Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

wildadragon t1_j2253cy wrote

Reply to comment by Ophiomancy_Xaxax in There are no ambidextrous people, only people living in denial of their disability. by Ophiomancy_Xaxax

1 you said there are no ambidextrous people then identify as ambidextrous so who's the nitwit.

2 it's not they can't use their hand, it's not a dead hand. Like most they have a dominant hand as only about 1% of people are truly ambidextrous

47

Ophiomancy_Xaxax OP t1_j225dpx wrote

Well if you have a psychological aversion to using 50% of your appendages, why the shit am I the one with the four syllable label?

I noticed you used the word "they", too. Haha. You don't wanna be in the club, but youre in it

−32

wildadragon t1_j225s9o wrote

Wow clearly you don't understand any of it and probably aren't ambidextrous.

It's not an aversion against an appendage it's a preference to one. There's a difference.

31

Ophiomancy_Xaxax OP t1_j226z7d wrote

Tomato tomato.

Says who? These are just regular people, they don't have a label under which to define their viewpoints on the usage of their lesser used hand. How the hell are you going to say it's not an aversion without asking the person if it's an aversion or a preference, Doctor?

−14

wildadragon t1_j227o8r wrote

Look up Hand Dominance there have been studies for decades about it. Is it genetic, or is it taught or both? The definition by actual doctors list it as a preference because they choose one over the other. The only time it was an aversion was typically left handedness as it was seen as evil in some religions, even nuns used to force left handed people to use their right hands and would punish then when they didn't. So maybe read before you post garbage online. It'll do wonders for your intellect.

26

sojournandinsight t1_j228pac wrote

He would need to be able to comprehend what he reads, which doesn't seem to be his strong point though, since it's obvious he doesn't even know the difference between aversion and preference, though he is able to insert the words into a sentence.

15

Ophiomancy_Xaxax OP t1_j22a0c5 wrote

You guys win. I'm retracting my submission to the American medical association, with much sadness

−1

Ophiomancy_Xaxax OP t1_j22af80 wrote

Lol, it's "shower thoughts". I was supposed to read a study on hand dominance first? This is quite literally the exact right place to post half-baked garbage online. I'm actually surprised that this seems to have eluded you.

"The only time it was an aversion", he says about people who lived in the past and made no record whatsoever of whether it was an aversion or not. Maybe they also had an aversion to know it alls showing up at the pub and correcting everybody's language.

−1

wildadragon t1_j22ao47 wrote

It also has to make some amount of sense also probably shouldn't call people disabled. Next when you literally contradict yourself the first reply you made should have told you that you're literally wrong.

13

Ophiomancy_Xaxax OP t1_j26tgkg wrote

You're such a tool. It wasn't a literal statement, as I've already explained to you. Also, the rules for the posts on this sub literally state that is for things thought of while staring blankly at a wall, and you're in here critiquing me for not having sound formal logical argument, and for having not read a study on hand dominance. Get the fuck outta here. It makes perfect sense. All the people who can't use one hand are disabled, but they instead call the people who have two functional hands "ambidextrous". Then you wanted to nitpick about preference vs aversion and all sorts of other nonsense.

The fact that this post is even up and wasn't removed is testament to the fact that it was sufficiently stupid in the correct way for the sub, which you keep confusing for the American Medical Association sub.

0

Megafister420 t1_j24c1b9 wrote

A shower thought is usually thought out pretty well as you are stuck in the shower to think about it. This was not even remotely thought out

3