VIDEOS!?!? chat & forums.

Posted In Forum:

Home

MyForums

Show ALL Forums

Author

Thread: VIDEOS!?!?

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 1063 (view)

VIDEOS!?!? Posted: 7/6/2009 1:34:41 PM
No more videos on Imeem??? Maybe you need to use a different service?

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 392 (view)

Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA... Posted: 2/11/2009 7:10:08 PM
Personally I would assume that the animal would feel fear for its own life (as would many humans too, if such a thing were to happen) It is only an assumption. If they were humans they probably would feel fear and saddness, but they aren't so we still need to have more than just a guess. The anecdote about the buffalo just standing and eating while those around them were killed suggests buffaloes don't react the same as humans. My anecdote seems to support a different conclusion. I rescued a very young raven and hand fed it a commercial baby bird formula and then later moistened cat food. As he got bigger and was getting close to flying I decided I should introduce him to meat he would find out in the wild. I caught a mouse in a trap and left it for the bird. He was appalled. He would go nowhere near the dead carcass. When I tried to give him the idea by cutting the mouse open to expose the meat, the bird reacted as though traumatized, and besides not wanting anything to do with the mouse, he became very shy of ME. He was really bothered by the whole thing. It certainly wasn't what I expected. The kittens, on the other hand, LOVED the mouse, but the raven still wasn't convinced. (The kittens and raven ate together from the same cat food bowl.)

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 377 (view)

Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA... Posted: 2/11/2009 1:00:13 AM
The original track that I think we have strayed from is the question of eating humans. How it became a discussion about animal rights I can't figure out. I can see how religion is not off-track if you are discussing how religion might answer the question of eating men. The Levitcus rules of food that you listed did not include man meat, did it? I'm pretty sure it's not kosher. Would God have Jews starve to death rather than eat shellfish that's available? Or does God allow for extreme circumstances? My guess is that the Old Testament God would be a pretty hard liner and expect starvation rather than breaking His rules. Did He have a rule about cannibalism? He definitely had a rule about murder. Except for that take this bread and eat it, it is my body thing, I don't think Jesus addressed man meat, I think He did allow for the bending of religious rules in extreme circumstances- Saving an ass or collecting grain from the fields on sabbath. Thanks for the link to Baby Pain. I will check it out when I have some time. You said this thread was about to be deleted? Why?

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 369 (view)

Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA... Posted: 2/10/2009 11:48:02 AM
"BABIES DON'T FEEL PAIN; A CENTURY OF DENIAL IN MEDICINE" by David B. Chamberlain, Ph.D." OUCH! I think I could go along with the notion that babies might not remember the pain, but how could they think they don't feel the pain!? Doctors! errrr. This seems a bit off track to me, but interesting. I would be interested in the rest of the article where it discussed the consequences of the pain.

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 347 (view)

Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA... Posted: 2/9/2009 7:14:36 PM
Wow. It's not only counter-intuitive, but apparently someone wasn't listening or Christians would have gone extinct long ago. I'm going to have to go look at that one again.

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 346 (view)

Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA... Posted: 2/9/2009 7:11:17 PM
"I am making a very simple point. That is, if you adhere to any variant of moral reasoning, then all of the traditional 'grounds' used to justify our current treatment of animals fail completely. " THe traditional 'grounds' ARE variants of moral reasoning. You can't adhere to tradional moral reasoning to prove that they fail. 1. There are no morally relevant differences between A(human rational agents) and B(human non-rational agents). 2. There are no morally relevant differences between B and C (non-human non rational agents). Therefore: There are no morally relevant differences between A and C. There's nothing wrong with the form. A=B and B=C therefoe A=C The problem is in what goes into the form. 1.The 'moralists' and I might agree that there is no difference between rational and non rational humans. 2. The moralists can only make the second part right IF they make my speciest argument irrelevant first. I don't agree that there is no moral difference between a human, rational or otherwise, and a non-human. The argument falls apart in the second statement. IF you disregard my input, you make it irrelevant, you can prove that my position is irrelevant. Unfairly. I could turn around and do the same to the moralists and declare their input irrelevant and then prove my points, unfairly. This argument tries to prove that a specieist position is irrelevant by declaring it irrelevant first. My problem with this is in the presentation of this as a fair argument when it used a trick to make the proof. My other problem with it was that if we allow that the specieist view is really irrelevant, then the argument, as clever as it is, can prove that there is no relevant difference between a virus and a man. That is clearly dangerous to the species. You can only keep from going that far by declaring a different arbitrary boundary somewhere else along the way. Who gets to declare that boundary? It would seem to me that this playing out of the argument shows the error in it. If anything, the argument proves that the argument is flawed and it is not the 'proof' that it pretends to be. Kirk Racists may try to show a biological justification, but it fails on many levels. Well at least it fails from my speciest point of view.

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 344 (view)

Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA... Posted: 2/9/2009 6:23:06 PM
Christianity said don't marry or reproduce? Really? I thought the go forth and be fruitful command is what helped to grow Christianity. I have some problems with Christianity, but if it did help us to survive as a species, one helpful tenant was the specieist claim that man was special. God made him special and gave him a special place over the other animals.

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 339 (view)

Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA... Posted: 2/9/2009 5:08:11 PM
Kirk, it is only 'morally irrelevant' to YOU because you have no morals. The arbitrary line between man and the other species is morally relevant to a specieist because the line IS what is defines a specieist. The points to some other philosopher's argument is no more or less relevant than others until you pick a philosophy to view it from. Kirk, even you don't consider their 'relevant' points to be relevant because you don't have a moral belief. Why would you argue that their points are more relevant than mine?

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 334 (view)

Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA... Posted: 2/9/2009 3:59:22 PM
I think tomo and I agree more than we disagree. I agree that by nature we must eat other species. I don't consider this specieism. I consider it a law of nature or biology. I consider specieism to be a philosophical position from which to address moral questions - There is a distinct line between my species and all others, and my species should survive. It would seem a semantic difference. In my view, we can look at questions of morality from a specieist veiwpoint, always trying to find the best solution to the question by what is best for the species. The original question was about eating humans, and by implication or by extension the morality of killing humans for consumption in a desert island scenario. Because of the arbitrary line of a specieist, there is no point in equating the killing of animals to the killing of men. If you want to debate the morality of killing animals, it does no good to bring the killing of men of any functionality into the discussion because the line between the species is so firm. I think the discussion of killing men on the island has room for discussion even for a specieist. Does the killing and eating of man endanger the species? I think as a general or universal rule cannibalism does pose a survival threat to humanity. In this limited and rare situation I think it does not matter and can go either way. On the island, cannibalism can extend the possibility of being rescued, but in the end, the last man standing might still suffer a long drawn out death from starvation. The species is never affected by either choice. Eat or starve, it only affects the individuals on the island.

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 319 (view)

Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA... Posted: 2/9/2009 1:24:14 PM
Kirk has no moral belief system and doesn't care one way or the other, so I wonder what his point is, as well. I disagree with the statement that speciism is just a function of biology. I think specieism is a valid argument and philosophy. I think it is a human invention in the same way that utilitarianism and the others are inventions of man. I think this because I don't know of any other animals that would sacrifice themselves for their species. Some animals would sacrifice themselves for their offspring, and some for their herd, but I don't think them capable of deriving an ethic that would have them sacrifice for the species. Man can. Morals and ethics can be based on the specieist idea. I think it would be immoral to make any decision that might wipe out man as a species. You can have moral debates based on specieism, for example about whether or not an action that saves an individual of the species but weakens the survivability of the species is moral. You might then turn to Kant, or utilitarian ideas to find those answers, but the underlying ethic ought to be specieism. I never said it wasn't arbitrary. I do think it aligns closer to the laws of nature, or biology, as was put forward. Not that being closer to nature is the only consideration. I do think that racism is closer to nature than say Kantism. I think that racism loses out to specieism because it is not in the best interest of the species to make a racial discrimination. So, Kirk, if I need to say it, I can't say for sure about the benefits to the species of giving full human rights to humans that are less than fully functioning. But until that debate is concluded, I ascribe to giving them human rights out of completely specieist values. And that question has nothing to do with deciding the morality of killing other species for our consumption. It has nothing to do with the question of the morality of using animals for the promotion of human health and welfare. In a speiciest ethic there is a distinct line. The debate about killing a human fetus has nothing to do with killing an animal. They are two separate debates for a specieist.

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 312 (view)

Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA... Posted: 2/9/2009 10:46:40 AM
Again, you use a moral construct (ok several) to prove a moral point. I believe that as an objection it fails completely because, formally, species membership, that is to say, the mere fact of belonging to that particular group is not significantly relevant under contractarianism, Kantianism, utilitarianism or direct duty views. Iam not using any moral construct at all, I am simply pointing out that under any variant of a moral system, if one subscribes to one, it is impossible to justify the current treatment of a great many non-human animals. contractarianism, Kantianism, utilitarianism or direct duty are all schools of thought that have distinct differences or they wouldn't be separated. Which is correct? It is a preference, not a universal fact. Something that is much closer to a universal fact is the laws of nature, and I think specieism is much more aligned with the laws of nature than the human inventions you listed. Apparently you are wrong to say that there is no variant. I am a speiciest. It is a moral system that allows me to draw the moral line between my species and all others. It is immoral in my system to put other species in equal or greater status to humans. In my mind the laws of nature trump all human inventions, and specieism (also a human invention) trumps all other schools. I love animals and hate to see them suffer, and feel we can do more to improve their treatment, and you can use your moral systems to justify those efforts. I have no problem with that. But in the end, when the choice is them or us.... it's us. Animals eat animals. That's the law. It's not immoral to follow the law. (It's also not immoral to choose to eat only some animals or no animals, until that diet endangers humanity. It would be immoral to force animal rights on humanity.) Animals in nature suffer. That's the law. We can't change that. We have some power over the amount of suffering we cause to the animals, and I applaud efforts to make gains in that area. But we have to include the reality that suffering is something we can't avoid.

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 302 (view)

Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA... Posted: 2/8/2009 2:51:53 PM
I am a specieist. The logical argument below is clever. 1. There are no morally relevant differences between A(human rational agents) and B(human non-rational agents). 2. There are no morally relevant differences between B and C (non-human non rational agents). Therefore: There are no morally relevant differences between A and C. The problem in the argument is the the part that says 'morally relevant'. Morally relevant is a human construct. You're using a moral construct to define that moral construct. This argument does not protect us from going even further and deciding that there is no morally relevant difference between ALL species, because 'morally relevant' is what we are trying to determine. In the beginning there is only natural law. Man is an animal and subject to natural laws. The main one being that we MUST eat to survive. All other animals are subject to this law too. We can wish that we didn't have to eat to survive, but we are still subject to that law. Animals don't care about the feelings of their food. They don't care about the suffering of their food, they simply eat it. Specieism IS arbitrary, but it has survival benefits that have helped us, as a species, to survive. I don't know if other species have specieist feelings or not, but some have similar survival responses. They protect their own offspring, perhaps defend their own herd, but I'm not certain that they ever consider the species as a whole. Philosophy of Ethics is filled with many schools of thought. Therefore, apparently, there is no real way to determine morality. It is choosing a favorite way. But even then, they are only preferences. I have no problem with you preferring a particular morality, but in the end you can't prefer away natural laws. As in religious discussions, I don't care what your religious ideas are and you are welcome to them, but when you try to convince me that I should believe what you believe, I will argue why I don't. I think my specieist religion is more true to natural laws than your vegan religion's beliefs. As long as the world is safe enough for you to practice yours, go for it. When and if the world becomes unsafe, natural laws will override our preferences. If you have convinced yourself that you shouldn't kill to eat, and it becomes necessary to kill to eat, but you can't bring yourself to do it, then your speicies would die out. I make my decisions, base my morality, on protecting my family, my tribe, AND my species. I would give my life if necessary for each of those. I would take the life of another species to forward my own. That's natural law. It seems to me that a morality that accepts natural law, instead of denying it, is more . . . moral. I do have preferences of humane treatment of animals and I don't enjoy the idea of killing them. but I'm a realist. My preferences would go to the wayside if the world went to hell and natural laws were all that was left. In this original question about the island? I don't know. If we were trapped on an island but the human species is flourishing elsewhere, then I don't have an obligation to survive for my species, it would be simply a matter of survival for myself and my family that hopes I return to them at some point. Eating each other only allows some of us to survive longer, and possibly be rescued. It is not a strategy for long term survival. It seems to me that in that situation it still boils down to personal preference. There's no specieist obligation to eat or starve. Either way, the species goes on.

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 283 (view)

Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA... Posted: 2/8/2009 11:37:07 AM
I am a specieist. The argument against specieism is valid only in Kantian ethics. Kant says ethical decisions cannot consider the consequences of that moral decision. Killing is wrong, therefore it is wrong ALWAYS. If you don't consider the consequences of that moral decision and apply it Universally, as Kant would have you do, then there is no logical argument for specieism. Killing is wrong, no matter the life that you take. One species is equal to any other in the wrongness of taking that life. I think Kant is full of shit. How can you not consider the consequences of a moral problem? Kant is very clear that consequences cannot be considered and therefoe things like lying is wrong and you can Never lie, even if lying would save a life. That's crazy. The consequences of a Kantian solution to this debate is that we would have to come to the conclusion that ALL species are equal in their right to life and immediately upon making that position universal, we would have NOTHING to eat. Of course we would be the only species starving to death, because all the other species have no moral problem with going on, in natural fashion, consuming each other. Kant won't allow for making adjustments for the fact that we would starve to death. Killing is wrong. So you can't make adjustments for which living things you can't kill. ALL living things can't be killed. Not even plants. That's crazy. I am a specieist, and I make no apology. Rules that make us treat ourselves as special protect us from ourselves and allow us to 'use' other species for our survival. I have no ethical problem with that. I can make the argument that man deserves to kill lower species because he is on top. I do think that man is superior to the other species on this planet. No other species is having this debate. Only man is capable of this debate. But even that is not the issue. Even intelligence is not the issue. I would stand up for my species even in the face of a intellectually superior species threatening us. In an Independence Day attack by a superior extraterrestrial species, I'd fight, and kill the invaders to protect my species. I want my species to survive. In another sci-fi-like scenario, if there were only 2 living species on the planet, humans and gorts, and both are intelligent species, I would want humans to be the species that used gorts for food rather than the other way around. I'm a specieist.

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 280 (view)

Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA... Posted: 2/7/2009 1:56:41 PM
wonderful, somebodyPosted: 2/3/2009 845 PM Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. For being such a superior species, we're doing a fabulous job of killing ourselves, killing each other, and wreaking havoc on Earth. Humans have completely lost what is natural. I think you have a fairy tale vision of 'natural'. Nature is pretty brutal. For all the 'evils' that you mention about what we humans have brought to the planet, I doubt you would choose to go back 1000 years and live a more 'natural' life. The way we produce food, use natural resources, fight disease by technology and medicine, arrange our society to give us police and legal protections from those that are bigger and stronger than us, etc.. creates a world where you get to drive to work and shop in a grocery store, and use your washing machine and other luxuries. Those unnatural things make your life as nice as it is. Human life is better, longer, and less dangerous than at any time in history. I think you miss the greatness of what we have when you complain about the very things that make it great.

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 279 (view)

Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA... Posted: 2/7/2009 1:43:01 PM
Ideoform Posted: 2/6/2009 433 PM The original question of this thread was posted by a meat eater, not a vegetarian trying to make people feel guilty. It was a set-up to get people like me to try to show our methods of "conversion." I think it is unfair to decide and declare the original post's INTENT. I didn't read anything in the original question that seemed a set-up or to make anyone feel guilty. I wondered why this thread went so far afield and I guess it is because over-sensitivity to this topic made many see similar intent and react as though attacked. To me it was a simple and interesting philosophical question. I was glad to hear from a few vegetarians who answered the question and moved on. A couple said their diet was a personal preference, but not one they were so tied to that they would sacrifice themselves to in an emergency. Others said they felt so strongly that they would rather die than breach that moral line. If I chose to be vegan I would take the first position. I can't find a moral argument that makes animals equal to humans and thus, if I have no choice, I would kill to survive. (Not surprising, I suppose, since I am now a meat eater. ) I have some moral ambiguity about cannibalism. I'm still not clear what I would do in extreme circumstances when it came to eating humans. And even more unclear if it came to killing humans. I don't see a problem with killing in self defense, but is this the same? Let's hope we don't ever need to find out. It seems there is lots of history concerning cannibalism in extreme situations. Shipwreck survivors often had to resort to cannibalism to survive. It seems there was some kind of law that said you could kill a man and eat him if everyone drew lots to determine the 'victim' in a fair way. Otherwise it was murder.

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 261 (view)

Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA... Posted: 2/6/2009 4:02:58 PM
Just for fun for me, too, but your quotes don't support your assertion. Genesis 1:29 29: And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. Genesis 1:30 30: And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. Then Isaiah seems to contradict your theory of God... 11 "The multitude of your sacrifices— what are they to me?" says the LORD. "I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats. .... The Genesis quotes say the we and the animals can eat the greens for meat, but it does not say we MUST only eat greens. And does it suggest that lions and other predators ate greens? I don't think this says God wanted us to only eat greens for meat. Able raised sheep. For what purpose? I would guess for wool and meat, and he sacrificed his best to God. God did not object. God was pleased. The Isaiah quote is out of context if you want to support that God didn't want meat or fat for sacrifice. He was speaking to Sodom and Gomorrha. The meaning, in context, as best as I can read it, is that even the best sacrifice of meat and fat is of no use when your behavior is so unacceptable. God refused to be swayed by the best sacrifice, because the sacrificers didn't deserve favor even when they prayed or sacrificed. Of itself, it does give the impression that God didn't like meat sacrifice anymore, but I don't believe that is the meaning in context. It does not mention or imply that men should not eat meat. I'm still open to more arguments on this, but for now, I still think the Bible's God liked when we killed animals for His sacrifices and had no problem and probably designed it that we kill animals for our consumption. I still think a Christian can have personal objections to killing animals, but not a Biblical objection.

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 210 (view)

Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA... Posted: 2/3/2009 6:10:45 PM
monalee1-Posted: 1/15/2009 304 PM Verzen, I have taken biology classes and I have read the bible.... in Eden we were not given meat to eat but after the flood God allowed it and it drastically shortened our life span.. as I stated before, this is what I believe, warmly Mona This made me go back and check... It seems God prefers meat ( well before the flood): Genisis4:3 ¶And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. 4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: 5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. Not that it has any bearing on the philosophical questioned originally posted. But it is one point in the question that everyone seems to want to discuss anyway.

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 142 (view)

Why are we on top of the food chain ? Posted: 1/31/2009 4:19:22 PM
The more complex our brains become, the less likely we are going to be able to survive the next extinction event because w are so fragile. Seems it might be a good topic of it's own. I'm not sure I agree with that conclusion.

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 141 (view)

Why are we on top of the food chain ? Posted: 1/31/2009 4:07:47 PM
Herd size versus brain size.... Buffalo herds were enormous, as are wildebeast herds. Brain size does not seem to be advanced in those examples. ?? I'm guessing this supports communication as the key component since I don't think those herds communicate very much.

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 140 (view)

Why are we on top of the food chain ? Posted: 1/31/2009 4:00:48 PM
Fascinating stuff Bright! Thanks. I think I'm still with Page in that communication was the key and scavenging was the result, but I'm open to a reversal. I was thrown a bit by the 'heard size'. First I thought you typoed 'head'. It would make sense that brain size is linked to head size... Now I think you typoed 'herd', and that is not so obvious a link to brain size, but a very interesting one. So, along with Page, I think herd size is linked to the necessity of communication and communication would drive brain size. Communication also leads to quicker modification/advances in survival strategies and thus bring them to scavenging when other strategies weren't as successful. It was very interesting to learn about the language gene. I had not given much thought to what the communication 'looked' like in those ancestors. Apparently it was mostly no-verbal for quite awhile. Way cool!

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 135 (view)

Why are we on top of the food chain ? Posted: 1/29/2009 9:59:12 PM
Ok. Drive. Compulsion. Similar. The drive to be more complex is .... vague. You proposed the trait of communication as a vital component to evolving larger brains. The compulsion to communicate (the prescendant equivalent of a 'chatty Cathy') is specific and it seems it might be a trait that could be inheritable and survivally advantageous. And it does not require a large brain modification, it is simply a personality quirk. A small variation with a large possibility. I like it!

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 133 (view)

Why are we on top of the food chain ? Posted: 1/29/2009 8:17:35 PM
I see. So you aren't buying the standing upright causes bigger brains either. It does seem that the brain must change before the behavior on this one, but perhaps that really is not the case. Apes can communicate. Koko did sign language pretty well. That they don't CHOOSE to do it more complexly naturally is a difference between us. If they chose to me more communicative in nature, they would evolve darwinistically into better communicators with bigger brains. Perhaps the change in us was a small one. Perhaps what made the difference was a change in wiring that drove us to NEED to communicate. Perhaps that small difference drove the evolution. Was it Attenborough that called man the 'Compulsive Communicator'? Maybe the small mutation that made the difference was the compulsion?

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 130 (view)

Why are we on top of the food chain ? Posted: 1/28/2009 8:47:32 PM
page 2u -- mfreemo Ya – Environmental conditions force anatomical change. I think that’s a given, adapt or die.. The Earth is combining more complex structures by communication. The brain had the ability to communicate-- as dose, all species / things. Environmental conditions do force anatomical changes, but is it the only force that creates changes? I'm still not clear how standing upright makes brains bigger. Something about support? Because a chimp is only 'nearly upright' his brain can't get bigger or it will topple over and any brain-heavy chimps would be at a disadvantage? Adapt or die? For those that have not yet adapted to our level, why aren't they dead? If standing upright does not make the brain bigger, could it be that the fresh-out-of the-trees human wished for more communication ability? I don't go in for the Secret, the Laws of Attraction idea that we can get money or a bike, or whatever you want in your life. It smacks of believing in magic. But I do have this idea that IF that kind of positive thinking can work anywhere it might work within ourselves. Telling our cells where we want them to go might actually have some effect. Maybe we, maybe all species, direct our own evolution by 'wanting' something. Do we keep getting taller because we eat better? Or do we get taller through the generations because we 'want' to be taller? Could the force that increased brain size be the desire to communicate better and the cells of the brain responded by making more room for such skills? Just food for thought.

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 125 (view)

Why are we on top of the food chain ? Posted: 1/26/2009 6:39:36 PM
Page 2u says.. mfreemo—there you go ! thanks. But which came first—I think it’s a forced evolution – trees thinned out, forced to the ground, need a new survival technique – adopted communication –Darwinism propagates, bigger brain to store info.. I think you are saying that physical changes came from environmental changes, and physical changes sparked enhanced communication which prompted more physical changes. In other words, the brain changed first. Does standing upright really make your brain bigger? Cool!!! I stand up all the time!

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 114 (view)

Why are we on top of the food chain ? Posted: 1/25/2009 10:57:22 AM
I personally like the experiment theory as well. lol Read the Bible and God doesn't seem all-knowing. He seems like he's doing science experiments. The flood was like a big, " OOOPS! Didn't see that coming. Let's begin again." But I can't believe that there is still a discussion, here, about whether or not humans are the most advanced species on the planet. Come on, folks! Get with the topic.

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 112 (view)

Why are we on top of the food chain ? Posted: 1/25/2009 10:13:24 AM
Ok. I like the communication idea, but... what came first the communication or the physical components that allowed communication? Did we communicate ourselves into a better brain? Or did a better brain happen first? Why doesn't a chimp choose to communicate more/better?

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 206 (view)

Husband Fights Charge of Having Sex w/ Comatose Wife Posted: 9/22/2008 4:29:11 PM
A complex legal question. Privacy v. protection. The court decided that the nursing home went too far and invaded Mr and Mrs Johnson's privacy by installing a camera in the room. As was mentioned above, the nursing home didn't need a warrant because warrants are for protecting individuals from government intrusion. The police would have needed a warrant. The police did not install the hidden camera. Even private citizens cannot put a camera anywhere they want. Privacy v. protection would also be when a gas station places a camera in a restroom to prevent vandalism. You have an expectation of privacy when you use the restroom. I think we all would be glad that a camera in the restroom caught a vandal and if the nursing home camera caught a stranger having sex with a comatose patient, but the legality of the camera would still need to be addressed. In this case I'll bet the court was glad to have this 'technicality' to decide rather than have to decide the more subjective part of the case dealing with consent.

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 205 (view)

Husband Fights Charge of Having Sex w/ Comatose Wife Posted: 9/22/2008 3:57:39 PM
ChocolateNutt-"That's a lot of bullshit. Not one person is saying that they know she doesn't want her husband to have sex with her. " You may not have said it, but what was said implies it. The statements "vile" "sicko" "pig" etc. are harsh terms that would rightly describe someone doing an act that was done against the wishes of the comatose wife. Using those terms says you have decided that you KNOW her wishes. And at the risk of nattering, I think it suggests an ugly view of sex and marriage to fall so solidly on that side when you can't know the wife's wishes. The same acts to a lonely, loving, consenting wife would not have the same terms applied by normal people. We don't know her wishes so it would seem our terms ought to be more understanding of the 2 possibilities rather than just the one. There is an arguement that says that the wedding vows imply consent unless consent is denied temporarily (not tonight honey I have a headache) or permanently. 'No' does mean no in a marriage as well, but there does not have to be a formal consent every night and every morning. It might be said that CONSENT is implied as the default position and DENIAL must be communicated to be in effect. If we see sex is a gift that we give to each other, doesn't it make sense that recieving or giving a gift does not require consent? If my view of marriage and sex is in this loving, giving and romantic light, then 'vile' 'pig' 'sicko' don't come into the converstaion at all. ChocolateNutt-"And there is NO real evidence that it's a tragic love story rather than a pig getting his rocks off because the woman is unable to answer that question." There is not a lot of real evidence, but there is some. First, and most convincing for me is the wife's sister's statements and perspective. She knows both parties and knew them prior to the stroke. She witnessed his behavior before and after the stroke and seems convinced that he loves his wife, her sister, deeply and is acting as a loving husband ought to. She is the sister and is dealing with this tragedy daily also and is probably just as desparate to try anything that might help bring the wife out of her coma. Or at the very least, ease the wife's misery in the prison of the coma. If the sister doesn't see a pig, then that is better evidence than a complete stranger's 'no tolerance' view in a forum. If the sister sees a love story, then I am comfortable seeing it that way myself.

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 200 (view)

Husband Fights Charge of Having Sex w/ Comatose Wife Posted: 9/19/2008 5:03:22 PM
The linked article says it is already decided. The court found that the only real evidence against him was obtained illegally and the quality of the tapes were bad anyway. It would seem that many of you out there KNOW something I don't. You know that this woman would not want her husband to have sex with her. You know that she is not screaming silently to be loved by the man that she loves. You know that this issue is black and white . She may not have sex until she is able to consent. I see a lot of gray. I don't know. My initial point was that it is very complex legally. Privacy v. protection. In this particular case I'm glad it came down as it did. I now see why privacy is such an important right. It is pretty clear from all accounts that this was not a case of some pig getting his rocks off. This is a tragic love story. Whether or not she was aware of his efforts, his efforts were with the best intentions and with that in mind I'm sure very lovingly applied. I don't know if it helped, or hurt, but I can sympathize with his desparation to try all things to bring her back. I can't even imagine the pain of that situation. Again, I say, very very sad.

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 193 (view)

Husband Fights Charge of Having Sex w/ Comatose Wife Posted: 9/18/2008 8:56:17 PM
Ninki --You call it forced sex. You are advocating forced abstinence. This begs the question: Which is worse? I'd say forced sex. He can always masturbate. Hey, at age 59, he shouldn't be that hard-up {excuse the pun}. N, I wasn't suggesting that HE was forced to abstinence. He is conscious, and able to come and go and do what he can with or without someone else. He has choices. She can't choose what he reads to her, or what channel to watch on the TV or ask to be loved. I was thinking of her.

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 188 (view)

Husband Fights Charge of Having Sex w/ Comatose Wife Posted: 9/18/2008 5:11:20 PM
elaine88 - mfreemo, I agree it is sad but not for the husband, he had choice and screwed it up...pardon the pun. Also if someone comatose is being forced to have sex, with a total stranger or your husband, it's still the same..... Why is it not sad for the husband? His beloved wife is in a coma. He doesn't know if she hears his voice or knows he's there or feels his touch... I can't imagine many things more sad. If she is totally oblivious then any visits are un-necessary. He can write her off. But, then, if she is oblivious, having sex with her does no harm. If she is conscious at some level and trapped in her body, then visits, reading, brushing her hair, ... all the things people do for their loved ones that are in comas are enriching her days at some level. If she's 'in there' and appreciates the other things, then are you sure that sex isn't something that she misses as well? Wouldn't her husband be the best to decide that? You seem to rule out the possibilty of a loving relationship, and that a man having sex is only and always only for the man's gratification. Many men consider sex as a giving thing. If women don't like sex and sex is only for a man's gratification then I can see why consent would need to be given each time a woman allows herself to be used like that. If that is the case, then we need to let this guy know it, too, because he might think he's doing something nice for her. I thought sex was for both partners. You call it forced sex. You are advocating forced abstinence. If she's in there, perhaps forced abstinence is worse, and she wouldn't consent to that.

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 90 (view)

Do men usually love their first wife the most? Posted: 9/17/2008 10:04:23 PM
How would I know a general pattern. All I can give is my personal anecdote. Perhaps you can add up the anecdotes for a general pattern... My first wife holds no special place in my heart.

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 164 (view)

Husband Fights Charge of Having Sex w/ Comatose Wife Posted: 9/16/2008 8:34:03 AM
The legal issues of this are definitely difficult. Privacy v. protection. A coroner or other stranger having sex with a corpse, or a hospital worker having sex with a comatose stranger is a pretty easy call, and I would agree with the seeming unanimous condemnation on this thread. If this guy was having sex with a stranger in a coma he's a sicko and throw the book at him. It seems that everyone here has decided that this is just sick. I'm wondering if that is indicative of the singles site. Are we all single because we don't believe in love? This is not about a stranger. He is her husband. She is his wife. Perhaps this is a tragic love story. People accept the idea that this man might go visit his comatose wife regularly to read to her and tell her about his day and news about the family. Some of us would think that was tragically sad because we believe that she is not conscious of his presence. But obvioulsy he wouldn't do that unless he felt that she was aware of him and that he was filling her days with love while she was trapped in her body. You can't know if he wasn't having sex as an extension of that love. He may have felt she was trapped in there and missing his touch and embrace as much as he was missing hers. I don't think that is sick. In fact, I'm not sure he isn't correct. Does a comatose patient get anything from being read to? I don't know. If they get something from that then why not from being touched? I certainly don't know these particular people or the circumstances so perhaps you all are right and he's a sicko. But how can you all be so sure of yourselves? To me, the only thing I can be sure of about this story is that it is terribly sad.

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 407 (view)

ETHNIC ATTRACTION... Posted: 9/15/2008 7:01:42 PM
As I surfed around POF there was an ad for a dating site that came up for Mixed Race couples and it struck me that it was kind of racist to look for anyone based on their ethnicity. It took a little thought to decide that I was wrong. It is bad to be discriminating about ethnicity in a public policy or even a generalized view of your neighbors. Affirmative action or discrimination are both terms that go against our desire for a color-blind society, and it was my idea of hoping for color-blindness that was offended by the idea of that site. I finally came to the conclusion that color-blindness is not required at the personal preference level. If you have a personal preference, male/female, fat/fit/skinny, religious or not, and ethnicity... I say go for it. At a personal level we all have a right to choose what will be best for us.

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 106 (view)

Global Warming Real? Posted: 9/10/2008 8:18:47 PM
I have no good reason to think that the climate isn't changing. I suspect that it MUST. It always has. It would be good to understand why it changes so we can predict where it's going and what it will effect. I think Gore's science is weak and manipulated and so I have no reason to just accept his ideas. At this point I am unconvinced of Man-caused Global Warming, and can see socialist and monetary purposes for trying to 'sell' it to the masses. As was mentioned, water vapor is the most prevalent green house gas on the planet by a long shot. All the other green house gases are tiny fractions of the amount of water vapor. Also, besides the sheer volume of water vapor to the other gases, water vapor is THE most amazing physical mechanism for transporting heat around the planet. CO2 has no mechanism, it just sits there and gets in the way of heat transmission. CO2 just doesn't seem to have enough impact to overpower the active heat regulation abilities of water. It would seem that real world measurements and observations indicate that the world has actually cooled in the last 10 years. With scientists claiming that the data shows that we are warming, cooling and staying steady, it is obvious that there is no obvious trend. But if you want to believe in Man-made global warming then consider this. If we reduce our per person carbon footprint by half but continue to double our population, we have gained nothing except to lower our standard of living. Maintaining a proper population is the only way to achieve long lasting environmental health. Conserving is just a stop gap to allow more customers to buy more product. Conserving is a lowering of your standard of living. Let's say you use less water. That means more people can move in and use the water you saved, and now you're stuck with the lower standard.

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 101 (view)

Fascism comes in many stripes Posted: 9/5/2008 1:28:31 AM
Pulse, I suspect it is the nodding circle that you eluded to that gave them their 'ugly world glasses' and I wish I could help them see that perhaps the world is not as bad as they seem to hope it is. Certainly you can see ugliness everywhere you look if you choose to see it. And perhaps they are right on this one, but the evidence they presented this time did not wash for me. Without ugly glasses it looks as though the world is working as it ought to . Cops are people, too. I'm sure there are some messages that some policemen don't agree with. Just as I'm sure that some of the cops actually agree with some of the demonstrators . Suppressing a message is not why they are there. The RNC has a right to have their revival meeting without disruption. Because there are those that want to disrupt it, the police must defend the RNC rights by keeping the disruptions away. They must form a line where the uninvited may not pass. There is a history of activism that thinks that getting arrested is good for their cause and they try to be arrested by disregarding the rules and they create situations where they know they will be arrested. Try to cross the line and you will be arrested. It's a game that activists play with the cops and as long as both sides are nice, no one gets hurt and the activist gets their activist badge for the day. With this game, no message is getting suppressed, each side is just doing their part in the 'demonstration play'. IF Amy really wasn't trying to get arrested, she did exactly what activists do to get arrested. How were the cops to know that she was just trying to get past their line, for real. Oh wait, you can't do that. Either way, the cops did what they do, and it seemed they did it pretty politely and professionally. And of course, it is expected for an activist to scream that their rights were violated after they get arrested trying to force through the line. The 'Demonstration play' has it's script to follow, after all. It is when there are those, like the groups that broke windows, harrassed scared civilians, and planned and threatened other violence that the police were obliged to do what they could to find them and stop them. I think they found the right people. I trust that they did an investigation with enough witnesses pointing the finger at them, that the police had sufficient just cause and all that. The things they found convince me that they were in the right place. If not, it was a mistake, but a mistake that needed to be made. You can't take a chance of a large scale riot and all the damage and injury and even deaths that might result. The alternative that seems to be the only one that would please those in this thread, that think the police are fascists, is for the police to stand idly by until the riot did break out. At that point they would be too late to protect the peace. Without benefit of ugly glasses I feel that the police did a great job. It just does not seem that they are the evil empire's tool of suppression. I have no trouble seeing it as it should be. They are the thin blue line between criminal and victim, between abusive husband and his battered wife, between the Crips and Bloods, and between 'anarchist/anti-authoritarian' thugs bent on turning a peaceful demonstration into a destructive and tragic riot and RNC partiers and the peaceful demonstrators. If you had friends or family at this demonstration, you should be grateful that the police did their job to prevent something that could have cost you your loved ones. Because the police did their job the demonstrators got to hold their banners and shout their slogans and show their numbers, and come home safely. Message delivered. Freedom of speech protected. This was not about suppressing speech.

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 72 (view)

Police target protesters at RNC convention Posted: 9/3/2008 5:03:37 PM
Stella. So you are going to stand for them? I will have to concede to you if you are there and know these environmentalists. It's too bad they got confused with the folks that did break windows and cause comotion. I'm sure they will be able to clear this up. I did watch the arrest of Amy Goodman. I wasn't there. Didn't see what led up to the arrest, or know what was going on behind the police line. If nothing preceded what happened in the video I would still have to say that I did not see Amy roughed up. I did see her defy the commnds of the officer and try to go past them. I saw cause for them to arrest her. They arrested her in a pretty polite way. Did the assault happen after the video? The police are just people, too. It is their job to maintain order. It was their job to maintain that line. Amy tried to go through it. What were they supposed to do?

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 69 (view)

Police target protesters at RNC convention Posted: 9/3/2008 4:26:33 PM
zabet on 9/3/2008 406 PM - I've owned bolt-cutters and axes and used them for perfectly legitimate reasons. My kids were into slingshots for a while. The buckets of urine thing is kinda weird, but then I've lived without plumbing on occasion and had some buckets... So, is this what you think? They were just peaceful citizens with not intentions of causing a vandalous and violent disruption that might have blown up into a full-scale riot with injuries, property damge and possible deaths? Really? That's what you think?

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 65 (view)

Police target protesters at RNC convention Posted: 9/3/2008 4:04:01 PM
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/01/peaceful_protest_marred_by_sma.html?hpid=topnews The police estimated that between 5,000 and 8,000 people joined the rally, which ended outside the Xcel Center and resulted in 56 arrests. "The antiwar demonstration was largely peaceful, but a small group of anarchists smashed windows and set a dumpster on fire en route." "There was a splinter group that came here to cause trouble," said Tom Walsh, a public information officer for the St. Paul police. " "Police carried out a series of raids over the weekend, targeting locations where they believed groups were planning attacks on the convention. The RNC Welcoming Committee, a group describing itself as an "anarchist/anti-authoritarian organizing body" that planned to "crash the convention," was among the groups targeted." ***************** http://www.startribune.com/politics/27695244.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUs Ramsey County authorities conducted raids across Minneapolis and St. Paul Friday and Saturday as a pre-emptive strike against disruptive protests of the Republican National Convention. "These acts include tactics to blockade and disable delegate buses, breaching venue security and injuring police officers," Fletcher said. Deputies seized a variety of items that they believed were tools of civil disobedience: a gas mask, bolt cutters, axes, slingshots, homemade "caltrops" for disabling buses, even buckets of urine." Comments; "Thank goodness they did.. At first I thought this was excessive. Reading now that one person had bleach thrown in their face, a bus had brick thrown through a window, Cub Scouts frightened by folks rocking their bus, folks dropping sand bags and bricks on a bus and vandals smashing windows, I am happy the police did raid. These aren't protesters exercising free speech. They are sociopaths. Bet they torture small animals too" ******** I do believe that most people are decent, no matter which political affiliation, but I don't think EVERYONE is decent. Without rules, and someone enforce them, then hotheads will take over and write their own rules. Is anyone here really defending these particular anarchist/anti-authoritarians? What they did and were planning was criminal, and dangerous. People could have been hurt or killed. Had it gone unchecked the police and the peaceful demonstrators were at risk. It is the job of the police to prevent this kind of crime when they have the information to prevent it. This was not about supressing free speech.

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 61 (view)

Police target protesters at RNC convention Posted: 9/3/2008 2:35:27 PM
valerieop I didn't say being an anarchist was illegal. I have faith that they were not arrested becasue they were anarchists, but because of their actions. (I could be wrong. ) Can you tell me some of the planks of an Anarchist's platform? What are anarchists fighting for?

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 58 (view)

Police target protesters at RNC convention Posted: 9/3/2008 1:15:18 PM
No, the entire USA is not a free speech zone. You do not have the right to come into my house and stand on your soapbox. You do not have the right to come into my business and stand on your soapbox. You should not have the right to come to my child's birthday party in the public park and stand on your soapbox. You can set up your soapbox in the park, but to invade my party is not your right. The RNC is their party and they have a right to have it. You have a right to stand in free speech zones and go for it. That they have to set up free speech zones shows that the demonstrators have no idea of where they can stand without help. That you think you have the right to disrupt someone's party shows you take no resposibility for your freedom of speech.

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 54 (view)

Police target protesters at RNC convention Posted: 9/3/2008 12:16:06 PM
Why are the protestors so disorderly? Exercise your freedom of speech from where you are allowed to speak. If your message has merit, it will be heard from there. If the only way it will be heard is for you to create enough havoc to get police attention, and it gets media attention only because of the police attention, then perhaps your message has no real merit. The police are there BECAUSE you won't stay where you ought, not to shut you up. Freedom comes with responsibility. Disorderly protest is abuse of your freedom of speech. You are arrested for that abuse, not for your message. The police are not abusing your freedom they are protecting the peace.

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 333 (view)

Pathological Liars Posted: 8/26/2008 2:07:41 PM
AuburnDiva-Can I spot one now? Not to sure...they are very tricky. I have done a lot of research and reading about this type of person...and they are tricky!!! I am leaning on intuition from now on....the number one thing I have learned is they tend to blame everyone else for everything...which I honestly did not know before. Always someone elses fault... So for you it is not easy to spot? I think everyone resists taking blame. Only in the extreme would this be a valid test, and it would take some experience to know if they were extreme. I have had the experience of getting bad vibes from a guy simply because he seemed like a car salesman. A bit too friendly. A bit too enthusiastic. Now this guy did not turn out to be a pathological liar or sociopath, I don't think, but he did turn out to have character flaws and did quite a bit of damage. I'd hate to think that everyone that is very friendly is instantly evaluated as fake. Aren't there genuine nice enthusiastic friendly outgoing people out there? Did my 'bad vibes meter' go off because there is such a thing as bad vibes? Or am I just prejudiced about the salesman attitude?

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 314 (view)

Pathological Liars Posted: 8/23/2008 3:00:46 PM
Not hard to spot? AuburnDiva I fell for a major liar/Narcissist...and I failed to see things as well. People even pointed things out about the guy I chose at the time not to see. Sanlucalady They aren't hard to spot, if you have done your own internal maturing and keep your feet on the ground. ~vhdc~ Sanlucalady: You are spot on in as much as they really are not hard to spot It would seem that sanlucalady and vhdc have learned how to spot a PL/Sociopath. They were charmed by one in the past but learned their lesson. I'm wondering if Auburn Diva can NOW spot one? My question is how long does it take to spot one? One date? Many? First words out of their mouth? My guess is that it will take some time to hear enough stories from them to start suspecting that they aren't all they claim to be. Is it intuition that tells you or real indications? Share... how do you spot them?

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 13 (view)

does anyone understand how men think? Posted: 8/8/2008 12:14:30 PM
As someone else said, this is not about how MEN think, because all men are not the same and not all men would do what these did to you. Since this is not a MEN question, it is a 'these men', or what's wrong with YOU question... how can we know? How old were these guys? (it is not obvious why men would prefer a 33yr old. It would only be obvious if the men were in their 30's) Do you have NO idea why they moved on to someone else? What IS wrong with you? You asked us, but how can we know? What was wrong with these guys that you did or did not mention... Without more info we are just shooting in the dark, or transferring our own experiences onto yours, and that isn't right either. If you did not chase them away with your behavior, neglect, attitude, etc... then there is nothing wrong with you except your choice of men. What can you learn about these two situations that will help you avoid finding another guy with the same attributes? In the end, the only thing you can control is yourself. If the problem is in you, you can change it, or find guys that understand and accept those failings. You are attractive and if you are mostly nice as you say, then there are guys that will love you enough to tolerate some imperfections. (and we are all imperfect) But you need to let them see the imperfections and watch how they deal with them before you start counting them as 'the one'. If the problem is in the guys you choose, you can learn to choose better.

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 11 (view)

I've been deeply wounded. . . Posted: 6/26/2008 10:54:12 PM
Of course you know, candid or not, none of us know what happened either. It's all just guessing from us, too. Sorry.

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 554 (view)

Looks really are everything.... Posted: 6/14/2008 4:12:21 PM
Looks are not everything, but it IS the natural place to start. I think it's helpful to remember that looks are subjective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Although nearly everyone thinks Angelina Jolie is beautiful - not everyone does. Not everyone finds Ugly Betty ugly. Some people think pugs are pretty!? Whether there are lots of people that think you are pretty or only a few, it is only important that you find the one that think you are beautiful. Attraction and beauty are separate things, too. I have found myself attracted to ladies that would be considered beautiful to most guys, and I have found some very beautiful women to be unattractive. There have been times when I found myself hugely attracted to women that would be considered by most as plain, but to me they were breathtakingly beautiful. It's a mystery, but ia good one. On the sites, you are pretty much judged by your looks because... what else is there? You don't get to judge them on their personality and attraction through the computer screen. I'm not sure anyone trusts the information in our profiles. even when we are being completely honest. You'll have to email, chat, phone, and meet to ascertain whether there is attraction beyond looks, and only your looks will get you in the door. Here. I think it's good you are on the forums because it gives even more insight into your personality and someone might pick up on it. It does seem from your OP that you are a sad sack and the poor me thing would turn me off, but then, you are still in the running because there are people that are attracted to that, too. Be yourself.

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 755 (view)

Do you think there should be laws against people who trick you into sexual encounters! Posted: 4/9/2008 5:01:55 PM
Do you think there should be laws against people who trick you into sexual encounters! No. Too hard to determine if she was intentionally (criminally) tricked or he just changed his mind after the encounter. You sure don't want every sexual encounter to carry the risk of being charged with rape . There are those in this thread that laughed, saying how can you be tricked, but of course you could be. If you hold off until you have a commitment and the commitment is phoney, it was a dirty trick. Intentional phoney commitment for the sake of scoring is pretty close to rape, but intention is key and difficult to prove. A law would be impossible to enforce.

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 16 (view)

he cheats then says its my fault.... Posted: 3/20/2008 2:19:06 PM
You're only 19 years old! He's not for you. Go be young and date lots of different guys. Think of it as comparison shopping. You found a lemon, but there's lots more to try. When it's right you will know it without having to ask us.

mfreemo

Joined: 4/19/2007

Msg: 166 (view)

why do men get so bent out of shape when a woman says no thanks? Posted: 1/22/2008 11:26:26 AM
I think I hear Sptifire backpedalling a bit here. I am with Jester in thinking it was pretty clear that sptifire was insulting and name-calling directly to anyone that wasn't the type of 'alpha male' that spitfire considers himself to be. I am with Jester in thinking that it was pretty clear that spitfire did admit to getting angry when he received turn downs, (and of course he was quick to point out that he doesn't get them very often becasue he is VERY SUCCESSFUL with the ladies) and suggested that if you didn't get angry at being turned down then there is something wrong with you (and me). Own it Spitfire. I would like to point out that spitfire is the ONLY direct response to OP that has any validity. He is the only one that actually has gotten angry about being turned down. Although he is mature enough not to write a lash-back email, he actually understands it and has generously explained that anger. If I can sum up what I think he said; Real alpha males normally and naturally and correctly get angry when disappointed. IF he doesn't get angry then he is less of a man (nutless eunich bottom feeding beta), and it shows that he didn't really care in the first place. If he cares enough to write to a lady then he cares enough to get angry when he doesn't get a positive response. Dating is a competition. Real alpha males take competition seriously, or why play at all? He hasn't made it clear to me if he's competing against other guys, or against the ladies, but I'm going to assume he is compteting with the other guys. When a lady turns him down, he is angry because another guy might win where he lost. I'll let you guys work out the rightness or wrongness of getting angry. We all agree, including spitfire, that writing a lash-back email is wrong. I don't consider myself an alpha male, so it is enlightening to hear what alpha males are like. I wondered myself about why men would act this way. It would seem that Jester does consider himself an alpha male and disagrees that all alpha males get angry at small disappointments. I would like to think he is right. OP- When you get a nasty lash back email it is from an immature alpha male that simply acted inappropriately to a 'natural' anger. If you want an immature alpha male, then you can try to smooth his feathers and try to work things out. If not, then don't take it seriously, it's not your fault, be grateful he cleared up any second thoughts you might have had and move on.

Show ALL Forums