Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!


Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 Author Thread: Better for women to be poor, uneducated and hot?
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 74 (view)
Better for women to be poor, uneducated and hot?
Posted: 7/27/2008 9:13:27 PM

I agree with SlyKnight in a way.

It's not BECAUSE she's poor or uneducated.
It's because you can treat her right, and she RESPONDS "correctly". The response is important. She responds impressed, and with gratitude. And that is so important. It makes you feel like a success instead of a failure.

I think a rich educated woman can do the same, but it's a lot more rare.

The rich educated woman is often not impressed. There's expectations. You feel like a jester who has to make the queen laugh, or it's off with your head.

If you were a comedian, would you rather tell lame jokes to a bunch of drunks that love you for it? Could you tell those same jokes at a Mensa meeting? No, you're REALLY going to have to work on your routine, and even then, there's no guarantee of success. Scary place. (Holy crap! There's the "intimidated by independant women" answer!)

IMO, ubkobalt summed it up perfectly. And, for the women who do see themselves as successful, educated (say smart in different ways, good personality, charm), and attractive, will set the bar higher, and attract the 'right' people. Thus, it says something about the men's personality and character, for those that *do* choose, poor, uneducated (say, not just uneducated, but, dim, no personality/character),....but, HOT! Those men are better weeded out of the pool, no?

After all, the attractive successful woman is gonna have some expectations, and rightfully so. They themselves have something to offer, and they'd like the same in return. Equal. Thus, attitudes like this VV is highly attractive:

It's the attitude. (And just thinking about that attitude is a huge turn on!)

* Then again, very few of life's situations are this extremely black/white choice (which we see often as thread topics) when it comes to whom we choose for a partner....and why.
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 33 (view)
Can an eccentric person find love and understanding?
Posted: 7/23/2008 12:45:54 PM
As facetious as this post is, and its aim to be slyly humourous (poking fun at other such 'woe is me' threads), one should try their hardest to have impeccable delivery....otherwise the 'joke' falls _____________.

1) Learn how to use the 'big boy words' in their proper context.
2) Try not to contradict your intent.

I likely sound quite elitist to the fair luck jane does of the world

Nah, not only elitist (in this context, pretentious) but patronizing. Such as:

How does one strike up a conversation with a lady of the rabble?

Why would you want such a 'lady' in the first place?
3) Follow the nice mexican lady's advice w/ the chocolates, 'ya never know what you're gonna get!'

Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 9 (view)
My Magical Date
Posted: 7/23/2008 12:24:59 PM
11 emoticons.
1 magical date.
2 people in love with being in love.

"Is this nuts?" about grandosity?

In your profile, you write a poem for him, and these lines (although, I'm sure you meant it to convey something different) holds the most truth:

Holding your hand as like holding water for the first time
But once we got the hang of it, It fit just right into mine.

One cannot hold water in their hand, it will, eventually, drip away; it is an illusion if you think you can. And, if you're convinced that you've finally got the 'hang of it''ve made yourself believe it so. Creating reality based on feelings (only) is a slippery slope. Especially when you are in a place of needing to be loved (after your one bf left you and your child - who, btw, is freakin' cute!!). Thus, it is not merely you, in your life, that you must consider in all decisions, you have a daughter, don't wrestle reality to fit into a dream. Let it happen....slowly.

Or, the flip side, evaluate the cost/benefits, for you. These feelings of euphoria, how much do you love feeling like this? NOT him, the feelings. How much are you willing to invest in these feelings, regardless of where they may eventually take you (2 outcomes: love, heartbreak)? Are you willing to perhaps chance heartbreak for this feeling of euphoria? If so, I say, ride on.....just be aware of *both* possibilities.

All the best!
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 76 (view)
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/22/2008 5:20:16 PM
^ Thanks, dude!
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 74 (view)
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/22/2008 5:05:58 PM
Scorpiomover, I just HAD to address this latest post of yours (I'm still behind in responding to 2 of your posts in 2 threads, school calls.....and I want to do those *long* posts, justice, at a later date).

Please, please, I beg of you, before making conclusive statements, and claiming that you are finding that Watson-the-loon's theory to have some validity due to your "understanding" (and I use this term, oh, so, loosely) of evolution is doing you more harm than good....esp. when it comes to this race controversy. Your kind of MISINTERPRETATION of what theory of evolution posits led to Eugenics, of its most horrific example, Nazi Germany.


because whites evolved from blacks

just that my understanding of evolution is that according to evolution, there would be such an inferiority on a genetic level

WHY a more evolved group is not going to be smarter than a less evolved group

especially since we evolved from primates, and AFAIK, we are more intelligent than primates.

First, WE, HUMANS, ARE PRIMATES. Thus, we didn't evolve FROM primates. Humans are primates. In taxonomy of classification, it goes like this:
Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.

PRIMATES is Order, in which humans AND monkeys belong. Our family is homonidae, which includes US, chimps, orangutans & gorillas - i.e., we're the great apes. Then, there's the Genus, which, is Homo (we're the ONLY living creatures in this genus)....and finally there's the species (sapiens)!!! I.e., we're in the order of Primates, belonging to the family of Homonidae, called, Homo sapiens!

Second, whites DID NOT evolve out of blacks!! This is a misconception and shows one's (lack of) understanding of Origin of Modern Humans. There's 2 theories, and they're still debated, so, it is NOT conclusive that it was a single origin out of africa.

The two theories ARE:
1) Out of Africa
2) Multiregional Continuity Model

Here's a link that explains it succintly, both of them, and the evidence for each.

Now, if we go with the Out of Africa theory, please note:
WE, as in, ALL OF US, regardless of race, i.e. humans, homo sapiens, evolved out of Homo erectus. Thus, it was a DIFFERENT SPECIES that evolved out of Africa to give the modern man...they were NOT modern day blacks. Blacks, just like whites, red, purple, green, whatever, humans, as a species, had yet to evolve out of the homo erectus , cuz homo sapiens as a species (which we ALL belong to, regardless of race) had yet to evolve, when we talk of the beginning of the Out of Africa theory.

To say that whites evolved OUT of blacks assumes that there's different species. There's NOT. we're ALL one species - homo sapiens.

Now, due to migration, different homo sapiens adapted to their PARTICULAR environment, giving us differences in races. Thus, one didn't stop evolving, while the rest kept evolving more and more to become, finally, the 'holy grail' - white. We were ALL evolving, at the same time, in our particular environments, giving us the differences we see today as different races.
Take home message: modern day blacks ARE NOT THE SAME as the species that was originally there in Africa. They evolved - homo erectus to become homo sapiens, and depending on the environment, led to differential evolution (not one MORE evolved or LESS), but differential evolution.

Thus, this theory on intelligence is NULL AND VOID as there has been no conclusive evidence of why ONE environment (over another) would make for differences in intellegence when they're all evolving at the SAME time, just in different environments.

Btw, what is AFAIK?
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 13 (view)
Negatives of being in a relationship with a nurturer/caretaker/'protector'-type - patronization
Posted: 7/19/2008 5:01:13 PM
Lil Brooker,

Circumstances does dictate the roles we play, doesn't it? And, it's not always as easy as 'finding' ourselves inside some self-help book, where the author doesn't know us personally from Tammy, Dacky, Hariette, and we aim to find how we may be reflected in those pages, 'one' of the ones they talk of. Sometimes, it's good to read, put away, and say, 'that was interesting...but, I'm still *me*!'

Life and relationships can be complex. I hope that each of us finds our greatest complement.

Sums it up quite nicely. Here's hoping....
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 12 (view)
Negatives of being in a relationship with a nurturer/caretaker/'protector'-type - patronization
Posted: 7/19/2008 4:51:13 PM
Wow, thank you Ameera,

This is what I was getting at, to see if any nurturer/caretaker/protector have ever acknowledged this in themselves:

The bottom line is it takes a lot to see yourself clearly and many of the nurturer/caretaker/'protector types don't see themselves as "bad" and have a hard time understanding how their behavior can be received negatively. In fact, they're sometimes that way because they're invested in seeing themselves as "good" -- I'm good/you're bad. I am okay/you need me -- that kind of thinking.

I wonder, what did it take for you to become introspective? Was it just a culmunation of the resentment? Or, a particular event, person? If you want to share...
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 11 (view)
Negatives of being in a relationship with a nurturer/caretaker/'protector'-type - patronization
Posted: 7/19/2008 4:49:25 PM

You have put forth a most interesting thesis. I want to say that he gets externally motivated by giving, but, I cannot be sure, as, he gives very generously to everyone. Strangers, co-workers, neighbours, etc. And, his motivation isn't contingent on 'getting' anything from anyone.

So, that means he's a giver who's internally motivated? Perhaps, he may be smothering and patronising due to sheer ignorance and strong desire to help (I can certainly see this), however, once it is put forth, these types, I'd think would acknowledge their 'negative' role, and want to change accordingly. He has denied.

Maybe, thus, he is BOTH? Depending on the interpersonal relationship/expectation. That those he's closest to, it becomes a mesh of being an externally AND an internally motivated giver....internally so, because he truly wants to give, externally so, to reinforce some type of evidence for the relationship that is (in his mind).

Me? I am a taker.....however, I am highly intrigued by givers. I have 5 best friends. One: we have an explicit and balanced symbiotic relationship, she's the giver (mothering type) and I'm the taker, however, no patronization, and even *she* feels that he is out of line, and her ways matches his the most.
Two: we don't see each other often, for this to be an issue, however, again, her personality and mine, she'd be the giver, and me the taker.
Three: her giver, me taker
Fourth: we're balanced.
Fifth: also the dude in question. him -giver, me- taker.

However, the first three, although I readily admit to being the taker...I don't think it can be as simple as this. I've maintained these friendships (1, 2, 4 - 8 years, 3 - 14 years), and they're not dumb in any way, or get off being 'used'....and I've asked them this too. 'How do you put up with me?' And, I have realized, in these relationships, it is not a clear dichotomy of giver/taker, it depends on WHAT. They are givers in the most obvious sense, emotionally, taking care physically (food, getting something organized for me, etc)....but.....I am a giver too, in other ways. I'm a 'mental-giver' (as one friend put it), good with dishing out logics of situations, calming/balancing their emotionality, teaching them how to be independent (givers, often NEED to have someone to give to), and I make them aware, to not only not always need this, but, to take, from me, and others, to learn how to demand what is their right. So, I can't agree that these are hard-fast roles. It's when it becomes extremes (such as with any case), that issue arises. However, one may want to look deeper into a 'taker' and perhaps, will find, that they themselves, give, in not so obvious ways.

In the end, it really boils down to this in terms of #5:

If you point out to someone that their behaviour makes you feel patronised, then one who truly cares about your feelings will feel upset and will want to try harder not to behave in that way in future but to be more sensitive to you. Someone who does not care about your feelings will continue to undermine you and try to make you believe it is all your fault, because your insecurity fuels the co-dependent dynamic that they get such a buzz from.

Thank you for the insight, much appreciated. I'm learning how to get in touch with my *feelings* and I will readily admit, it is quite hard, as it's not very intuitive, as logic of situations/things, are for me. Thus, my initial attraction to givers, I want to LEARN from them. When they give that freely, it makes me feel motivated to be like that, to give back that feeling that they've given to me when they *give*. And I wanna return it, and pay it forward. And, I'm learning. All these wonderful people in my life (even when they frustrate me, make me angry), they are still around, because, they have goodness inside, and I know I am around in theirs, cuz they've seen goodness in me. I hope I can live up to that. That is all I would hope to achieve from any kind of personal, intimate relationships in my life.
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 10 (view)
Negatives of being in a relationship with a nurturer/caretaker/'protector'-type - patronization
Posted: 7/19/2008 3:34:23 PM
Renaissance Man,

This is the issue - and I don't think I'm articulating it well. A lot of times, the caretaker/protector, by VIRTUE of this label, gets a free pass as the *saint* while the recipient is always, therefore, the sinner (the selfish, insensitive type).

And, I'm trying to (not very well) present the case that this may not be so (well, not always, maybe in my case it is, I dunno). My point: That these types may, on occasion, have insidious negative traits, that are excused because of the role they play. And, that the blame always goes to the 'recipient' of all that goody care/nurturing, etc, like, ungrateful!

It is kind of like when I got into a fight with a roommate. Girls are NOTORIOUS for this. Crocodile tears. Now, when I fight, I'm bringing the heat, no sissy-tears, own up! However, the other will start crying, and, rather than look at the instance/the case/the evidence/the point, the other roommates will side with HER, because she is crying, while I am not.

This is not fair, IMO.
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 9 (view)
Negatives of being in a relationship with a nurturer/caretaker/'protector'-type - patronization
Posted: 7/19/2008 3:20:32 PM

The more I care, the more I tend to be overbearing and "rightful", and it's something I have to keep in check.

Funny_Girl, as always, you are insightful (and have a good handle on introspection) is not enough to 'excuse' onself that they are only being caring. Regadless of how pure the caring is, if the other person feels something that's negative, whether a person feels that they do what the other accuses they do or not, the feeling felt is real, and if only for that reason, one must admit that they should look at themselves....and keep it in check.

I don't demand things, but I do express the hows and whys of my thoughts, and the values associated with them.

He does this too, and the thoughts are rational and very logical for his case, and why I should do it way he has put forth. However, like I say, 'there are 10 ways to say one thing, to do one thing'...thus, whatever rationale there is for doing it the way one suggests, another option is always viable. It really comes down to appreciating this:

There's wisdom in knowing when to open up your mind and let another way of thinking in


But being so helpful and wonderful all the time can get over bearing on the other person

From the pov of the 'other person', you are feels claustrophobic and over-bearing (as another mentioned, one feels smothered)

I help out too much, I begin to let my ego take hold and think that I'm always right.

And, there's an imbalance, because when one takes it upon themselves to do *too* much, they, in order to validate doing all that work, may take on the feeling that they are right, and start to feel unappreciated, that the other is not doing *enough*. For being distant. The do-er internalizes feelings of being *used*. However, it is, to an extent, a drama created by the 'do-er' themselves....they do, do more, and more, they feel that the way THEY have done, isn't reciprocated, so, when they hear rather than 'thanks, you're WONDERFUL', but, complaints (of being patronization)'s resentment from the 'do-er's' end, like, "thanks, after all I do, this is the thanks I get". However, the do-er has never STEPPED BACK/STOPPED to allow the other to be a contributer (in their OWN way)...thus, who is the blame really on?


Depends on the personality of the nurturer and whether they love the person the way they are or if they are a control freak who sees everything in black and white and thinks their way of doing things is the only way it can be done.

Right on! In my case, the person is the latter (black/white world).

If you love and care about a person the way they are it includes accepting that they are an adult. If your SO is as you describe, he does not respect you and this is not going to change so you either need to decide if you want to live with someone that treats you like a child or find someone that will accept the things about you that he doesn't like as well as your autonomy to make choices for yourself.

Yup, it was about respect, and I felt that he didn't respect me. And, yes, I felt like I was being treated like a child. I have a method...if I have invested enough in any relationship (friendship, romantic, whatever), that means I have evaluated some part about the person's character as good. Thus, if I see things, I don't attack. I will bring it up, nicely, once, twice. However, because of the way it is brought up/discussed, the person sometimes thinks that it's not a *big deal*, and they may ignore (those who know me well, know, the first time, take it seriously). However, just because I don't say it every time (I DETEST NAGGING - which is also part of the patronization, I've felt), doesn't mean I'm not keeping all the instances as examples. The case is building...I am giving you chances to rectify it on your own, as you are an adult, and I've said that it bothers me *already* rectify it yourself. I will not keep spoon-feeding it again and again. Thus, the third time I bring it up....there is no mincing words. ALL the examples are brought forth, my case is presented in full. Accept it. Acknowledge it. And, subsequently, prove that you have, by your actions. Otherwise, move yourself from my life. No one is worth greater to me than my self-respect. And, he chose not to acknowledge that he *does* patronize, so, that was it. G'bye! I have no time, nor patience, to attend to others emotional, cognitive development, esp. if we're both adults.

On the other hand, do you not want to change things for a good reason?

Actually, one of the things *was* smoking. And, in this, he realized that he was nagging me to quit. To be fair to him, it really started over the winter months, when I had a cough that wouldn't go away, for months, and chest x-ray (to which he had to push me to go see a doctor, in the first place) showed nothing wrong. Aka, smoker's cough. So, he started the nagging. The criticization. He even said he'll stop nagging. But didn't. He would slyly make comments about the smell, the $, etc. And....I made a mistake on my part. I lied and said I quit, when I hadn't. To stop the nagging. And, I would get annoyed subsequently, cuz he'd keep asking intermittently, 'you're still good? no smoking?', '' To which, he will do some stupidness, and I quote him, "That's awsome, that means it's been 1 month, 5 days!! Good JOB! I'm proud of you!" (YES!! He kept the days), and this would happen every so often, with a reminder of the counter. And, yes, I felt horrible, as this was on me, and my fault. And I know he was trying to be encouraging. As such, this I didn't count towards his patronization....but, gives indication of his personality/smothering qualities (which extrapolated to other instances that *weren't* my fault). Like you understand with the smoking, though:

I have since quit on my own for my own reasons

I don't think he realizes this....he has a Mother Teresa syndrome, where he thinks he can save everyone. Righteousness!


My reaction was to eventually to tell her STOP IT its overbearing and you make me feel really childish. HER reaction was that of much contempt, saying "well, I've never been accused of caring too much".

You read my mind...identical situation, and identical reaction from the SO. Btw, as another said, please do go check out your health condition. Even if you dislike doctors, like me.


So if I see my partner or children mess up it drives me nuts. I try not to be overbearing about it but I hate to see a loved one have the wool pulled over their eyes or credit ruined like I did.

You seem very much like him. Very good at being on top of things, being organized, orderly, in control, maximize efficiency out of when you see the loved ones failing because they are "not that way", it becomes frustrating for you to just stand by and let them 'fall'. However, I do believe that, not all cases, certainly not yours, as financial demise is too big a risk to joke/experiment with, but in other situations, it takes even MORE control to step back, and *see* how the other handles it, in their *own* way (perhaps, to you, and my SO, not the right, most efficient, way). But, there's something even greater achieved in letting them do it their own way. Maybe not as good, effective of a result as you (or he) would have gotten, but a *greater* thing is learned: Acknowledgement of the other as a full person able to take care of themselves. Which for you may not be relevant, as you tried with you ex, only to have it backfired...but, I think, in my case, this is relevant.


One simple word; Smothering



So if I am controlling and dishing out sarcasm, patronisation, critiscism ect the truth is I am fearful of not being in control.

Hmm, never thought of this, fear of being NOT in control. Well, like it's said, if you try to grasp too hard, it shall slip through your fingers.

If I cant say these things and am dishonest about what is really going on for me I will go to anger, defiance, rejection retaliation and so it goes on.

Heck ya! And, it is exhausting. My anger fuels my defiance, and I will, on purpose, do the exact opposite.

What got me was the utter lack of responsibility from his side, or acknowledgement that I may have a point (hello, it's real as my feelings are real!).When I said that he patronized, he denied. I even pointed out that there are only TWO people in this world he patronizes: myself, and his younger brother (who is my age). Denial, denial. To the point where, me saying it wasn't enough, so he called his bro up (who was at work, doing his rounds at the hospital for pete's sake, for his residency!). And, asked only one question, "Am I patronizing?", Without hesitation, the bro's response, "Yes, was there anything else?"
And, even after all THAT, he changes his stance to the 'fact' that he patronizes his bro way less than me because he can take care of himself more. WTF!!!
He is convinced that I have made it this far in my life based solely on my looks and personality....that I get everything handed to me, given to me, done for me, and *somehow*, my life is MADE for me. Like, I had no part to play in it, actively, like I have accomplished NOTHING in my life, that I don't know the 'reality of real life yet'. Getting to grad school, if only it was as easy as a smile. And he doesn't see how comments like that is patronizing and disrespectful and demeaning!!! And, after all this 'talk', the straw that broke the camel's back was when, after not finishing my food (which I often don't, as the portions are too large for me), he goes, "pack that to go." Again! Patronizing! I even pointed it out, that he could have *waited* to see what I would do, without telling me what to do! Controlling, demeaning, patronizing. Disrespectful. Done!

1 and half week it's been since the breakfast/talk, he moved away to another city, we didn't talk after the fight (no yelling, or anything...but it was still a dispute), our first one, and I refuse to be the one to call. He called today, hoping to visit, I agreed to meet up.....we shall see if the words got through, or if he's being 'nice' as an act.
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 59 (view)
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/18/2008 9:57:30 PM
kind of relevant, because Adaptational evolution, or evolution via adaptation is the intersection of evolution with adaptation, and evolution is evolution with or without adapatation. In set theory, these are completely different sets. However, the set of evolution via adaptation is a subset of evolution.

Again, this is nonsense. You can play on words as much as you like, but, if it doesn't generate an actual thought in line with the theory you choose to take on (because you have misinterpreted what the theory itself states)...then, all this is nonsensical ramblings.

Evolution is not evolution without adaptation. You'd be leaving out half of the proposed outcome of what evolution achieves. It's like giving half an explanation and still claiming one can understand a concept in full.

I don't know of anything known as evolution VIA adaptation - this is, again, nonsensical. Adaptation via evolution, sure.

So although Darwin may not have used the word "genetic", or used it as we might choose to understand it, he could not have developed a theory of natural selection without it, and so it must have been part of his general world-view.

Ya, this is not a new thought, as it is intuitively true, and has been proven as well. Check up the discourse b/w Darwin & Fleeming Jenkins. At the time, the concept of inheritence wasn't anything new (the fact it is carried through in genes, was shed through the initial works of Mendel, and building on that). However, the common (mis)conception at that time, which was Jenkin's position and thus, subsequent critique of natural selection, was that of the 'blending inheritence theory' (that variations DISAPPEARED over generations, i.e., as generations went on, they would be more uniform). Darwin couldn't reconcile that, esp. in the face of his concept of SEXUAL selection. Interestingly enough, Darwin, even not having the priviledge of Mendel's work (he was before Mendel's time/experiments)...he came QUITE close to the same revelation as Mendel.

RA Fisher (statistics birthfather - Fischer's exact-test and so forth) found a letter of Darwin to Huxley, in 1857:
"I have lately been inclined to speculate, very crudely and indistinctly, that propagation by true fertilisation will turn out to be a sort of mixture, and not true fusion, of two distinct individuals, or rather of innumerable individuals, as each parent has its parents and ancestors."

2) Genetic drift is the process of random change in genetics (inherited traits). Now, if we take 2 gorillas, what will they produce? Another gorilla. Even with natural selection, 2 gorilla will only produce a variant of the original gorilla species. So in order for a new genetic trait to result, a new trait must develop. That trait could develop randomly, or by pressure from the environment. However, if it was via pressure, that would be Lamarckian evolution, not Darwinian evolution. So clearly, in order for any species to develop new genetic traits that weren't present before in the existing species, genetic drift would have to have been in the original theory. So all we have to ask is: are there any examples of this? One answer is the development of thermal homeostatis (warm-bloodedness) in mammals. Mammals developed from reptiles. Reptiles don't have thermal homeostatis. Some of their descendants developed this. But whatever creatures developed any of the genetic traits required for homeostasis, they didn't get it from their parents. So they had to get it from random development of new genetic traits, genetic drift. So genetic drift had to be part of Darwin's vision of evolution.

You haven't understood genetic drift, thus, your examples of the gorilla, and Lamarck, etc, etc, are again, nonsensical & irrelevant.

To put simply, natural selection - non-random, genetic drift -random (yes). But,

So clearly, in order for any species to develop new genetic traits that weren't present before in the existing species, genetic drift would have to have been in the original theory.

Wrong! Nothing of this sort happens. A "new" genetic trait doesn't just POP up due to genetic drift (only by mutation, migration, LGT...remember my previous post, I explained this already!). Genetic drift, as its simplest, is that, not ALWAYS is there 'survival of the fittest', as in, sometimes, by chance, certain individuals leave behind more descendants than others, not cuz they're 'healthier', but by chance survival....and thus, THOSE genes has more chances of being passed on in future generations, which changes the gene frequency in the population, affecting future generations, and so forth. There is no "new" genes relevance in discussing genetic drift. That's a whole different section.

You clearly have not understood genetic drift....but, the example of your analogy with the gorillas made me laugh. :D

As an aside: Mendel was an Augustinian Catholic monk. So not only did he believe in G-d, he believed in the Bible, and all of the beliefs of Catholicism.

And....? What's the point to this? We're looking at the theory/concept/idea, not, therefore, extrapolating the idea to the source of the idea and that, the idea itself somehow connected to the characteristics of the source. That's ridiculous! James Watson, one of the fathers of DNA, says that one can link race with intelligence, and he believed it can be proven genetically (it cannot). Dude was a f-ing racist!If we believe that the idea has to always aling with the source, then, whoever believes in genetics and DNA should hail to racism. Yeahhhhh..... Thus, what Mendel's thought on theology, god, whatever was, is irrelevant to looking at his contribution to the inheritence theory.

Just thought I'd point out this shows that the basis of evolution fits happily with religion.

Um...thanks. Kinda knew that already as my mama is a deeply religious woman, and she also has a PhD in Biological Anthropology, and thus, fully supports evolution. You assumed I would think otherwise, erronously so. FYI, although I learned quite a lot of evolution from school (Uni..even though it's not my specialization, took courses for fun), she was a key teacher of mine too, from quite the young age. My initial interest in this field started quite young when my mom would sometimes take me to her Uni (lab) and they had the coolest creatures (or so it seemed to me) in jars in the lab, skeleton animals, fossils, and other such things. So, no, I'm not brandishing book-learnin' (only) when discussing evolution; as, through her collegues and friends, I got to learn first hand, through dialogue, questioning, discussion. Which has made me realize I only know the surface of evolutionary theory.

The original quote which was the basis of my statement was msg 68 by Is too hot: - scorpio
"That mechanims does not bear any relationship or similarity to the ToE. Nitrogen did not come from carbon because carbon developed an adaptation that helped it survive a changing environment." - Is too hot
Since the adaptation was a development that helped it survive, its evolution was caused by the adaptation, not the other way around. If you want to take Is too hot to task for confusing you, that is your right. If he meant something else, then he should have said so. If he wasn't clear, he should have said so. However, you cannot take me to task for responding to him in the language he used. - scorpio

Why would I take him to task? You have failed to understand what he has said, and, then, out of context, taken a term he used and applied it to another, completely different scenario. That's shoddy! Or, perhaps, you didn't know better. What I think is failing us from progressing in this debate is that you are refusing to accept that there are certain parameters within a debate. For example, you say:

In this case, the jargon of evolutionary biology. You are entitled to tell an evolutionary biologist for using the wrong terms. But this isn't a forum that is specifically only for evolutionary biology. It's for everyone. So I am entitled to use any language that anyone might use.

No. You HAVE to not, 1) used the terms, 2) use them in the proper context. In scientific inquiry, we call them operational definitions. THIS IS THE PURPOSE of this thread, to clear up mis-conceptions. Not, what YOU vs. I define it to be. But, defining the Theory of Evolution, external to opinions, as set by the theory's parameters itself (and thus, clearing up its terminology) to set the base for future debate on this topic (see OP's post). It's like playing a sport and making up your own rules and then saying, 'I win'. There are certain regulations, for a practical reason.

As such, adaption as Is too hot used it, in terms of elements, cannot be logically extrapolated to mean what it does in the context of the Theory of Evolution. They're different things. Word: rose. This rose smells so sweet. The lady rose from her seat.
You cannot hold yourself 'correct' if you fail to recognize that the SAME word MEAN different things in different context. If you want to stubbornly only choose to see 'rose' meaning 'flower' only....that fault is on you. Not the person who has explained that it can mean to rise.

Thus, this is not a totally valid point:

Quite the reverse. I could not understand YOU, because you are not able to distinguish between jargon and language. I deal with computers. I have to translate everything I say into jargon with programmers, and everything into basic English with everyone else. Sometimes I have to do both, because I am often working with people who know some programming languages and skills but not others. So it's again something I take for granted. Sometimes people don't understand everything I say, but if it's because I used jargon, then part of that is MY fault, not theirs. So if I don't understand something you say, I will endeavour to understand it. But I'm not going to go away and get a degree in evolutionary biology just so you can talk in jargon.

The onus of 'fault' lies in the person who has chosen the endeavour to LEARN. By partaking in this debate (and the other one), you are CHOOSING to enter the realm of evolutionary biology (when you want to take it on, counter it)...thus, it is intellectual honesty to practice (or, if not known, to go and learn, or ASK) using the terms as they are meant. You can take on the 'evidence' posited for it...but, not the terms. That's shoddy debating. Terms are set, lines are drawn. Start debating the real meat.

What do you call it when a species dies out due to the introduction of a predator species such as humans, or any species they brought with, or any species brought with that ate their food supply, that were introduced due to the travel to the location of the species of the dodo? I believe that travel of several animals from one location to another is called migration. Please explain how this is not evolution. Please name the theory that explains the origin of which species developed to be at this moment in time, which is often referred to as the Origin of Species. It cannot be evolution, as the dodo is no longer here, and you said that's not evolution. Please provide me with all this, so that I can post it to every website that claims that the Theory of Evolution explains the Origin of Species.

Evolutionary biology makes a distinction for extinction due to (1) natural forces, (2) human activity. Dodos' case falls in the latter. Modern human activity (e.g., guns, etc) cannot be fitted into the natural model for evolution, as modern means of 'man' (and technology) are way too fast for most species to keep up, and dodos, poor suckers were flightless and stuck on an island. This lies solely on the folley of the humans. Such that poaching gorillas and shooting them dead does not mean that gorillas 'are evolving towards extinction'. It is only, and only, the fault of humans.

And, no that is not migration in terms of how it's used in evolutionary biology. Remember where I mentioned migration?

C) HOW are 'new' or 'altered' traits brought about in evolution? By: 1) mutation, 2) migration (between population, or between species), 3) lateral gene transfer (LGT)

Thus, in these terms (Theory of Evolution), migration is only concerned with the movement of genes from one pop. to another. As Mauritius was, at the time when Dodos were there, not inhabited by 'locals'/humans, and isolated, this would make the concept of 'migration' null & void, as there is no 'gene flow from ONE pop. to ANOTHER'.

That is a massively encompassing statement. It encompasses ALL organisms, or only SOME organisms, and SOME organisms would mean that you would have to prove evolution is true on an organism-by-organism basis

Ya, scientific methodology works like this when positing a scientific theory whereas there's such a thing called either testing predictions AND....falsifiability. I.e., a theory is said to have weight when facts (evidence) are tested for reliability & validated, more and more facts where it becomes hard NOT to affirm the theory. However, just like any scientific theory, evolution can still be falsified. We only need ONE piece of evidence that contradicts it, and the cookie shall crumble. Yet to come up with even one, in over 100 years, while the vast amount of evidence has SUPPORTED it. I don't think you truly understand scientific inquiry of empirical investigations. Just like the theory of general relativity states that space & time cannot be separated, i.e., spacetime and that its curvature is dependent on mass-energy and the momentum of a matter and it's radiation. Does this mean THAT EVERY matter has been tested (including matter outside of earth)? Even found? In every state radiational state? No. So, should we not then even consider the theory? That's ridiculous!

*Btw, in mathematics, the concept of theory is used very differently. I.e, it means different types of knowledge in math, or set of statements.

The theory of relativity DOES include the origin of the universe, because relativity has to apply in all places and times, including the origin of the universe! Where did you get the idea that it didn't?

Pray tell, what is the origin of the universe? Remember, singularity is a well-accepted "THEORY"...but we haven't proven without a SHADOW of DOUBT that it was a singularity (Big Bang Theory)...cuz as you seem to say, it's 'only' a theory. So, applying the same rigors you seem to expect out of evoutionary the same for this. Tell me how it works out. Wait, you tried:

The only reason that relativity doesn't typically include a discussion of the origin of the universe, is that it is a mechanism of behaviour, like genetics. It describes how things can change. One doesn't need to discuss abiogenesis or evolution to discuss genetics.

Genetics is a mechanism of behaviour? What? And, EVOLUTION DOESN"T EXPLAIN HOW THINGS CHANGE? Hello...what do you think evolutionary theory IS? Evolution....say it slowly, evo-lu-tion...evolve....change.

There is a similarity between evolution and relativity. If the behaviour of the universe, at any point, was not consistent with relativity, relativity would be proved false. The same would be true of evolution.

Exactly, so, why again are you not considering why relativity doesn't HAVE TO EXPLICITLY state the origin of the universe, but, evolution HAS TO, for the origin of LIFE? I still don't get your distinction.

If I was being intellectually dishonest, this would have been clear from my previous posts, so your first post to me should have been to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty.

It would be short-sighted, and erronous, of me to say you were intellectually dishonest right off the start, as it very well could be that you don't know better. Thus, I can only make the claim in subsequent posts, when I've CLEARED something for you, given you what it means, and you *still* go back to the erronous terms......this then validates that yes, indeed, it was NOT knowing better, but, intellectual dishonesty.

But you have to discuss what is relevant.

You've still not made a valid case for why origin of life is relevant to the origin of species (remember, tackle what origin of species is meant to posit first...understand...then, counter).

If that is true, then you are perfectly right in that you and I cannot discuss evolution, because I ask questions, and I am not satisfied to accept what others tell me unless I understand it for myself. So I'm going to require a pretty high level of understanding about anything, relative to most people I know, because I won't take things on face value, and because when I do, I find it extremely difficult to do even simple tasks in that subject.

There's a difference in being a skeptic, and questioning, and being willfully ignorant to what something IS as it calls itself to be. Tell me, if you meet a dude named John, do you say, "no, I don't believe you're John, I think you're Dave...prove otherwise". You are quite right and accurate to not believe John when he says he is truthful (and thus, he may very well be lying about his name), but, you gotta attack the credibility first, and not simply keep saying, "no, you're not John, but, Dave". This becomes circular. So, if a theory calls itself GOTTA accept what it calls itself, and the definition it gives its terms. You can argue about the context of the theories, but, not the terms. That's surface BS!! Hence, I sugguest that you think of one MORE thing that you need in order for you and I to discuss evolution, and, it's not just 'understanding for yourself', but WILLINGNESS TO LEARN & UNDERSTAND, is the first step.

We've covered how the gears work at least 10 times, and how the brakes work at least 5 times.

Why would you ask HOW the brake worked? Why not ask, why the brake is called a brake? And, why if it is meant to STOP a vehicle, why does different pressure on the brake slow it down vs stop? Why not ask to justify the brake itself first, before jumping to the next stage of HOW it works? You seem to be applying very different criteria to driving than to the inquiry into the Theory of Evolution. Hmmm.....

btw, thanks so much for clarifying I'm a female. :D
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 18 (view)
Is that a Nipple? OH NOOOOOOOOOOO
Posted: 7/18/2008 8:32:58 PM

Why is it that if a females nipple shows, it is considered obscene? Her whole boob can be showing but if the nipple is covered then it's not considered illegal. But if her nipple shows, it's illegal.

I think nipples are like centering (literally & cognitively) of a picture to make it complete. Without a nipple, the shape of the breast is less defined. It centers, thus, completes the picture of the breast....making a breast....a breast. And, thus, making a breast take on 'full form' and be erotic (=obscene, [for some]). Kinda like the phenomenon of glancing at another, somehow, we find the 'center' (pupil), intuitively, as a focus to the face. The nipple is the 'pupil' of the breast.

Obscenity towards the nipple is not new....same reason why Barbie dolls will have breasts but no nipples.
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 5 (view)
Why do some men do not take care of themselves?
Posted: 7/18/2008 8:09:57 PM
okay, um...thanks. I had no idea what toe fungus looked like, so I google imaged. Ya....thanks.

I mean, come on, that's caveman haut!
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 3 (view)
Does good looks triumph every time?
Posted: 7/18/2008 8:06:49 PM
"Does having an excellent body (male or female), make up for less than comparable facial features?"

heck no! face trumps body. body, one can work on (usually) to get it better....face, nope. Unless you wanna look plastic with surgery.

"If a person is physically a "10", will the good looks give the person (male or female) a "pass", re: not being able to keep a job; minimal education; anger issues; questionable character, bad credit, etc.?"

Depends, how bad is their character to how goooooooood is that 10. So, yes & no. Or...maybe.

*I like diving in the shallow end of the pool....hit head every time.
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 220 (view)
Is there a god?
Posted: 7/18/2008 2:35:00 PM

since these are the ramifications of the devil not being real, are you prepared for the ramifications if God doesn't exist?

Pascal's Wager - this is an appeal to selfish self-interest....not a 'good'/pure reason to thus, believe in god.
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 53 (view)
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/17/2008 12:15:41 PM

The theory of evolution via adaptation. I just coined the term to show you that its not the same as evolution.

You keep saying that about everything. Mutation isn't the same as evolution. Adaptation isn't the same as evolution. Natural selection isn't the same as evolution. Etc, etc, etc.

This is ILLOGICAL! They're not mutually exclusive. What is your basis of considering each of these to be MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE to evolution?

First, lemme clear some things for you. The head-honcho in this game is Darwin. Given - with his book, "The Origin of Species"...however.....please....note:

The theory of evolution, as we KNOW IT TODAY, has been added on to from Darwin's (QUITE A HUGE BIT). Hence, where Darwin's major postulation was evolution driven by natural selection, after the birth of genetics (initially ignited by Mendel's work on pea-plants), another contender appeared to explain the process of evolution (NOT AS a contrary to natural selection) but, as ANOTHER explanation on TOP OF - called, genetic drift.


Facts to clarify:

A) WHAT does evolution DO? Evolution leads to two somewhat related phenomenons: 1) adaptation, 2) speciation.
B) HOW does evolution WORK? By the mechanism of: 1) natural selection, and/or 2) genetic drift.
C) HOW are 'new' or 'altered' traits brought about in evolution? By: 1) mutation, 2) migration (between population, or between species), 3) lateral gene transfer (LGT)

**there are more 'terms' but, the quick and easy (most imp.) are above.

So, as you can see, you have haphazardly been using some of these terms, without staying true to what they really mean/are. Please stop using these terms interchangeably or as synonymous with evolution. This is incorrect.


The theory of evolution via adaptation.....I am quite willing to accept that several species resulted from adaptations....However, there are several reasons why a species might evolve, and only ONE of them is adaptation. sense! A species doesn't evolve as a result of adaptation. Evolution allows for ADAPTATION to come about. Adaptation is a by-product of evolution brought about by the mechanism, of say, natural selection!!! Adaptation is a FEATURE that is common in a population which helps the population of species in some way, e.g., mimicry, say, of leaves, by insects.

So, I would humbly disagree that you are at a stage where even any amount of 'proof' (whether it be of adaptation) would be good enough, because one must first understand the concepts on which they speak, before, they can counter/challenge...or even simply understand the proof presented.

Another example of how a species might evolve, in this case, it evolved to extinction

Re: the dodo. Short answer: no! That is not evolution. Please understand terms presented above.


Again, short answer: no! Please understand what the theory of evolution posits. Biological evolution - at its simplest - "change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. " DJ Futuyma, "Evolutionary Biology", 1986....hence....the theory of evolution explains CHANGES in organisms at a population (aka, species) level. Nothing more, nothing less. You can brow-beat it to demand that it incorporate more, but, your whim has no relevance to this. It is what it is. If you ask it to be more, you are practicing intellectual dishonesty by changing the definition of what a theory posits itself to be. Like doing things like this:

1) What Darwin meant by Natural, was that non-Natural means in his day meant "by human hand", and the theory of evolution describes species that lived and died long before humans were supposed to exist. So to Darwin, Natural meant "non-human". But we don't mean that at all.

When we say someone died of "natural" causes, we mean that someone died of old age, or something equally similar. When a group of people dies of smallpox, or diphtheria, we call it an unnatural death. When a group of people die because they are killed by competitors, or eaten by wild animals (predators), we call it unnatural. When an earthquake wipes out a people, or a volcano, we call it unnatural.

2) What Darwin meant by Selection, was that the new species rose to proliferate and the older species became extinct. It doesn't matter how that happened. We'd call that circumstance. But not Selection.

It's like asking the theory of general relativity to include WITHIN it the origin of the universe because there are relevance to it.

No knowledge exists in isolation, but, it is wrong to assume that therefore, each theory cannot exist in isolation. It is a logical impossibility.

Heck, why then do we compartmentalize? Every explanation then, by your logic, should fit into one giant theory, from physics, to biology, to chemistry, etc, etc....

Further, there are several mechanisms for how any species would come about. Yet Darwin's theory of evolution through Natural Selection excludes any possibility for anything other than Natural Selection.

I don't know if you know, but the current theory of evolution is not JUST Darwin's theory of evolution through Natural selection. There has been much added on. MUCH! Like a coupla decades worth of info. Darwin started it. His wasn't the end. Just the beginning....
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 52 (view)
Mistakes evolutionists make.
Posted: 7/17/2008 11:09:39 AM
Both candidates do exist.

Just because you don't believe in McCain doesn't make him any less real to those who do.

Just because you don't believe in God doesn't make Him any less real to me.

Your logic is flawed.

My logic isn't flawed, your argument is. The whole argument was 2 contenders, why not consider both? My point is: ONLY one has proof (evidence) for it.

Your counter is: well, the OTHER ALSO has "proof" (evidence) for's called MY BELIEF.

Belief is not proof (in Science, at least, which *IS* what we are originally talking about, SCIENCE)! I can believe that I fly, jumping off a cliff will correct my belief fast, either way!

So.......they should both be contenders? Cuz you believe it so? I don't think Science coddles beliefs as you think it should. It doesn't have a fuzzy feeling about evolution thus counts it as a contender. It has evidence that supports evolution, making it a contender. The SAME needs to apply for ID (god, whatever the intelligent designer may be named). A BELIEF is not good enough in the realm of Science. Try again!
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 6 (view)
How fast have you fell for a guy?
Posted: 7/16/2008 10:29:12 PM
9.8m/s^2....... worries, like a gentleman, he stepped aside, so the sidewalk can rush up to greet me properly!
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 6 (view)
A Terrifying Realization...
Posted: 7/16/2008 10:27:15 PM
Ah, the ones with the great ideas to change the world....but, are sitting ducks about actually doing it. All talk, no action. Triple dog dare ya!

Your non-neighbourhood ENTP
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 49 (view)
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/16/2008 10:16:35 PM

The fossil record shows very little when it comes to evolution. In fact the fossil record would rather prove a lack of evolution of species.

Care to elaborate? Back that up?

Interbreeding of different species is also not possible for an explanation of evolution.

Who said it was?

But from what I have seen, I believe it would be quite easy for mutations to occur in a number of things over a very short time period, without any 'evolutionary' process involved.

What disqualifies changes occuring through mutation over a short period of time from being an evolutionary process? My answer would be: human intervention (but, not entirely, as flies in labs have been shown to change over short generations, by human intervention, as example of evolution)....but, if these changes occured (somehow - let's assume for arguments sake) naturally...YES, it would STILL be evolution (some may call it, microevolution - over a short time, small # of generations). Mutations are one explanation within the theory of evolution, so I don't understand how mutation = 'without any evolutionary process involved'.
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 48 (view)
Define the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 7/16/2008 10:08:51 PM

You are confusing the Theory of Adaptational Evolution with evolution itself.

I have never, ever heard this term, Theory of Adaptational Evolution...please elucidate.

They died out because they were all in one place, and they all got eaten

Ya, to elaborate... finally humans colonized the habitat of the dodo, and they have never encountered humans (as = predators), thus, weren't instintivelly 'afraid'...and were easily hunted and killed.

Evolution only addresses where some of those species came from, assuming that other species existed in the first place. So it never address the question of The Origin of Species.

You're expecting one theory to encompass EVERYTHING...why is that? Of course it addresses the question of the Origin...OF...SPECIES. Why/how is there speciation?This is the question. What you're really asking for, as others have pointed out, is origin of life (abiogenesis). Evolution assumes that there are many species (it's self-evident). The ORIGIN of this is what it asks. What you're trying to arm-wrestle out of "Origin of Species" is a mis-interpretation (and a play on words). That it doesn't answer how 'species' (as a whole originated)...why would it? If anything, there'd be a more direct word to use for what you're alluding, than the word 'species', Cuz otherwise, I'd counter and ask, what species? which one, specifically? Hence, back to abiogenesis.
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 14 (view)
Things you wouldn't compromise
Posted: 7/16/2008 7:11:48 PM
to the curb as if its like cutting cheese

*snort* you said...cutting cheese.... My theory holds. Guys love bowel movement. Just admit you wanna get in that shyte (literally).
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 12 (view)
Things you wouldn't compromise
Posted: 7/16/2008 7:08:05 PM
As for me, i will never change diapers. I refuse to.

I refuse to change diapers too (never changed one before)! If I have kids, that's what the hubby's for. Besides, ( do no proceed if you find generalizations of genders offensive) - men seem to find more intrigue and humour in fart, shit, bowel movements , etc, in general....I'd think it'd be a natural transition.

She'll have to live with it, or be gone.

Ditto! I carried it for 9 months, pushed that sucker OUT, and gave up the boobies for feeding time! He better wipe that a$$. Least he could do....otherwise, he can hit the curb, while leaving me his whip (with the child-seat inside, please). And, the child-support will pay for a nanny to change the diapers.

What i drive i wouldn't compromise,

Meh, it shall be mine in the end anyways. He can choose whatevvver he wants, as long I get to keep.

and the name of my first born son.

Did you get made fun of in school for your name? Do you not think she'd let you name the little bugger Antonio the 4th, regardless, that it's gotta be stated in the 'no compromise' list? That's very disrespectful towards your own name....have a little more faith, dude!
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 11 (view)
Things you wouldn't compromise
Posted: 7/16/2008 6:49:52 PM
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 28 (view)
Odd behavior from a girl I met on PoF...
Posted: 7/16/2008 6:44:23 PM
if she's got a crazy bodybuilder hubby who she's not yet divorced from, who is stalking her, and if one time, she wants to goad him on, by parading you around........well, just asking, how much do like entertaining trouble? And, how good are you at whoop-ass for self-protection? In the art of war: know thy enemy. Do you know exactly how crazy the hubby is (informed guess would be extrapolating from her craziness)?

As soon as you engage, regardless of if its to placate the little head, the big head needs to know what kinda blow it can stand.......if you engage, you just entered HER psycho zone. So, it's up to you. Do you step willingly into the lion's den cuz you want that juicy meat? Or, decide to hunt for your meat elsewhere?
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 16 (view)
If there was a would he want me to behave?
Posted: 7/16/2008 5:57:02 PM

the bible is right cuz it is written by god. god is true, cuz the bible said so. circular reasoning.

Jesus, as written in the bible (gospels accounting him) do you know he existed as written? You'd think there'd be many tales (BEYOND the gospels) of this great dude, during his time, like, u know, from secular scholars? This is called reliability. Where are these secular scholars? The biggest one put forth, Josephus....and we now know of the debate re: authenticity of his 2 passages. hmmmm
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 49 (view)
Mistakes evolutionists make.
Posted: 7/16/2008 5:50:02 PM

So, if we don't have ALL evidence for evolution, wouldn't it be 'scientific' to at least include the possibility of ID?

Science is conservative. If Science did this, then the possibility that fairies, mermaids, trolls, etc, having been the 'perpetrator' would also have to be as viable an option as ID.

Every evidence, THUS FAR, can be reconciled within the theory of evolution...there are gaps, as is, we don't know YET, but, NO contradiction. Contradiction means, 1) change current theory, 2) posit a new one. Another contender would have to go through the same rigors that evolution went through, i.e., JUSTIFY itself, and its parameters, variables. What ID has in terms of its justification, you can sub in "ID" for fairies, trolls, mermaids....and it would still work. Hence,

I know next to nothing about science, but it seems to me that if you are going to throw a political debate, you invite both candidates. Otherwise......what's the point?

Both the political candidates have to exist, one cannot be the ONLY candidate existing, and the other candidate be a possibility of existing without justification. Who do you vote for? Obama or Klikadakamakadishu, the prince of Zentron, who is said to exist cuz you don't want Obama? That's what your analogy amounts to in the field of scientific inquiry, when you put ID up with evolution.....cuz that's as much logical justification for the proposition of ID there is.
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 48 (view)
Mistakes evolutionists make.
Posted: 7/16/2008 5:43:57 PM
Hey scorpio,

Frog_O_Eyes has already pointed out on other threads that "supernatural" just means that which has not been explained by science. Electricity was once supernatural. So was Quantum Entanglement. So today's supernatural becomes tomorrow's science. Eventually, someone applies science to an area hitherto described as supernatural, and it becomes science.

I don't completely agree with Fro_O_Eyes concept of supernatural. But, I do agree that we can dispute this as there is no concrete definition for what is 'natural'.
But, I alluded in my earlier post to what I meant by 'supernatural'. It is not that which is 'not explained by science'. It is all that is part of this NATURAL, PHYSICAL (and observable) universe. I guess I should have added the observable, thought it was assumed in the physical part. It therefore does NOT mean that it's ALL that is (already) EXPLAINED, but, more specifially, all that CAN BE EXPLAINED by the natural, physical (observable universe) and their laws. Hence, there are MANY things that cannot be explained (yet)....but, the ONLY assumption in scientific methodology is this: the explanation lies within some/any/all the variables within this NATURAL PHYSICAL OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE. Science is very good at saying, 'we don't know....yet'....however, Science WILL NOT, out of its own foundation (it cannot) say, it may be something BEYOND the natural, physical observable universe. This is the same reason why we can't yet really answer what happened before the Big Bang. We are limited by THIS universe. Hence, Electricity CAN be explained using our understanding of the natural, physical observable universe (it couldn't at that time, that didn't thus make it supernatural, if you follow my concept). What *exactly* is the natural, physical observable universe will expand over time and with more knowledge, it won't go the other way, at least not the route of Science (i.e., something 'beyond'...there is nothing beyond; beyond, once understood just extends therefore, the limits of our observable universe...hence, always WITHIN this parameter).

Thus, there's a fallacy in this statement of yours:

Saying a particular question about the world is not the purvey of science is evasion, as science is really the study of the world and the universe.

the last part, EXACTLY, but, then, I'd ask, what exactly are you defining as 'the world, and the universe'? It's not evasion, but, conservative.

I dunno, maybe you think that the ID are extraterrestrials/aliens, who had a hand in 'creating' us into existence. One fellow I spoke with had a very interesting and fascinating thought (re: Atlantis, the lost civilization, and aliens).

It works great, your pov, if we, in science take on an idealist approach of ALL possibilities, endless. Then, even fairies could have done it. Why NOT the possibility of ID? Why should we? Through what proof are we adding this extra variable (of an intelligent designer) without any real justification for it, when, there are no contradictions if explained in the SIMPLEST way....random chance? (Science follows Occam's Razor). Note: gaps in knowledge is not the same as contradictions.

As I made clear, science concerns the understanding and knowledge of the world and the universe. So science DOES hold 2 hypotheses about ID, and neither has been investigated by scientists as true or false. They keep dodging the bullet of having to answer the question in the first place. Not a good thing. For anyone.

Eh? News to me, what are the two hypotheses that Science holds re: ID? Remember, Science doesn't hold a hypothesis that IT COULDN'T be ID (science makes NO comment, either way). So, please elaborate what these two hypotheses are?

I just use a general holistic view of intelligence. But if scientists wish to study ID and want to develop an accepted definition of intelligence in order to do so, I'd be quite keen to see them do it.

And, how do you propose science logically does it? Given, we don't really have any proof of an ID (more a food for thought) given that it is unknown, an extra added variable that is not needed (as the other way still holds its explanation), AND, ON TOP OF all this 'unknown', you are asking Science to still, regardless, DEFINE this? HOW? Logically speaking, how? On what foundation and/or basis?

It's like saying, well we should assume fairies exist. Now, I don't really have proof for them, but, lets set up parameters for how these fairies will look like/be....given, what?

If we assume that evolution happened, then the probability of evolution having happened is 1:1. If we don't assume that evolution happened, then the probability of evolution having happened is the probability that evolution happened. If that is 1 in a million, it's one in a million. (I did Mathematics as a degree, including probability).

Exactly, you understand the 1:1 (your Maths degree, woot!). The second part though (bolded): if we assume evolution didn't happen, then, it didn't happen. Period! You cannot play probability with it, as there is NO DENOMINATOR! The very first statement of yours points towards this. Evolution happened. Thus, 1:1. If it DIDN'T happen, there IS no play on probability anymore, it's null and void, as we cannot predict the CHANCE of evolution out of "all other possibilities". as (1) there are no other possibilities following the rigors of science and scientific methodology (go back to my original point of why ID cannot be considered), (2) we CANNOT know what the other possibilities are. Thus, your bolded statements are irrelevant, if you agree with the logic of your first statement. Either,or.

The probability of getting that order is 1 in 58,922,807,036,507.720947265625. So even if you turned over a card every second, and you never stopped, ever, to sleep, eat, go to the toilet, or even blink, it would still take you a little over 1,867,151 years. .....

You missed the point I was making with the card analogy. It was about what constitutes as 'order' vs. 'not order'. Hence, AD HOC & A POSTERIORI, after a hand is layed out (regardless of its probability), we start to question HOW it could have come about, such a hand (that we consider an ordered sequence). You haven't taken on this point of mine, how do you GO back at something and say cuz it is, it is MEANT to be? On what basis can you connect the two? What is = what is meant to be? That's my example with the card analogy, but thanks for the probability on it, regardless.

I think we're designed for several reasons, but none because we're SPECIAL. But one of them is that I just cannot see how it could be done in only a billion years.

what constitutes reason? whose reasons? why? why is there a need for reason in the first place? what justifies a reason? why justification in the first place? All these assumptions go into the bag that is put forth if you bring along ID (or other counter to evolution). Without a justification, you cannot therefore justify the need for this extra variable.....that would then be neither here, nor there, and thus, anywhere...there would fail to be a system in science, if practised using your assumptions.

"What would evolution do?"

I would never ask that, cuz, again, I don't anthropomorphosize nature to allow myself to 'relate' to it. Nature doesn't exist for ME to relate to it. Nature will continue to exist, whether I understand (can reconcile) or not.
Evolution is not a sentient being. It cannot DO anything. It just IS.

Why it is/acts (acted) the way it did?....that,
(these questions are of course, taken from YOUR assumption of evolution into existence in the first place)

Btw, thanks for this debate, most refreshing. :) Cheers, man!
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 15 (view)
If there was a would he want me to behave?
Posted: 7/16/2008 4:58:36 PM

and more about what I am, in accordance with the people (and society) around me.

Hey shay, to answer your q from my other thread....I guess I'm meaning, who/what/how *I* am, in accordance with others (particular, and/or, general). And, I'd even elaborate it to not only mean people like I said before, but, *all* others, animals, the environment, etc.

To what degree? Well, that would depend on the moment, the specific time-frame. Lived moment to moment. Sometimes, it's as simple as returning to the person in front of me, their dropped change that they didn't notice. Sometimes, it's being kind to those that are full of bigotry and hate, rather than being similarly reactionary back. Other times, it's finding a particular strip of sidewalk littered with garbage, and knowing, I don't have to be in a hurry anywhere, and, picking up all the garbage and throwing it away...for a greater perception of society. Thus, it's not the immediate society I speak of, but, more of a conscious awareness of the web that each interaction in our lives, each moment in our lives, can spur forth. To make it as far-reaching as the world over.

The question might then be: well, if you don't acknowledge god, how do you find a sense of right/wrong, what *is* moral? And, my response would be: it ties back to my original point of 'accordance with others around me'. We are social creatures, that learn through well...learning (experience), through interactions with each other, and, a couple of the bigs ones, are innate in us (evolutionarily so), killing. I don't believe morality is a priviledge given by some external code of conduct. Morality is bound by societal expectations (laws), by interactions with the others around, and the rest is innate within us.
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 27 (view)
It's the little things...
Posted: 7/16/2008 4:37:33 PM
IA with smilee4u, msg #35 (except for the book rec part). It's not about playing games, tho; others I think took that sentiment from her post. But, it's about pacing yourself, without giving it ALL at once right off the bat. It's a give and take. Reciprocity.
So, you give, and, see whether it's appreciated: 1) by his acknowledgement, 2) subsequent action (does he reciprocate?).....don't give, give, give, where you are at wit's end, going, 'but I gave my all...', and then wonder why you do not receive anything for the taking. Why would you expect to receive if your roles have already been determined? The key point in smilee4u's post was:

If you fall in love with a guy too fast, and overcompensate with giving him too much , he will never appreciate your effort.

It was probably a cycle that was already too late to stop. You gave, initially, didn't get the response, so rather than ask, or pull back, you gave MORE (to 'hint' at what you yourself would want, the same type that you're doing for him).....subtlety is sometimes the downfall as you assume that the other's perception of things are just like you.

Thus, wolftx, has a valid point. What is little or big things depends on the perception of the other, and their own expectations of what 'counts'.

I am guilty of missing the signs, or interpreting big things as little things, or inconsequential. A 'friend' went to Afganistan (military) and asked me what I would like him to bring back as he gets to go into the market during the wkends only. My initial (tongue in cheek) response was a hookah (I am a joker, a smoker, and a mid-night toker). He has certain 'judgements' about that every-so-often indulgence of mine, thus, my cheeky response. He's like, 'sure'. But, I felt bad, and my own insecurities about my indulgence, and the fact he's a senior officer, I didn't want him to bring back a hookah. So....I said that I collect foreign currency, and all I want is just some Afgani money for my collection. (I'm thinking, u know, loose change). I have a dinky jar with foreign coins, so thought I'd add to that.
He brings me back crisp bills, one of each, from a 50 to a 10, 000. I'm like, 'wow, thanks so much, but, I collect coins'. (first thought outta my head...didn't mean any harm or anything). His response, 'sorry, lemme check my pants for coins'. He finds a couple and gives them to me. The end. I don't think much on it, until a friend notices that I have all these Afganis in my wallet (I had yet to put them away)...and curious, we go to look up on the web more about Afganis. What he gave me, was worth $300+ CAD.
At that time, we had only been just friends, and knew each other 6 months!!!!
I can't begin to tell you how awful and shamed I felt finding that out. That my first response was, 'thanks but I collect coins', and he NEVER once mentioned what it took for him to get that for me, and actually APOLOGIZED for getting the wrong thing.

Now, had I not looked further into it, I would have continued thinking it was a 'little thing' (my incorrect assumption that since Afghanistan is at war, maybe even 10 000 isn't worth much). And, I appreciated it, as a 'little thing'...but looking further, it's a really big thing what he did. And, I wouldn't have known, as he would have never spoken up otherwise! And, I'm sure he felt unappreciated, but, didn't say a word!

Thus, it's a fine balance, and there's no one fool-proof method of finding out HOW to get it right. Should he have spoken up? Not really, that's not his character to boast ever about what he does for others. Should I have been more sensitive and aware? Of course, but, I'm coming from my own assumptions/expectations/experiences, and it wasn't willful ignorance on my part.
It would be perfect if we could read each other's minds, see each other's actions as THEY mean it to be....but we cannot. All we can do is shape ourselves (not change them) in order to get the desired response we want. And, finally, pick which 'battles' are important enough to make into a big deal (otherwise, it's nagging, and has the opposite of the desired effect). And, be aware that once in a while, we should FORCE ourselves to walk in the other's shoes, and ask questions like, 'why? what motivates them to do X, not do Y...' Maybe that will bring you closer to figuring out why your SO is not motivated to reciprocate, or, make you aware of things he DOES do, in his own way that shows he cares, or, perhaps....he may not know any better (innocently ignorant).
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 45 (view)
Mistakes evolutionists make.
Posted: 7/15/2008 6:49:38 PM
For all those of you who claim to follow Science, Science believes in giving clear definitions for all things, whether it is true or false. So if Science has any validity, then just for the sake of clarity alone, it will come up with a definition for the hypothesis that evolution required an intelligent guiding directive to arrange that the effects that are not determined, such as the exact occurrence in time, space and nature of environmental factors, and genetic alterations, were arranged in such a way as to lead to the exact set of evolutionary changes that led to the current view of how evolution developed over the course of the Earth.

1) science MAKES NO COMMENT (either way) on the supernatural...IT CANNOT thus, cannot hold it as a variable for consideration. If it did, it would not be science, thus, it CANNOT hold the hypothesis you posit it should, like ID. Science deals with all that is in the NATURAL, PHYSICAL WORLD, ONLY. NO COMMENT BEYOND.

2) what is 'intelligent'? That would depend on what YOU/I (humans) see as chaos vs. order. No?

3) Your line of thinking applies a posteriori & ad hoc reasoning to probability that...has...already...occured. Guess what the probability of evolution occuring was?

Yup! It's like this. You got a deck of cards, and you shuffle them thorougly (and let's say the shuffling is completely RANDOM).

You start flipping the cards, one by one, shuffle and do over, again and again.... for a very very very long time (like, umm...say, billions of years). ONE OF THOSE TIMES, you will get: ace, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, jack, queen, king. In that ORDER.
What is the probability of this occuring? 1:1. The cards themselves don't know that that was 'order'...there was no 'intelligent' driving force for THIS ONE HAND, vs. all is in the a posteriori, after the existence OF, that, the definition of order is applied. By us. Looking back at an event ALREADY happening....

As A HUMAN BEING with an ABSTRACT, CRITICAL-THINKING brain, will say, AFTER seeing this, "AHA! THAT IS ORDER!" Cuz you have an ASSUMPTION of what ORDER looks like...i.e., living thing existing, evolving, and well....just being able to start to exist & live is "order". Says WHO? That's human arrogance at its worst. What makes you think we're something special? That we're SOOO great that there MUST have been an intelligent cause to us?

There's an inherent assumption of what 'order''re anthropormorphosizing here.
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 42 (view)
Mistakes evolutionists make.
Posted: 7/15/2008 6:00:57 PM
kaagwaantaan, there's a difference between the word theory in colloquial language, and its meaning in the scientific field. Scientific theory is NOT the same as theory, and thus, it doesn't rely on 'weight' (whatever that means) of one versus the other (law).

To put simply, the difference between laws and theory is: law explains what IS, while theory postulates the HOW (i.e., how it came to be). And, of recent, the word 'law' is being less used in science, because we cannot know anything to be absolute truths (this would assume that: (1) knowledge is finite, (2) we have reached a finality in all knowledge.)

Thus, all we can have is a scientific theory that gets validated by evidence and instances, again and again and again, as soon as there's a contradiction to it, it will change itself accordingly. Thus far, NO EVIDENCE has come up that contradicts evolution. Not ONE.

This is called being conservative in science. Since, we can't say that we have found ALL evidence of evolution (e.g., ALL fossil records to exist), we cannot say with an absolute certainty...hence, scientific theory. As well, theory IS NOT THE same as a hypothesis (I know you didn't mention this, just adding it on).
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 10 (view)
If there was a would he want me to behave?
Posted: 7/15/2008 5:13:54 PM
he (or she) would want me to stop worrying more about what HE is/thinks, and more about what I am, in accordance with the people (and society) around me.
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 138 (view)
What did YOU do wrong in your last relationship?
Posted: 7/15/2008 5:11:08 PM
my awsomeness was in discord with his awsomeness. No wrong, no right. Not more (right), less (wrong) [or vice versa].

Just a discord.
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 219 (view)
Is there a god?
Posted: 7/15/2008 5:09:09 PM
what came first?

Humans or god?

Hypothesis #1: we exist *because* god exists. We are proof of god's existence

Hypothesis #2: god exists *because* we exist. God is proof of the human's abstract mind.

Occam's razor, if applied, Hypothesis #2 is left standing.

Would god ever have been thought up if humans didn't have a critical, abstract mind?
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 41 (view)
Mistakes evolutionists make.
Posted: 7/15/2008 5:01:30 PM
kebram, your understanding of evolution isn't very evolved. And, your bias is clearly evidenced by you calling them 'evolutionists'. There is no "ISM" in the theory of evolution. There is NO such thing as evolutionism. It is NOT a stop trying to parallel (thus, pit) it against other ISMs like religions.


First, it seems that people confuse natural selection with evolution. While NS does make changes in a species over time, it does not change a species. In previous post, someone brought up giraffes. NS might make their necks longer and heads harder (insert joke here lol) but it won't take a rabbit and over time change it into a giraffe. The most you might get is a rabbit with a long neck. Hardly the same thing genetically. So, while NS is pretty indisputable, it is not proof of evolution anymore than finding a nail in a tree is proof that trees evolved into houses.

As someone already mentioned, NATURAL SELECTION IS part of evolution. It is a law within the theory of evolution. The other big one is genetic drift. Just like the theory of relativity uses laws of physics. Secondly, it is ERRONOUS to say that natural selection MAKES giraffes' necks longer. Natural selection as a law predicts that those giraffes with longer necks will be selectively at an advantage over those with shorter necks, hence, over time, the giraffes with longer necks will win the 'survival of the fittest' game, and that trait - long necks, gets passed on.

Why the heck would a rabbit turn into a giraffe? That's illogical and a ridiculous analogy. You'd understand WHY if you understood an iota about evolution.

Second, I once saw a statistical work up of all of the species of all the different branches of life out there. I really don't remember the numbers but the point of the story was that the number of mutations it would take to create (sorry... evolve.. account for) all of the species we have today would require multiple mutations per second since the beginning of life here on earth.

This assumes that MUTATIONS are the ONLY thing giving rise to new traits, hence, species. NOT TRUE. Understand genetics, and the many nuances within it.

In my opinion, the BEST argument against evolution is The Second Law of Thermodynamics. This is one of the most accepted laws in all of science and applies to everything. Basically stated, it states that left alone, all matter will decay to it's simplest form. "The most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves." For evolution (as it is taught today) to be true, this law has to be broken EVERY time something became more complex. Even if lightening created some basic molecules, they would quickly decay into atoms again and eventually (over eons) to subatomic particles

First, HOW the HECK are you even applying the laws of thermodynamics to how LIVING THINGS develop and their origins? This is a fallacy!
Secondly, you MUST account for probability when discussing the law of thermodynamics...which you skimmed, but, failed to *connect*. The probability of X occuring within ONE system, cannot be extrapolated to have the same probability of X occuring in a different system (with different sets of variables/factors, and their differential interactions).

My studies of physics and astronomy and later the human body are what led me back to my faith. I am not saying that the above proves there is a God. Just that, at the very least, evolution was directed

Maybe you should go back and study all those things again. I don't think you did a very good job the first time around.
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 1 (view)
Negatives of being in a relationship with a nurturer/caretaker/'protector'-type - patronization
Posted: 7/15/2008 4:29:08 PM
Has anyone who've been on the receiving end of a relationship with a nurturer/caretaker/protector-type experienced feelings of being patronized? Was wondering if this a common by-product of the dynamics of such a relationship.

Secondly, if 'yes' to the first, then, how have you dealt with it?

Thirdly, if your way of dealing with it has been to let the other know, what has been their reaction, or, the outcome? Has any of them denied being patronizing? Or cannot understand WHY you may complain about it, when all they're trying to do is 'take care'/help you, for your "own" good? I.e., do they fail to see that it's a matter of respect?

Fourth, does it play out differently, depending on the gender of the nurturer/caretaker?

* It points to underlying control issues. And, these types also have this subconscious thought of 'I know best/I am right'. (IMO)

Finally, to those who may identify themselves as the ones who *are* the nurturer/caretaker in the relationship....what are your thoughts on this issue? Do you feel you've ever patronized? Did you feel it was your right/priviledge to do so, as a by-product of taking "care" of the other?
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 16 (view)
How would you like a man to approach you in public?
Posted: 7/15/2008 3:51:23 PM
make eye contact (BRIEFLY), walk casually towards the toilets.

Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 4 (view)
Posted: 7/15/2008 3:44:48 PM
resolve it by coming to the center of the spectrum. Quit playing at the extreme ends. Either way.
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 20 (view)
Girls who I don't know taking photographs
Posted: 7/15/2008 3:31:29 PM
Are any of the pics taken of you, upskirt pics?

Cuz that'd be haut.
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 289 (view)
Soulmates? Do they / can they exist??
Posted: 6/23/2008 2:00:27 PM
If one is to believe in the reality of an existence of a "soul", I don't know how the logistics of the soul would work. Can there only be one?

If one is to believe in the abstract, philosophical, deeply empathetically felt emotion of what it is to have a soul-mate, then, not only do I think a soulmate is *possible* (which makes them exist), but, multiple ones are there. However, it would depend on many factors, summarized by: time and space (yours, his/hers: physical, emotional, mental space). Is the time right for you both to cross paths? Are you in each others space, {enough to allow the possibility of him/her being seen as a soulmate}, to begin? Are you receptive (emotionally, mentally)? And, all this, if it comes together, and, we accept that the person is a possibility, and work each day to make that possibility into a reality....leads towards spiritual revelation. In the form of finally believing that soulmates can exist. And, as such, there cannot be "THE ONE", the "OTHER HALF". It doesn't exist, the possibility exists, and we create the reality of this possibility in another person, by allowing ourselves (and them allowing us), to get to that stage of spiritual revelation. Or...move on.

To not be able to explain to another outsider, what it is like to have a person love you that way, to be able to look at them and know that they will never give up on you, that they'd give a part of the hard-earned soul (the mutual *soul* b/w you two, that got created as a possibility), if they stay connected. Good, bad, ugly. And, all because they know you feel exactly the same.
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 42 (view)
How do you respond to the how much do you weigh? question?
Posted: 6/18/2008 2:46:43 PM
I guess everyone's idea of what is "average" what is "bbw" and "few extra pounds" etc is different.

I've also found issues with being classified into such stringent categories, as well. I think a picture (esp. full body shot) is worth a thousand words.

Not that I personally care to enjoy this site for seeking dates, still....when it came to filling out the categories, the quick and dirty way may perhaps be Body Mass Index calculations. Underweight (=thin), normal weight (=athletic/average, depending on muscle tone), overweight (=a few extra pounds), Obese classes: I,II & III(=BBW).

But, again, may be still up for interpretation.
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 46 (view)
deeper meanings and intimacy for men
Posted: 6/18/2008 1:32:18 PM
July Morning, for what it's worth, out of all the posters who have addressed me on these forum threads, you're the first (and only, so far) one who has addressed my nickname correctly. Most interpret it as a 'g', not a 'Q', we're working with something here. You're not that bad. lol. :D

Second, it may very well be my writing. I have been told that sometimes my writing resembles a random stream of consciousness. It's sometimes hard for me to succintly sum up all the different thoughts/ideas/connections going on in my head...and it just splats out as a jumble. I rarely go back and re-read to see if it makes 'sense' (I save that for schoolwork). So, the 'blame' may very well be on me.

But it seems that the more intelligent the woman is, the less they are likely to speak so I would understand them.

Third, 'intelligent' may be manifested in different forms. More/less then becomes again...quite subjective; and, contingent on the definition of 'intelligence'. It may be that you are wrongly assuming I am intelligent just because you don't understand me. It could very well be that you don't understand because I am unintelligent. So could be your Gr 9 teacher. Not Funny_Girl (the B&W pic lady, she's awsome and insightful). :P

Fourth, there's quite the debate on the concept of Absolutes (beyond it being a definition of god) in philosophy. Can absolutes ever really exist? What *is* absolute? And, another sub-group in philosophy devoted wholly to knowledge. Epistemology. Knowledge? What is it really? Kant, Hegel & Nietzsche went at it like dogs in heat over these ones.

Thus, perhaps (as I can't say that with *absolute* certainty :P) we all come at things with a subjective perception (it's inherent, and can't be helped), and our supposed 'knowledge' may then, again, be up for subjective evaluation. And, *that* will then determine to what extent we 'get it', or, don't. This doesn't point towards a comparative quantitative deficit of intelligence. Me MORE than you. You MORE than me. Etc, etc. All it does it points towards the diversity of humans: in experience, in personality, in outlook, in expectations.

When talking to a quantum physicist about what he does (I asked)....I started to get the same glazed look,and all I could conjure up in terms of application of his words were ocean waves in my head, with a haut surfer dude riding it, with very low-hanging-ass-cheeks-peeking wet shorts. I don't think he was talking about that kinda 'wave'. You will say, 'duh, expected'. Interestingly enough, I got the same glazed look when my best friend's kid bro started to explain to me the nuances of the video gaming world.

It merely points to the existence of a discord in perception, not any qualitative or quantitative commentary on each of our ability to perceive. So, cheers to finding people who have the ability to confuse us. It just means no one can know it all, as 'all' very well may not exist, in the first place.

What do you think causes this?

Is there even a cause?
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 21 (view)
I do have a weird question
Posted: 6/17/2008 1:01:22 PM

So the question is why do women get upset when a guy reject her after she done rejected him once?

I was this woman. I rejected someone initially, became friends, and then fell for him. And, on this board, I was pretty much taken to task and gleefully laughed at (mostly by men) that I got my 'just desserts'. Methinks those reactions stemmed from their own bitterness at this 'dating game'. Whatever.

One key difference is the course of the friendship. He wasn't my emotional outlet that I ran to, and then, discard whenever to go to another guy. I wouldn't do that.

All that being said....your original question. I think you have mistakenly put TWO
different strings of thought together which cloud a true intention (due to your own feelings, self-preservation, what have you).

So the question is why do women get upset when a guy reject her?

Logical reason: the person you like doesn't like you back

after she done rejected him once?

Because she found out more about you, and, for what it's worth, it may be a 'deeper' like than those that happen at initial (physically motivated) meetings. It's the 'got to know a person, and I like that PERSON' kind of like. I would think that's pretty special.

If you are that hung up on the rejection the first time around, you are going to be motivated to see every and all subsequent situations through that lens.....does that make for a good friendship?

* I can't understand why some people seem to assume that human beings are some static objects, without any change, introspection and growth, over time, taking place. Meh.
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 40 (view)
deeper meanings and intimacy for men
Posted: 6/17/2008 12:33:34 PM
rpatters, it's like you are describing me and *my* frustrations to a tee!! (except, I'm a girl to your guy in the scenario)

Say you are a pretty laid back type of guy and you meet a girl and hit it off and for a while things are great. But the more you get to know them, issues start popping up here and there and they start to build. At first it is little things. Being laid back, you let them slip by and figure it's not a big deal.

Yet it keeps happening and it's starting to get frustrating because she is complaining about things that she does herself, yet you don't mention them. Finally you try to be mature and explain yourself because you are supposed to communicate your problems. You inform her that she does the same things and you let it slip by and would like the same respect. Well that back fires and now it turns into an argument and you can't help but think you are arguing over something stupid, but in trying to drop the argument you are come across as being insensitive... basically you can't win.

For me, the other person thinks that because I let things go, 1) either I didn't notice it, 2) I'm being a push-over. What they fail to pick up is that, if I have invested enough to form a relationship where such an interaction is to occur, it means that I do give the other person the benefit of the doubt to be a 'good' person.
I.e., I am trying to give them *chances* to disprove their doucheness, out of their own accord. And, I will randomly point towards it. Like, after a certain comment, "just thought you'd like to know, there are 10 ways to say one thing." And, I leave it at that.

However, most take it as a power-trip to keep pushing. So, I finally put my foot down, fairly, AND, calmly start bringing up examples of the very things they have issues with ME about, which I've quietly been filing away that THEY do as well.....and the defensiveness starts. Like, "fine, you can leave if you want, I'm not making you stay..."

So, I walk away....which makes me a cold, heartless b*tch. (bangs head against wall)

I don't think there's one expression of intimacy, and most times, people's own expectations and their own subjective definitions of such abstract terms, binds them from seeing *intimacy*, if expressed in other forms.

I personally have been made fun of by girlfriends, and, called weird by guys, because I don't really get into hand-holding, cuddling, hugging, etc, etc. I even sometimes believe that I have "issues" with intimacy. And, now I've realized, nope, I just express them differently. Intimacy is about a level of connection. Touch is a connection. But does that mean that touch=intimacy=cuddling,etc? How about if a person shows affection (intimacy) by playfighting? I do this a lot...I'll gently punch/poke the guy's stomach, and when he asks why, I just tell him, 'because I like to touch you'. I ask if it hurts him, and if so, then I'll apologetically stop (it doesn't, I know how gently I do it, they're taps!), to which he says 'no', however....and this is what gets me, 'it's weird!'

He can't understand why I can't touch in 'other ways'.

I *could*, for the other person's sake,....but, question becomes, why can't it be accepted that THIS OTHER form can be an EQUAL expression of intimacy as well? And, if I don't cuddle, hold hands or hug doesn't mean that I, 1) either don't care, 2) don't know how to show intimacy.

Maybe we should stop projecting our expectations onto others (to a degree) and see the THOUGHT behind the actions, in its own isolation.

IMO - Deeper meaning is revealed, subjective from experience to experience, it is not fitted into the mold; if it does, it fails to have that meaning.
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 17 (view)
Why am I unconcerned?
Posted: 6/12/2008 9:55:05 AM
This struck a chord with me.

Now, it could be that you have unconsciously anticipated that relationships in general are bound to failure (as per your history of 'very little success in the love stakes'). Thus, this demise was a confirmation of something that you already had assumed (perhaps for self-preservation, or, out of routined expectation).

Or, as others have said, maybe the depth of the feeling for HER, although in certain actions, felt *deep*, maybe was superficially so, and, being put 'to the test' brought to the surface the true depth of the feelings. When tested....

Or, and this is where it strikes a chord with me, and, this would depend on your personality.....sometimes, I don't always FEEL what I know I'm SUPPOSED to feel. Does that make sense? It puzzles me greatly too, because logically, I KNOW I should feel hurt or jealous or angry or sad.....and I get puzzled when in situations, friends would say, 'were you pissed?', I'm like, 'umm, yeah, I guess so' (but, more out of an expectation of an emotion, rather than an emotion itself). I'm not talking Autism Spectrum Disorder and such where the cause of the manifestation is quite different than what I think is my case. To me, if the person is truly meant to be with me, they'd be there, out of their own volition, not due to any confounding of external (other) factors, like another person, etc. So, it's more like, 'huh, I guess we are not meant to be'...I'm more intrigued by this realization, than about any emotions that may or may not be evoked by the realization. Like, I'm more interested in our personalities, and figuring out what was discordant, in accord, etc...for a learning experience. I never really get to the emotion (even with someone, of recent, that I KNOW I really really liked, a WHOLE lot). But, the idea that they may be with someone else, my first thought is, "that sucks for me", then, "hmm, wonder who she will be? wonder how their story will go?" Then, nothing.

I guess my question is, it is a an infalliable rule that emotions, without exception, will have to be evoked in order for a feeling to be true? Otherwise, are the feelings not 'real'? From my case, I don't think this rule is true. But, I don't find many like me.

And, it's ever harder for those that I really like to understand that I DO care, have feelings, because of the lack of emotions that are (not) there. I'm pretty mellow and chill (people are often intrigued by how laissez-faire I am about most shyte in life), it's really hard to ruffle me up. I pretty much have 3 moods; most often, complacent (to happy), exhuberant (laughing out loud), and if something triggers negativity...straight to anger (0 to 60 type). Anxiety or frustration is there, but, rare, and, this is bad, but, my way is I just avoid it (working on this). And, sadness...I can't even recall the last time I felt sad, mostly in abstract sense I feel sad, like news, or movies, but, never 'real'. I get quite puzzled by my 'unconcerned' ways too....and would like help in figuring out how to overcome it. Or, why this is so.
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 16 (view)
Blocking someone without contact?
Posted: 6/12/2008 7:54:21 AM
I have blocked PLENTY. But, I think my case is 'different'. It's not meant to be offensive to the blocked (but, I'm sure they think it that way - naturally)...but it's more for my own alleviation of annoyance.

I'm here for the forums, and I love getting mails re: issues or topics that were brought up in forums. Thus, I initially didn't have ANY restrictions on who could contact me....but, was innundated by 'intimate encounters' emails, and, deleting the messages didn't do anything, as they'd try contact again...or IM. So, I started individually blocking, and still had the problem. So, restriction, no intimate encounters. Then....the married/prefer not to say started to happen, same thing as before, initially I would look at the profile (before opening the mail) and if I see married/prefer not to say....I just delete email. Persistent buggers they blocking starts. And, now finally, I've added the restriction of no married/prefer not to say. Kinda sad cuz one time a person did contact me who was married but it was completely re: a point brought up in a forum thread (which is what was my aim is in the first place). Oh well.

I mean, how lack of interest can my profile be, there's 'prefer not to say' in most categories, with a two line blurb, with EXPLICIT mention of 'here for the forums'. I don't think most even attune themselves to the vibe of a profile. Ah well.
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 29 (view)
If you could...
Posted: 4/24/2008 7:33:44 PM
my grade 6 crush.... I would like to go back and kick him in the shins like I almost succeeded in doing, but, he was faster, and plowed me into the snow. A$$-HAT!
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 21 (view)
Men who HATE sports...
Posted: 4/24/2008 7:30:50 PM
hate sports? as in playing or watching? Or both. And, how about sports & being cerebrally stimulating. One can be both. Well-rounded....

And, one can love sports - currently hockey season is on, so he's glued to the tv :(, plays EVERY sport there is, his garage is like a sporting equipment store....

And, is one helluva chess player as well. And, I have yet to see anyone beat him at jeopardy. Or, a political debate. I beat him in a philosophical debate, though.

Well-rounded is the most charming. But, if I had to choose so that it's sports VERSUS cerebral pursuits. The latter, hands down...Minds sharp.
Joined: 1/10/2008
Msg: 34 (view)
Signing your life away for love
Posted: 4/24/2008 10:51:17 AM
Yup. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. (mentality)
Show ALL Forums