Controlling, as well. So, instead, you go online and try to control the beliefs of others? Awesome.Quote:
Originally Posted by masticate [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Controlling, as well. So, instead, you go online and try to control the beliefs of others? Awesome.Quote:
Originally Posted by masticate [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Ok, you are wrong. That wasn't evidence to prove her claim. I went over it in that thread clear as day, there is no need to drag it over here with... strawman arguments, lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowen [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
None of this makes sense. None of it. Go away if you're going to be a child as KingZ and I are finally talking like grown-ups.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowen [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
^"case in point"Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowen [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Anyway any instance of name calling I have committed has been in direct retaliation to another poster. So... that is a fact and you are ignoring it. Fool. I only have 100 posts or so it would be very easy to prove you wrong. There are probably three or four instances of me calling people names total and if you locate them you will see I am right about this.
Please tell me why it is wrong to attack somebody's ideas but right to attack their personal character. You are backwards. Please don't threaten me with violence as I am clearly a psychopath and this will end badly for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowen [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Hm? I am able to have an intellectual conversation. I was having one just now with KingZ until you came back to interfere again with your inflammatory remarks and childish outburst. We were arguing about logical principles and I believe he/she even made some great points which I have credited. Bottom line, you've got no place in this discussion because you haven't demonstrated the required level of maturity to have this discussion without freaking out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowen [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
- - - Updated - - -
Did you interpret this information or just assume it proved me wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by chinagirl [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Allow me to interpret it.
They are saying ... monogamy is currently assumed to be superior as a lifestyle however the empirical evidence does not support this assumption.
It is a neutral point of view which does not explicitly refute or support my position or yours. Certainly not just cause to close another thread where a discussion is being had, just because you don't agree with one side. That is called FASCISM and CENSORSHIP. Are you a fascist, chinagirl?
It's not irrational to hold someone to an agreement that they made. She made an agreement, and broke it.Quote:
Originally Posted by masticate [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
What was irrational was you trying to figure out whether or not to force it after it had been broken. The only course of action at that point would be to terminate the relationship, which you seemed to have an extremely difficult time doing.
No, she told you about the divorce rates; you said she was full of shit. She gave you the material to look up. You didn't look it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by masticate [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
^ Read again just to be sure.
Um, **** you- how's that for rational? Look up controlling behavior, particularly in terms of therapy. Any shrink in his right mind would have a field day with you. Just because you can't understand a logical argument doesn't mean that it's invalid. Not to mention, telling me to go away is controlling behavior. Look it up if you don't believe me.
It's sad, though, that you have only 109 posts but on a few instances (particularly back when you had less than 50) you insulted the intelligence of others without having retaliation. And when I finally called you on it, you claim now that it was "all in self-defense." You're the child. If anyone needs to go away, it's you. Case in point, Michelle23 made a blunt argument of her advice, telling you what she saw being the most suitable course of action. You insulted her intelligence.
And is that a threat? Reread my quoted section again, as you've clearly twisted the words around YET AGAIN and are claiming that I did something I never did. Obviously, I can't actually bitchslap you online, but that's what I call calling you on your bullshit. But you're threatening me now. And EVERYONE can see this, so I'm reporting you again.
It's right to point out the flaws in someone's personal character if their words don't match their actions. This is not attacking, but it is recognizing behavior which is making others uncomfortable. Right now, you're attempting to control our beliefs and getting upset when it's not working. This is making everyone uncomfortable- in one form or another (mine is being pissed off and annoyed)- and we want you to stop. Just stop.
Really, and you have? Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. What you claim to be a childish outburst is a logical argument; read it and weep. I've seen more ignorance and bigotry on here from you than from anyone else.
That is the point, there is no reason to refute or debunk anything due to one's moral and religious belief and that is why one can never see eye to eye on this topic. And I'm not a fascist, but clearly you are.
And you can never find any empirical evidence either that will support your claim about "it" being immoral and irrational. At least I presented you with a study with actual participants involved versus just debunking a belief/practice on your own without supporting evidence.
- - - Updated - - -
And obviously, you just picked a sentence out of the whole paragraph to make your conclusion. That is not how studies work by the way.
^ My thoughts exactly. ^Quote:
Originally Posted by chinagirl [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I repeat... Shut your mouth, masticate. :) You're making Canadians look stupid.
I believe that it is irrational, and your statement of facts has demonstrated this. By breaking the agreement, she has proven to me that it was irrational to make it, because I couldn't hold her to it. Cynical? Maybe. Logical? Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by KingZ [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
- - - Updated - - -
Ok...Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowen [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
she said: "most people under 30 aren't ready"
I said: "is that a fact?"
she said: "yes look at the divorce rates etc"
I said: "post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy"
I don't remember calling her "full of shit" but you can read it again just to be sure that is what I said since you just said it is what I said even though I'm saying it's not.
To put it another way: she claimed something as fact which has not been proven as fact and is simply an interpretation of data of which there could be many more. I asked her once if it was a fact, to be sure she thought it should be purported as fact, and she verified that it was a fact that people are not ready for marriage under 30. Do you think it's a fact based on her data? DO you have a right to decide to look at it another way?
Not very.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowen [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
This is only a guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowen [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
That discussion ended when you had the thread closed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowen [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I've already explained to you once in this thread that we are having a new discussion that is not about whether or not I argued with Michelle23 for calling me narcissistic. For the third and final time, Rowen, that conversation is over.
Good idea before I find out more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowen [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I would say the exact opposite is happening, personally. Can you actually demonstrate this is what I'm trying to do? I think not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowen [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
That is a very mature point you have made I will think it through and get back to you. How about next Thursday? I would do it now but the wife says I have to take the cat for a walk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowen [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
- - - Updated - - -
Why am I clearly a fascist? Am I censoring people's ideas, or airing my own... in a thread I created to air my ideas in? Do I not have some protection in this thread that I have created or am I really being a Fascist for arguing my beliefs here? Am I trying to close threads that I don't agree with? Or ......... are you? I expect a lot more than this from INTPs; honestly I despise your lack of intellectual integrity, Chinagirl- to be unwilling to have a plain discussion on a sensitive issue without going red in the eyes and writing scathing, off-topic remarks, and trying to censor the entire discussion- utterly despicable. Rowen I can forgive; he simply is not a logical brain the way I am or you are (...claim to be, at any rate) or KingZ is. The latter two have been putting up a front of hate and aggression but in behind that wall there is still logic. I can respect that. The former is a pest I can not get rid of but am still affording the courtesy of a response. My patience wears thin.Quote:
Originally Posted by chinagirl [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I have evidence. In an evaluation of normative ethics the scientific method is not applied so rigorously, in favor of thought experiments and logical contemplation. People have to leave their feelings at the door, including me. Early in this thread there were some comments about my inability to handle such an arrangement on an emotional level but a philosophical discussion has no room for real-time emotion only abstract ethical principles which we use to determine what our emotions are.Quote:
Originally Posted by chinagirl [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
You supplied one paragraph out of the whole study to make your conclusion. I don't see how picking the concluding sentence from within is a form of devious cherry-picking as the sentence I used claimed to summarize the entire study.......Quote:
Originally Posted by chinagirl [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
- - - Updated - - -
This in a nutshell is why Canada thinks the Americans are stupid but we don't talk about that too much really because they make too much noise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowen [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Ok...why don't we try this another way. Let's use your current situation since this is how the whole thread started to begin with.
Correct me if I don't get my facts straight since I am working on my iPad and I have trouble looking at your old thread.
You strayed, your GF cheated, she got caught, she lied and continues to lie despite your supporting evidence. You got hurt not so much by her cheating behavior but more on the fact that she is dishonest.
Now, I believe that when a couple enters into a relationship, there is the implicit belief and rule that both partners are going to be in a monogamous relationship unless it was explicitly agreed upon by both that they want to be in an open relationship.
You were hurt by your Gf actions because you thought she was the monogamous type. Was it fair for you to ask her to stop sending those pictures in the premise that you were in a monogamous relationship? YES.
However, she didn't stop the cheating behavior, therefore, you decided to break up with her and she begged you not to... Which led you into suggesting switching your relationship into polyamory. She said you can do it, however, she wants to remain monogamous (which in your heart you have trouble believing her because of her past actions and behavior). But for you to want to do it, she has to agree.
Now the question is, is it irrational for you to ask her to sleep with other men even if she does not believe in it? YES.
If that's the case, what is the middle ground in which both of you can be in a fair and satisfying relationship?
If you do as she says, you being allowed to have other women in your life while she practices monogamy, my guess is, it's only a matter of time until she becomes jealous of these other women and won't tolerate the behavior and eventually breaks up with you. That's one end to your story.
The other ending would be to break up with her now and find someone with the same values and beliefs as you do.
Alternate ending? Your guess is as good as mine.
Doesn't make sense. You can't really hold anyone to any agreement. So if what you're saying was true, all agreements involving trust are irrational. Obviously bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by masticate [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
You're all suckers for the troll... with the possible exception for KingZ. He might be just playing along.
Yes.
I still say it's OCD............it must hurt so much not to respond, him rockin back and forth like a heron addict needing a fix.
shhhh. hush now, pet. it's over.
I think OP has some good points. I was definitely very interested in what he wrote. All this hate is because his opinion is different: I thought mommies and daddies taught their kids to be TOLERANT?
Dont be an idiot. My granddad grieved for my grandmother for 20 years. He never moved on, never even tried to. My gran-uncle died of a broken heart after his wife of 50 years died. He was healthy all his life-she died and the stress gave him cancer.Quote:
Originally Posted by masticate [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
- - - Updated - - -
Your back :D I was just wondering where you were yesterday-hoping you were okay. Hows life mister?Quote:
Originally Posted by YoungCosmo [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
No worries the OP will receive his 11 virgins when he passes on.
- - - Updated - - -
LR admitted in the chatbox he's been experiencing girls and boys......
The thing is, that by replying to you with an argument, it's an open invitation for your white knight to return. Sounds like fun!!~Quote:
Originally Posted by michelle23 [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
So.. the stress gave him cancer hey? Wow. Tell me more about how that happened. He died of a broken heart hey? Wow! Tell me more about how THAT happened!
[spoiler][/spoiler]Quote:
National Cancer Institute reports, “Although studies have shown that stress factors, such as death of a spouse, social isolation, and medical school examinations, alter the way the immune system functions, they have not provided scientific evidence of a direct cause-and-effect relationship between these immune system changes and the development of cancer.”
Please. There was no need to go there. If I argue with you it will be taken personally. Extremely personally. Don't put yourself in that kind of situation.
You quoted me as saying "perhaps" which is an acknowledgement of a possibility and not a conclusive statement. You called me an idiot and made conclusive statements about humanity based on two anecdotal examples that are basically scientific bogus in order to prove that grieving men grieve which is not even something I argued against in the first place. I didn't suggest they don't grieve I suggested there could be multiple reasons why, and that possibility still stands in the face of your recent post as it is not objectively available information whether or not he grieved over a potential* life lost to shackles or if he grieved over lost love (even if he reported it) so therefore when generalizing about humanity it is not appropriate to rule out possibilities which could be potentially true such as the one I suggested. By ruling out a possibility altogether you are neglecting the third possibility that one might despair over both concepts (and more) simultaneously. It's called a moral dilemma and some people bear them for life. (oh I'm generalizing about humanity again here btw not talking about your gramps. I'm talking about KingZ's hypothetical grieving old man as an archetype. Archetypes are a highly intuitive means of communication and it's possible you didn't grasp that the first time.) You cannot speculate about the absolute nature of an archetype as that interferes with the wave pattern of interpretation by forcing all possibilities into sudden alignment in time. Sorry if you don't understand quantum mechanical allusions but let's just say that you don't know what you don't know so you shouldn't pretend that you do because now you're dictating reality for everybody whereas KingZ and I were speaking in a plane of possibilities with infinite realities. Oh I have so lost you lol I could just keep tying whatever it won't matter you quit reading long ago.
*Many people are fixated on things like potential. For some, it is of utmost importance, far more important than the drudgery of daily life.
Dear O.P
Wow, you've really stirred the pot up eh? Well, without getting all philosophical or using my big words of which I have few, it sounds to me like you are hurting my fellow cyber space poster.
5 years is a long time to be lied to about such things and I can see why its the betrayal over the actual act that bothers you most.
It is difficult for me to agree with the whole, humans ought not be expected to share a monogamous relationship with one other person because I am in a relationship myself and the idea of one of us straying would torture me and boil my blood; yet, I do see your point. Is it really fair? I mean, after decades of being with the same person, would it even be healthy to share with another. I don't know.
Perhaps if the connection remains good between the original two, another man or woman wouldn't be sought after.
Again, if I'm not understanding your question regarding monogamy, well, small brain here, bare with me.
Back to you.
I hope you find the healing you need for both you and yours to move on in a positive direction, be that with each other or another.
Peas
ll if you wernt a narcissist OP you would probably understand the emotional turmoil of losing your spouse. And you dont have to be a doctor to know that stress can cause all sorts of illnesses including cancer. Its actually a proven fact that many men die within a year after losing their wife or child-usually a heart attack or cancer brought on by stress.
And even the nurse in the hospital said that his cancer could have been prevented if hed gotten counselling after she died
Hey brother,Quote:
Originally Posted by woody [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
You got that right! You said you see what I mean about the 'guilty act' bothering me the most but I think you meant to say the 'guilty mind' is what bothers me the most because that is what the message is.... If I remove the guilt from the act there is no guilty act... diggin it.
Trying to heal by piecing the facts together and deciding what is logical and virtuous. I am not the sole arbiter of logic or virtue but these are the arguments I'm looking to entertain.
Something I should say is that immoral is a harsh term that can be taken personally even by the coolest of cats however that's not the way I meant it. It's just cynical bs with a point somewhere deep within and if ya feel it right then you'll know how I put the pieces together. I know the pieces fit.
You really are a special type of moron.Quote:
Originally Posted by masticate [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
A quick Google query can patch this right up: [url]http://bit.ly/1p2HRwg[/url]
Yup you sure did miss the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by michelle23 [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Stress causes a weakening in the immune system last I checked. Although this can contribute to the development of cancer it is not a causative relationship. You are spreading false information.
Stating an objective observation is a proven fact is rhetorical. Stating the meaning or cause requires rigorous establishment of a causative relationship that event A causes event B. We have strayed from the realm of 'thought experiments' and 'archetypes' into the literal world here and so now you do need evidence* or else... you're blowing hot air chick.
*Anecdotal evidence is of very little value in this kind of instance
PS> the nurse was taking care of your feelings that's why she lied to you. I won't do that,k?
- - - Updated - - -
Did you read any of those links dude?Quote:
Originally Posted by KingZ [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
They all say the same thing: no evidence of a causative relationship. I already did Google it, before I replied. That's why I quoted the National Cancer Institute. Boy is your foot in your ****ing mouth.
- - - Updated - - -
I would advise against arguing this point any further. Y'all can't handle this.
Think about what you're ****ing doing here people. It's proven wrong. Let it go.
Standard straw man; I don't know why I expected anything else from you.Quote:
Originally Posted by masticate [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Michelle said that stress gave him cancer. She did not say that stress causes cancer.
There isn't evidence for a causal relationship (something exceptionally difficult to prove in any case), but there are very clear links between the two, even if indirect.
uh, what?Quote:
Originally Posted by KingZ [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
You're not serious. It's the same thing.
Let it go. This is off topic and tangential. Save your energy for things that matter.
The funny thing is even if I admit you're right it won't matter... you will still be, not right.
Her anecdote wasn't even relevant to the discussion as I've already explained; it places unnecessary restrictions to materialize an abstract perception by making a hypothetical archetypal example into something real, personal, and consequentially irrelevant and insignificant.
She used the evidence that her ancestor fell into despair over his dead wife (which is always going to be at best - a mere possibility) as 'proof' to refute the idea that an old man might despair over something other than his late wife (which is what I said).... her argument effectively moves to deny the possibility this could even happen which shut the whole thing down. Now we have witnessed an open-ended and constructive thought experiment devolve into a nitpicking debate about whether stress causes cancer or whether cancer is caused by stress. This is really a much better example of what nitpicking is, smackie9, should you happen to stumble through this paragraph.
Two cents... Chronic stress can evoke inflammatory response, inflammation can effect tumor development and progression. Did the stress caused the cancer? Maybe, maybe not... but there is a cuasative effect between chronic inflammation and cancer.
Till next time love forum people...
Lol its hilarious how he tries to manipulate every conversation with his big words and fluff. Do you think talking like that will confuse people so they will just agree with you? Youve got the wrong forum mister. We see straight through your bull
and I will find you a link explaining my point and ill make sure its one with plenty of intellectual fancy words just for you
You get a gold star Michelle.Quote:
Originally Posted by michelle23 [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Thread closed.