Omar

Then don't go... If you need an excuse, tell them you couldn't go because you were sick. If you say it was diarrhea, it'll be embarrassing enough and they won't think you're making it up. Is your ex going to be there anyway?

Michael Manring tonight. Stoked. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eTBc7aWBGw [Edit] Blew my mind... The crowd was small considering he's the best solo bassist in the world according to many, around 30 people. The show was at a church ("it's kind of weird to boogie at church, right?"). He plays piece after piece seamlessly and takes occasional breaks to talk. Shook his hand on the way out, and my bass teacher got the back of the headstock of his axe signed. Awesome guy, super humble, pretty much thought we were doing him a favour. By contrast I don't really consider myself a bass player anymore :lol:

You can get extensions if they don't fit your neck but they're good in the chest and sleeve. In my experience thrift shops have more of the bigger sizes than anything else though... http://www.valetmag.com/ask-valet/valet-concierge/2011/collar-button-extenders-040711.php?rss

When you reboot something thinking "oh what's that going to fix" and it works.

I don't think he's listening anymore...

I think relationships are mono by default. What this changes is that you have to explicitly reserve exclusivity. Probably not the same issue as earlier.

Disagree. Why do we wonder whether a relationship is mono or poly to begin with? Because if someone dates on the side while the other person expects this not to happen, tensions will arise. The question is not what the relationship actually is, but what the other person thinks it is: that's the real crux of the issue. If you show up to a rendez-vous with several women who weren't expecting it and you're like "What? this is a poly relationship!", you're throwing a curveball, because people assume otherwise by default. If you don't explicitly reserve exclusivity, you implicitly promise it, or at least you send the message that you are making that promise, whether you want to or not. I think it's not honest to pretend you're unaware of those rules or that you're above them, because we use such codes of social conduct every day.

Guys it was a joke, you can still abbreviate it as monogam. Seriously though, on what you^ were talking about, it's pretty simple: the promises (explicit or not) made are mono, the reality of the events is poly. I don't see where the question lies.

I think he can do whatever he wants with his money, but he said casual/work...

You guys are making monogamy sound like a disease with your abbreviations...

First of all, it's not a Shakespeare quote. Second, the idea was originally that if you want revenge, you should wait so that your judgement is not clouded when you right the balance. Finally, a revenge long feared or one which strikes unexpectedly is more painful according to some interpretations of the proverb.

From the article I've been talking about: Of course, no one keys their boss's car to strengthen social bond. I guess it's more of a "ruse of reason". Again, hard to say without the study on hand (this is Fehr referring to previous work, so I might have some luck finding it). The law seems to be a suitable replacement.

Here's one example of the kind of humorous absurdities a teleology of sex leads to. Just kidding, it's actually kind of disheartening. Thankfully, not everyone that stupid thinks they're a philosopher.

I purposefully avoided that word lol

That's interesting. Can you give us some examples?

No it's not. Something is only for something if someone created it with that purpose in mind. You'll have a hard time convincing anyone that's true in the case of sex. Besides, using a brick to knock a dangerous criminal unconscious is not using it properly, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

Surely, but I don't know that's true. Wait and see. It's terribly difficult to say because I can't find the actual study anywhere, really. But is someone who is that angry motivated by pleasure? Is there only a difference of degree here?

Like I said in our discussion in the relationship thread, revenge is apparently not clearly born from cloudy judgement. And again like I said, money is easier to quantify, but it's still remarkable.

That has landed me in trouble before...

Shit, I had written "No hard feelings" somewhere before I rephrased. Point is, we can go back and forth about whether revenge is useful or not, but we're not going to get anywhere.

Squab, that's not what that word means. According to wikipedia, a decision is rational if it is optimal to solve a problem or reach a goal. You're getting riled up because you think rationality is good. It's not. I wasn't saying what he did was right, wrong, good, or evil, and I don't think such a thing can be said objectively. I was saying muggi's analysis was incorrect insofar as the desire for revenge is not simply a desire which overrides others (the desire for happiness, namely) and which yields less than it removes by taking priority. That would be irrationality: taking the course of action which is not optimal for solving a problem.

That's exactly the kind of reply I don't want to see. That's an opinion which may or may not be corroborated later on.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the "monogamy crowd" will bash him harder.

http://forum.tip.it/topic/192134-i-want-a-girlfriendboyfriend-and-other-such-relationship-advice/page__st__12480#entry5289284 Following a discussion on whether it is a good idea to give into our desire for vengeance, I call upon you, OT. Tell us the following: if you've ever avenged yourself (or someone else, please specify) for a perceived slight... In response to what did you do it? How? When? Do/did you regret it? When did the guilt kick in? In any case, on a scale of one to ten, ten being very hurtful and one being not hurtful at all, how would you rate the injury and the revenge? Did the person with whom you evened things out reciprocate? Also, have you ever been on the receiving end? Did this make you want to reciprocate? Did you? I'll be keeping track of this and I'll post results when I feel like I've got enough data. Post away!

People can become better or worse depending on their actions and the values used to judge them. You can become a better person according to your own values, and since that's what matters in the case of the reddit thread, I disagree with Low and I think the question is worth asking. I don't think it would make him a better person, but I don't know it won't. It's definitely making him feel good right now. If he never ends up suffering the consequences of his actions, this will have made him a better person in that he'll be that much closer to happiness, or at least not worse off. Short answer is no, but I don't believe the opposite either, and I'm hoping a poll will answer the question.