Men

Post Reply New Topic

I have had enough of the tone in your responses. They are lazily patronising and sweepingly critical, and this last one has crossed the line into being personal, which I object to. You have not paid attention to the bulk of my responses, and have instead singled out parts and responded with your own agenda.

Do not presume to accuse me of not understanding either science or ''faith''. I am intelligent and capable enough to form my own views on both, just as you have formed your own views and now presume to force them onto others.

You directly objected to my use of the word ''Aura'', to which I gave a satisfyingly thorough and respectful response, which was more or less neutral in tone and did not attack you or even disagree with the basic premise you had planted that it was a nonsense word.

The reason I say Science is also a religon is because it too is a belief system, in my opinion.
It has not at all times created harmony or improved human or inter-species happiness, and it has also led to the development of modern industrial society which is also causing much of the ecocide taking place in the world today.
When people subscribe doggedly to it, it can also cause harm, the same way various religons around the world cause harm.

Faith, or religon, are not merely ''the belief in unprovebale concepts''. They are more important to us than that (no matter how damaging they can also be). I respect religons; they are each the product of man's relationship to a unique bio-region, and how this has developed over time. They are the expression of our relationship to a larger universe.

The two are not mutually exclusive. I do not mean to suggest that people suffering under terrible religious regimes should be denied the benefits we experience in societies that are based on secular beliefs.
But one can still respect religons in a cultural-historical sense, and because they have created so much of what the world is today.

I like Animism, which is what all land-based and tribal human beings naturally practice, because it is based around the understanding that all things affect eachother and are alive, and it causes less harm than modern industrial scoeity, which has great scientific benefits but has removed itself from the fundamental understanding that all things are connected and affect one another.
This is a simple understanding based on being alive amidst other living things, that does not employ any scientific practice at all, but yet still allows for harmony and improved human and inter-species happiness.
I also respect more ''advanced'' religons that came about because of agrarian scoieties.

I also like Mysticism.

But when all's said and done, we should all be Agnostic, surely, because there can be no real unequivocal argument that through science we can fully understand our place in the universe and the reality and workings of all things.
Anyone who claims that is behaving like a religious fundamentalist as well.

I see things differently to you, which is fine. But I won't be told I am therefore wrong, and I won't be condescended to.

I have no problems with my sexuality, so I had One Night Stands too. But even for a one night stand you need sympathy, because having sex with someone I disgust ruins me being horny, so it doesnt work. Being disgusted about someone and feeling sexually attracted to someone, simply doesnt work for me. So a person I meet for a One night stand has it much easier, then a person I think about having an relationship, so you only know him for a short time, so normally you dont know everything about his life and thing he had done, you dont like. But still, anyway how external attractive the guy is, there needs to be sympathy.

You dont have "just" sex. If you want to have sex, you need to be horny. To be horny, you need to be in a good mood. And an male Adonis, doing bad jokes about foreigners, women or jews, is ruining my good mood. So you dont need an inner bond for a one night stand, like you need for a relationship. But you need to feel relaxed in someone else presence, because if I dont feel relaxed and happy, my wish for having sex is dumbed.


The other thing for me: If I were not friend with someone, I wouldnt even think about trying an relationship with someone. So if someone says without sex he cant be friends with me, then there will never be a chance for having an relationship.

Interesting that Fnord hasn't replied.

I think my responses derailed his former posts, but I don't think he is interested in a discussion, just a one-sided demonstration of his personal beliefs.

But where's the dynamism in that eh?!

... yet.


Not at all. There is just not very much for me to discuss with people whose belief systems have little or no basis in science.


Actually, I am interested in discussion of facts, not beliefs.


Only facts can be demonstrated; beliefs can only be shared.


Demonstration of facts are dynamic; sharing of beliefs is more static than dynamic.

But this thread is about how to tell if a man likes a woman, not about debating reality versus fantasy, so let's not derail it any further, okay?

Fnord;

My original post was indeed very much in-keeping with the OPs question.

YOU initiated this exchange when you challenged my use of the word ''Aura'', to which I gave a satisfying reply. You entered into a critical dialogue with me, and have continued to be somewhat nasty in tone, and condescending, especially in this last message.

I did not even disagree with your original dispute. It seems rather like picking a fight, your entire attitude here.

I plan to contact a moderator and tell them of your behaviour, because I actually think it constitutes bullying (the tone you have used, not the questions, which have been thoughtfully answered on every count). If they don't agree that's fine, but I'll run it by them.

My last post was in fact intellectually more rigorous and diverse than any of yours, and you have failed to acknowledge it and have accused me of merely speaking of ''fantasy'' ideas, which is clearly not the case, as would be obvious to the discerning or intelligent reader.

I have not posited once that I have any kind of personal belief system whatsoever, either solely scientific or otherwise, and neither have I said I disregard scientific thought or ideas.
I find this offensive, given the thoughtfulness of my replies. You are the one who cannot have a reciprocal discussion.
Perhaps the fact that I admitted that I have not received much formal education is what triggered your subtle provocations, which is indeed a shame, and discriminatory.

I have raised several interesting points that you have completely failed to respond to, which is bemusing.

I too have shared facts as well as beliefs; my posts are clearly and manifestly dynamic in this sense. More so than yours.

You must be bored and unhappy to need to subtlety provoke someone like this, and for a man of your age (50s/60s), this is a shame, and seems juvenile to me. Or maybe your brand of Aspergers makes you rigid and blinkered. Who knows.

If you have no desire to discuss anything non-science related with anyone, then why you are using this forum mystifies me, as much is discussed on here, in great variety, science-related and otherwise.
As is the case in life.

It must be difficult for you to relate to people, with that narrow requirement.

I agree, the thread has been derailed quite enough already.

Cf

Last edited by Cuckooflower on 27 Mar 2013, 5:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Just a note:
If any of you have had enough of discussing with someone you can just say so and move on to address other members.

Its not something we can act upon unless the other person keeps trying to bring up the topic with you after youve made it clear that you are done discussing it.
Clear enough?