Omar

I think we can agree on that.

They were married in 1978. As I've said in the past, long-term monogamy was much more "successful" until the 1990s due to social norms and legislation. Additionally, the rarity of a "successful" long-term monogamous relationship further suggests that one shouldn't expect such things to happen. It's not unreasonable to shoot for it though. It's just a matter of making your luck. Also, I think it's probably at least a little bit short-sighted to say individuals are entirely determined by the society they live in; you are what you do, and to a certain degree, you do what you want. I don't know if nowadays it's fair to say this degree is large enough to allow you to become a valid candidate for monogamy, or if it's worth the trouble considering polyamory as an alternative, but my point is if you don't try, you definitely won't get there.

I don't want to throw oil on the fire again, but monogamy can work.

I think they're ugly on both guys and girls.

Hunters use wax to make cotton jackets resistant to thorn scratches and waterproof them. That would seem like the time-tested option to me. I don't like waterproofing sprays because you never know if it's really still on or not, whereas wax stays on for a really long time.

Go on? [Edit] I think it's a little dumb to be overly conscious and methodical about seduction, but I've used negging "automatically" and it worked for me... How certain are you that it was the negging that did the trick? Oh, and what do you mean when you refer to the term 'negging'? I think because of its ambiguous nature, it could be causing confusion/disagreement here. It's essentially all I did. But maybe you're right and I'm just particularly good-looking or something; I don't know, but at any rate I didn't [bleep] things up with what I said. I didn't go up to a random girl and ask her if she felt she was too fat as illustrated in the comic; it was more of a ball-busting thing, but like Muggi said that isn't the question. What's really relevant is how you become the kind of person that spontaneously says such attractive things and whether that's really the key to feeling good. I'd just like to point out I've only done this three times (I think), so I don't end up sounding too full of myself. All I'm saying is it works sometimes, in response to Tim.

Don't mean to be the retired player who scolds those who still haven't seen the light, but no-lifing is not a positive thing. Unless you're doing this as a kind of Supersize Me thing?

Go on? [Edit] I think it's a little dumb to be overly conscious and methodical about seduction, but I've used negging "automatically" and it worked for me...

I feel like stories are a really great way to make your opinion look like the truth.

I would go for the hot one. I mean, if I had to choose, I'd end up in a relationship that wouldn't last at any rate.

That surprises me to be honest. That does not sound like you at all :blink: What do I sound like? That sentence seems to carry more anger and emotion than it actually does. Well not really someone who would sing. As Jeff said, it's actually kind of my thing.

That surprises me to be honest. That does not sound like you at all :blink: What do I sound like? That sentence seems to carry more anger and emotion than it actually does.

I sing when I'm on a deserted street. Can't sing at home, my mom can't watch TV when I do. Come to think of it I rock out a lot more when I'm home alone, get the foot on the table and crank up my amp. I also dance.

The question isn't whether determinism exists or doesn't, or whether it can be a true scientific theory; it's that it might, and that someone might be held responsible for a wrongdoing despite the fact that external causes (such as mental illness, when pleading insanity wasn't an option, or an upbringing under a different moral system) could be at work. @Jonananas: I am indetermined in my point of view, but I am not in yours. You can't afford to hold me responsible for something that might not be my fault.

Here's a problem: - determinism is the idea that everything is predetermined, and that if one knew the position of all particles, and the laws which rule over them, one could predict the future. - there is only one possible future if determinism is true. - there is a reasonable chance that it might be. - therefore, there is a reasonable doubt that anyone could be objectively responsible for their own actions. Mental illness could result in a murder, for example, but also in forgetfulness in everyday life. Subjectively, one can affirm their own freedom. Here's a rough translation (French-English) of a text I found on the matter: [hide=http://lebrindherbe.free.fr/index.php?id=30]Determinism is an astonishing hypothesis. First of all, because it is true. Or at least we should hold it to be true: all arguments agree with it, none don't. Next, one must understand what it says: namely, that nothing is possible, except for one thing, one future. The concept of possibilites is an illusion. The world stands as one, past, present, and future [...]. In concrete terms: I think I can do this or that, but it is untrue: I "can" only do one thing. And yet, we feel and we witness that we are "free". That is indeed the most astonishing aspect. How can life and action be possible if possibility is a mere illusion? It is on that very basis we act every day. What is possible? That which is not impossible. [Rough:] What is possible is what cannot be stopped. I can go over there–there is no wall. But the concept of impossibility is absolutely legitimate [in contrast to possibility, which if determinism is true is actually a necessity]. The concept of possibility really refers to incertitude: what is possible is what we don't know to be impossible. [...] [Will John become a movie director? It's possible, because I can't hold anything which might stop him from becoming a movie director (like heart failure) to be certain.] Better yet : what seems possible is indeed effectively possible, but only to me. Therein lies a paradox, because there is a circularity. My brain is involved in the process, and as such possibility to it. For in its point of view, it must be erased : a machine cannot integrate itself in its own calculations. I cannot be data in the problem; I cannot be an independant variable, because I am a dependant variable. Which is all a rather complicated way of saying that the eye is not within its own field of vision. I am indeed free, but only in my point of view. Only in the moment during which I think, because this thought will determine my action and thus the futur. For anyone else, I am not free. Freedom exists in the point of view of a man or of any acting machine. It does not, however, existe in the "point of view of nowhere", which is usually the point of view science takes. One could speak of subjective indeterminism to refer to this liberty. It seems to me that this is a rigorous functional concept. To say it once again, perhaps in a clearer manner: it is rational to use this concept of liberty as a human being. It is rational to think that what we don't know to be impossible is possible. That is the paradox I wanted to underline: although the world is determined, it is rational to do as though it was not. [...] [/hide] So, as a human being, if one wants something, one should consider oneself to be the determining factor of the equation. But morals don't take that point of view; courts take the "point of view of nowhere", and this is the one that tells us we're all puppets. What do we do?

If it were immoral, then at least one person would be at fault. If we assume prostitution is not forced by anyone (i.e. a pimp): - it's not the person selling their body, because they don't have a choice. - I don't see what harm the client is causing, unless he has a disease and is aware of it or hasn't taken the necessary precautions to make sure he doesn't. Seems rather like a win/"best possible situation" to me, because without a client the prostitute is even worse off. He/she can back away before the deed, and the client's responsability is simply to make sure the person in question is okay with what's about to happen. - it is the people who have caused the circumstances which forced prostitution (if applicable), but in that case the wrong action is not prostitution--that would only be a symptom.

In the same vein, nothing quite like the adrenaline rush when scampering back upstairs to to put some underwear on when a parent comes home...

That's a really hard question to answer, because I'm often just killing time/trying to find a way to kill time in some way or another. Usually, browsing, games. Additionally, play/listen to/make (in decreasing order of headbanging intensity) music and Googling questions that pop into my head.

That's not really the issue the essay underlines IMO. It's more like quality vs. quantity of life and where the balance between the two is, not just when it comes to smoking.

If when you say "righteous justifications" you're referring to my posts, considering MU didn't take down the uploads as requested, I think it's fair that they're being prosecuted. I don't think it's fair so many people lost their data, but that's not what I arguing at any point. All I'm saying is piracy is a scapegoat for the RIAA (and maybe the MPAA) to attack the net and thus render their decaying business model valid once again, and that if it pleases me and if I feel it's not unjust to do so (considering I wouldn't have bought the product hadn't I pirated it, and considering I might buy the product after I pirate it), I will break the shit out of the law. You're absolutely right to say that there is no justification other than self-gratification, but considering it has no negative effects and may have positive ones (bought an album I've had for months today as a matter of fact), that's more than enough to me.

An interesting essay about why smoking is cool. Fair warning: I'm not responsible if you happen to read a Dead Philosophers comic that has a picture of a penis in it.

You've lost me from 'but despite the fact...' I don't see how there's any relationship between having moral principles to being under indoctrination? I'm confused. Do you not agree that morals are taught?

I don't see how indoctrination--religious or otherwise--can be avoided. You're thinking about ethics and critiquing them in a "devil's advocate" mindset, but despite the fact that you know full well they're not based on anything which can be logically proven, you still follow some sort of principle, which means you'll never really be able truly shrug off that teaching. That's indoctrination, by your definition.

I'm not sure if that's even possible... at least not until I'm like 60 years old lol. What do you think would cause such a thing to happen? I'd remain single, though probably. I value my freedom too much to go monogamous; there wouldn't really be any "need" for me to go monogamous either. Boredom with sex one one hand and loneliness, or a desire to be one with someone else, to raise a child, to drink shitty coffee every morning on the other. I can't help but doubt the notion that you can be entirely self-sufficient, or rather, that the happiness you have is happiness at its full potential. You said yourself that happiness came to you because of your ability to inspire people. What better way to do this than in marriage?

I disagree entirely about 5). If a girl has ever presented you with a picture on which she looks great and asked you if she's ugly on it, you know exactly how frustrating the self-doubt of others can be, even when there are no conflicts of interest. I would talk to Mary about it, then look into knowing this guy a little better, and then going for a relationship. If he turns out to be a dick, "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger".