explicit deceit. Unlike walking into a bar, which is singles-friendly but not intended to be singles-only, you are purposefully disregarding the sign on the door, "singles only."

Danielle, you deceive _everyone_ except those you happen to tell. You do not wear a big red letter emblazoned on your chest, "X," for cross-me-out. You deceive the organizers; EdOC is right. You deceive everyone in the room who doesn't march up to you. Mercury is right about the dynamics. It matters a lot that you are there.

Maybe you are so young, you don't appreciate how difficult it can be to meet other singles. I'm not surprised that many people in your age and in your peer group are single, but that changes abruptly once people have past the age of undergraduates. I'm sorry you will feel left out if you don't go to these events, but maybe you and Kevin can go out those evenings; or you can always break up if these events are so crucial to your social life!

Please notice that today's lack of clarity and etiquette around dating makes it that much more difficult for singles at general events. Thus singles-only events are that much more special. In fact, writing all this I'm possibly becoming more of a fan than I was before!

because my actions imply that my interests are different than they are.

Your interests are indeed, by your own statement, different than those of singles. You do not want to date anyone in the room. Everyone else would like a date.

This implication is based on the expectation that those who choose to attend a social event deemed for "Singles".

This is not grammatical. I think you mean to say, "This implication is based on the expectations of those who choose to attend."

It is indeed true that people who choose to attend a singles-only event presume and expect that you, as a fellow attendee, are single. It's a rational expectation, based on the ability of the organizer to weed out people such as yourself. Given trust in the organizers pus a matter [singlehood] on which the participants' word must surely be trusted, it is natural to blame you for the deception. In your case, you are letting it be known, to a select few, those whom you choose to notify, that your word is untrustworthy.

In other words, it's most definitely, absolutely, positively a notice that you are looking for a date to attend a singles event. In fact, that very implication is why some unattached people shun singles events. They prefer not to seek dates, they'd rather just happen on one, like the stories on this thread of "not looking." Some others find it too embarrassing to put the notice out that they are looking. In all cases, everyone agrees that mere attendance at a singles-only event advertises one's desire to date.

I am sure some people are annoyed by my not being single and being there, but I doubt most people care.

This is an argument ad populum. It is false for the same reason as is any old argument that speciously appeals to majority rule rather than respect for rights.

The only person who is going to potentially be injured by my being there and my status being unclear is one who would pursue me

So you don't happen to notify the ladies? Would that be because the ladies didn't think you were there to socialize with them? Whereas at an art gallery opening for the general public, ladies do enjoy socializing equally with other ladies? Or at a business lecture, ladies might very well prefer female business partners?

Danielle, you do not seem to accept the rights of the organizer. You are injuring the organizer's ability to hold his idea of a proper party. If you hold a party and invite only certain people, and then others, who were explicitly uninvited, show up, how would you feel?

Perhaps you do not accord the same amount of courtesy and respect to an organization that you do to an individual. That also would be a mistake.

I would certainly tell him quickly and kindly that I was not interested in dating and cite whatever my reasons were for being at the particular event.

Again, if the event is singles-only, then the fundamental reason for the event was not the pretext, it was the idea of getting singles together. You have no interest in that function, therefore no legitimate reason for being there.

It's not like I am saying, "Oh look a singles event, I'll go crash that". I am saying that there are singles events that are worth attending regardless of one's status and I don't think it is deceitful to attend as long as you are not leading anyone on.

Truly, some of the things you say make me speechless. Lol, I seem to be speaking quite a bit despite that.

You are indeed saying "I'll go crash." Your friends said they were all going to a singles event, and you decided to join in, without making waves about the fact that you aren't single. What else is crashing? The definition of crashing is going where you are not wanted. Maybe you're saying you went where you weren't wanted, but you didn't deliberately destroy the environment. You do, however, destroy the environment of all-singles.

You are advocating that everyone who finds a value in the particular singles event advertised [dancing, museum-touring, etc] should attend, whether or not they are single, on the grounds that the event itself is a value. This is pragmatism; you say it works for you. Will it work for me, as a single, when all the marrieds take the same attitude? And then will it even work for you, when your ability to mooch on singles events is tainted by the marrieds, whom you denigrated as "a unique bunch"?

Let's take another case. OCON advertises special rates for full-time students. You work, so let's presume you are not a full-time student, although that is possible. Would you be justified in taking the student rate, because it works so much better for you?

Would you say that OCON's explicit social contract is just a silly convention, meant to be flouted?

Danielle, it's not up to you to choose my friends for me. If I want to socialize only with singles, argue with me, but don't deceive me by pretending to be one. In sum, I'm saying that the onus of proof is on you to show us that the organizers, not individual participants, approved your presence.

I have some further points regarding more general dating ideas, such as "leading-on" which I consider a package-deal, as well as etiquette vs rules breaking. Perhaps I will write later on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what came out in the thread was that both an exclusive "singles-only" as well as an inclusive "singles-friendly" events are called for at the OCON.

hi Pooja!

I wanted to add a few more of my thoughts. Essentially, I try pretty hard to organize only parties that I myself will also really enjoy. The singles event was an experiment, since honestly I have not been a huge fan of the majority of singles events I've attended. The best I've attended, strictly considering number of definitely interesting people, was probably an event of brief one-on-one meetings with tons of people. I think I "met" 30? It could have been more; there were so many that it was confusing. In that case I also loved the decor.

This year's OCON event was definitely one of the better ones. Even though I didn't like how our event was a bit chaotic, I was glad to reorganize quickly in the face of new info [ie widely diverse ages]. Overall it did achieve a number of good values. We met numerous people briefly and then got to chat more in depth with a smaller group.

For myself, it didn't qualify as the best that can be done. I'd rate it C+/B-, depending on what you emphasize. I love to improve things, though, and I appreciate that you and others have told me that you really liked it. Actually it's really been writing to Danielle that convinced me that we do need a repeat.

What I'm thinking of now is maybe having small groups [instead of pairs], and then rotate one sex between the groups until we have met everyone. That would make it a bit like the just-lunch dates idea and also handle the mixed-ages problem nicely.

It should start and end with the big group, though, I would think. It's really nice that we could see everyone.

I actually am a big fan of inviting non-singles, but it would need to be very clear who they are. For example, the role of moderator comes to mind. I felt a bit odd being moderator. But on the other hand I got to do it my way, which I always love, lol!

I am rambling a bit, I look forward to your thoughts.

By the way, I hear that Telluride is quite far from normal airports. It looks like a fascinating place. I'd like to hear more responses to Betsy's idea of arriving a bit early. It is always nice to share July 4th with Objectivists ;). I haven't checked what day of the week it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

This year's OCON event was definitely one of the better ones. Even though I didn't like how our event was a bit chaotic, I was glad to reorganize quickly in the face of new info [ie widely diverse ages]. Overall it did achieve a number of good values. We met numerous people briefly and then got to chat more in depth with a smaller group....

You did a good job girl ! getting it all together in hours having decided on it the previous midnight.

...

What I'm thinking of now is maybe having small groups [instead of pairs], and then rotate one sex between the groups until we have met everyone. That would make it a bit like the just-lunch dates idea and also handle the mixed-ages problem nicely.

It should start and end with the big group, though, I would think. It's really nice that we could see everyone.

...

It is nice and a proper goal that everybody gets to meet everybody. In interest of time though and to prevent everybody repeting their introductions, you could do what you tried this year...begin with having each one talk about himself/herself for a minute or so. The explicitly stated purpose of the event and the introductions should be good enough I think. But you could add some activity like group dinner or sight-seeing or something to promote more interaction.

I actually am a big fan of inviting non-singles, but it would need to be very clear who they are. For example, the role of moderator comes to mind. I felt a bit odd being moderator. But on the other hand I got to do it my way, which I always love, lol!

You can appoint any moderator you want if you feel the need. Just make sure they are as passionate about the event as you were/are ;)

...

I am rambling a bit, I look forward to your thoughts.

By the way, I hear that Telluride is quite far from normal airports. It looks like a fascinating place. I'd like to hear more responses to Betsy's idea of arriving a bit early. It is always nice to share July 4th with Objectivists :D. I haven't checked what day of the week it is.

Yep, arriving early can be a good idea and give a chance for sight-seeing of the area. The 4th is a wednesday and conference starts on Friday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites