Skip to main content

"Youse aren't defining happiness correct..."

drewftw said:
So true. They would all gang up and tell him to shut it. He'd spend the rest of the night apologising to this bunch of bullies.

I think Travis has a very blinkered view of life. He doesn't think outside the square, believes the world revolves around him, and sadly, is an asshat to boot.
Click to expand...
Oh, just came in my mind, could it be the blatant editing?

Maybe the girls unfairly told him to shut up and they eagerly wanted to have their say (the scene could've been gone for long), but BB decided to cut all that bit right until to the part where he says "it's my turn, let me finish"? I mean, who knows...

As much as I'm biased towards Travis I'm open to that scenario...:watching:
 
drewftw said:
Maybe. But I honestly feel he says things simply to be controversial or attention seeking. You know, the whole, "if you say black, I'll say white", thing.
Click to expand...
Not ruling it out as an impossibility but we definitely have not seen anything of the like so far.

I prefer someone who is willing to go against the grain and speak his opinion, rather than someone who's unwilling to get in any type of debate.
 
Tahan said:
Although I don't completely agree with his statement regarding money, happiness and love, how is it arrogant or even wrong to state his opinion that they aren't defining happiness in the correct term?

I mean, this is if you're not being biased douches, exemplifying the negative trait you are crucifying someone for.
Click to expand...

I believe the point people are trying to make (though I don't know why this needs to be spelt out) is: who is he to define the universal (or the house's) meaning of happiness, and refute other people's definition. You are defending his right to an "opinion" (or rather him forcefully imposing his misguided ideas on others) - he seems to be stripping others of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: koo
Shackles said:
Maybe the girls unfairly told him to shut up and they eagerly wanted to have their say (the scene could've been gone for long), but BB decided to cut all that bit right until to the part where he says "it's my turn, let me finish"? I mean, who knows...
Click to expand...

I feel like he's said that because the house has told him that he interrupts and talks over people. So it's like a snarky right-back-at-ya type of comment.
 
Incognito said:
I believe the point people are trying to make (though I don't know why this needs to be spelt out) is: who is he to define the universal (or the house's) meaning of happiness, and refute other people's definition. You are defending his right to an "opinion" (or rather him forcefully imposing his misguided ideas on others) - he seems to be stripping others of it.
Click to expand...
You're making it sound like he's acting as a fucking dictator.

He's not.

How is saying "I think you've defined happiness wrong" an act of "stripping others of" an opinion?

Seriously, this is so stupid.
 
Incognito said:
I believe the point people are trying to make (though I don't know why this needs to be spelt out) is: who is he to define the universal (or the house's) meaning of happiness, and refute other people's definition. You are defending his right to an "opinion" (or rather him forcefully imposing his misguided ideas on others) - he seems to be stripping others of it.
Click to expand...

Who's he to have an opinion? I could say the same thing about several of you forum members[DOUBLEPOST=1411914410][/DOUBLEPOST]
drewftw said:
Don't they say "truth is a shade of grey". Meanwhile, Travis is a shade of poo brown. :p

JordanS, your love and devotion for all the housemates I hate gives me wings. :laugh: Are you sure you're not Travis twin brother?
Click to expand...

Travis has a twin brother?? I would be so interested in seeing what he looks like too ;)
 
Tahan said:
You're making it sound like he's acting as a fucking dictator.

He's not.

How is saying "I think you've defined happiness wrong" an act of "stripping others of" an opinion?

Seriously, this is so stupid.
Click to expand...

Not at all.

If he's allowed to have this opinion, then viewers are entitled to feel that this comment was douchebaggery, by your logic. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, in your opinion, right?

And telling someone they're wrong isn't very respectful of their opinion, hence he is dismissing their right to vocalise their own definitions because it doesn't align with his. Once again, not sure why that needed to be spelt out.
 
Incognito said:
Not at all.

If he's allowed to have this opinion, then viewers are entitled to feel that this comment was douchebaggery, by your logic. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, in your opinion, right?

And telling someone they're wrong isn't very respectful of their opinion, hence he is dismissing their right to vocalise their own definitions because it doesn't align with his. Once again, not sure why that needed to be spelt out.
Click to expand...

Kind of like how you are acting right now? Interesting...
 
Incognito said:
Not at all.

If he's allowed to have this opinion, then viewers are entitled to feel that this comment was douchebaggery, by your logic. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, in your opinion, right?

And telling someone they're wrong isn't very respectful of their opinion, hence he is dismissing their right to vocalise their own definitions because it doesn't align with his. Once again, not sure why that needed to be spelt out.
Click to expand...
Please point out where I have said, people are not entitled to their opinion of his "douchebaggery".

Secondly, telling someone you believe they are wrong, is not disrespectful at all. Disagreeing with someone, because you believe they are wrong, is perfectly fine, if it is communicated respectfully and with maturity. The way he began the conversation was fine.

In fact, ending a sentence with "once again, not sure why that needed to be spelt out" is the perfect example of disagreeing with someones opinion and not being very respectful of their opinion.
 
seneca said:
I thought he was just expressing his own personal opinion. After all they were all discussing "what is happiness".
Click to expand...

Instead of saying "I disagree" he was forcefully saying "youse guyz are all wrong." I think that's what people have the problem with. He wasn't willing to accept that others have a different opinion but expected everybody to agree with his definition of happiness.
 
Tahan said:
Please point out where I have said, people are not entitled to their opinion of his "douchebaggery".

Secondly, telling someone you believe they are wrong, is not disrespectful at all. Disagreeing with someone, because you believe they are wrong, is perfectly fine, if it is communicated respectfully and with maturity. The way he began the conversation was fine.

In fact, ending a sentence with "once again, not sure why that needed to be spelt out" is the perfect example of disagreeing with someones opinion and not being very respectful of their opinion.
Click to expand...

That's the crux of it right there.

Much like your approach, it seems. Hence why I didn't feel an obligation to extend the niceties. My response was very much intended. Glass houses.
 
cj93 said:
Instead of saying "I disagree" he was forcefully saying "youse guyz are all wrong." I think that's what people have the problem with. He wasn't willing to accept that others have a different opinion but expected everybody to agree with his definition of happiness.
Click to expand...
A lot of conjecture.

Nothing in his approach, apart from the stupid "my time" bit, showed that he was unwilling to listen to opposing opinions.

Incognito said:
That's the crux of it right there.

Much like your approach, it seems. Hence why I didn't feel an obligation to extend the niceties. My response was very much intended. Glass houses.
Click to expand...
Brings me back to my original point.

People crucify the very actions they display.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top