I actually kind of agree with you here, but I was using the word fitness in somewhat of a different sense. I was using the word fitness in the way biologist use the term.

From an evolutionary perspective, we only need be fit enough to raise a generation until they are old enough to reproduce themselves. It seems obvious to me that our romantic preferences were shaped by evolution.

For example, the reason why most men find the hourglass shape and slightly curved back attractive in women, is because this is a healthy shape for women to have babies and live. If a womans pelvis shape is too narrow, then the likelihood of the baby's head fitting through the birth canal is much lower and the likelihood of the mother dying is much higher. Also, The reason why women are attracted to strong assertive men, is because this is the character trait that is the most likely to result in the baby having enough resources to maintain a healthy childhood.

Do you not think that the traits, physical or otherwise, that people find attractive were shaped by evolution to cause us to subconsciously choose mates that are healthy and fit enough to raise the next generation?

From what you say here and from the fact the fact that you say you don't have such a bad time with vodka, I am fairly certain that your negative response it to fusel alcohols and not so much to ethanol.

actually it could be some alcohols other that ethonol. These other alcohols are know as fusel alcohols and are known to cause headaches and severe hangovers in some people. They are also significantly lower in in vodka as it is very close to being pure ethanol and water and so would explain why she doesn't react as much to vodka.

Yes, but it's obscene when you get use that failure to avoid paying taxes for 20 years.

It sure worked out that way for
Trump.

Porat always struck me as being kind of like the Martin Shkreli of the internet.

Has that other place officially died? Not that I wanted to go back there or anything, but I just went over to see how it was doing and it says I don't have permission to view any threads. Does it say this for everyone else?

The other place is officially dead to me, it is beyond hopeless. Still, I can't quite shake the feeling that some thing fishy is going on (my guess is money laundering) and that pisses me off. I mean who pays tens of thousands of dollars for a website when they take no interest in actually running it as a legitimate business?

I called it from the first couple of days when the site went down. I said there was something fishy going on and that they probably realised they weren't making any money and simply abandoned the site.

I still don't think this answers my question as to what criteria need to be fulfilled in order to call oneself a man or a woman. Could I call myself, and demand others, call me a girl without changing anything about my appearance or behaviour? Or would it be necessary for me to change my appearance and behaviour to something that is more typical of most females? And if it is the later, doesn't that pose problems feminists who feel that "patriarchal" gender roles need to be smashed?

I agree. Your previous thread I what got me thinking about this.
I think we are the biological sex we born with and nothing will change this fact. However, we also ought to be free to dress or behave however we damn well please. In my opinion, the need to be have others recognize the specific gender you identify as only leads to absurd conclusions.

Bu what does it mean to be a man? What does it mean to be a woman? Is there some set of behaviours or way of dressing that a biological male can man can engage in that will make his gender become female regardless of how he identifies? Or is your gender determined by how identify regardless of how you dress or the behaviours you engage in? They both seem equally absurd to me.

My father is a retired psychologist that worked at a psychiatric hospital studying psychopaths. Augustino does not understand what a psychopath is. The evidence is overwhelming that psychopaths are born without the ability to feel many normal human emotions and this includes empathy. You can not torture, or cause in any other way, somebody into feeling somthing that they are biologically incapable of feeling. This is why gay conversion therapy does not work.

But even if we could torture someone until they felt empathy for violently raping and killing another human, why would we? The act was already committed and the perpetrator will be locked away from other people for the rest of his life, so what is the point?

Hopefully it comes back up for a bit so that we can encourage a final exodus.The only problem with this place is that, being a forum made up of posters of extremely high intellect, there just aren't enough libertarians for me to debate.

I think you could be right. Or maybe the site wasn't making Mr Porat enough money so he decided it's not worth his time anymore.

I have a feeling something fishy is going on at the other place.

Wow. I didn't know this this was already a policy in some countries. This is just another, in a long list of reasons, why Europe is superior.

When I use the name "Frodo" I am referring to the hobbit, not to the word "Frodo" or my idea of Frodo. Realism is not required for words to refer to more than just our words and our ideas.

Hobbits are fictional characters. Being fictional characters, they exist only as ideas in the imaginations of humans. So any true proposition that refers to hobbits, say "hobbits are short", is necessarily reffering human ideas of hobbits. If one wants to claim that hobbits can refer to things outside the realm of human imagination, such as the proposition " the dude that lives next door is hobbit", I would have to insist that they are just mistaken.

Oh , also, is this yaha? If not, I'm really confused.

I really think you guys/girls are on to something here.

I'm afraid I'm still not a any closer to understanding what you meant " the apple and the word are one and the same".
We can use discourse to discuss the types of things that are apples, and we can talk about specific token apples. However,unless we are specifically talking about the word"apple", we are using discourse to refer to objects that are independent of discourse.

This reminds me of the "sex" scene in demolition man.

We can talk about to things non material things such as sensations and concepts, but when we talk about material objects like apples, we are necessarily referring to a material object.

But we can refer to specific token apples. The apple in my refrigerator is mostly red with a tinge of green near the top.
The fact that we can also refer to types or things is no argument against correspondence theory of truth.

VM something. And I don't think he/she was banned in the normal way, I think their account was entirely deleted.I think that he/she was a problem so the new owners made that problem dissapear.

aha it seems I've back myself into a paradoxical corner. The only way I can convince you that we can't eat words is for you to eat your words. :s

Yes, it's about the apples. But how does one talk about the apples? By talking (and understanding), nothing more. The point I am trying to make is that realism is not required to talk about the apples. We can talk about things that aren't words and aren't experiences and aren't ideas even if anti-realism holds.

To talk "about" something is to refere to something. When we talk about an apple and we aren't referring to the word "apple", a physical object, an experience of an apple or the concept of an apple , then we aren't talking about anything at all.

So the word "apple" just is an apple? I'm not trying to be facetious here but it seems absurd to suggest that we can eat words.

I'll only post at the old place if I see someone has posted something very interesting and then I'll ask if they are interested in continuing the convo here.

What about Diogenes of sinope? I think he can represent the way philosophy can transform your entire life. Although I did fail a marketing class once.

We need convince more of the intelligent people that produce quality posts at the old place to come and give TPF a chance. I really think we need a critical mass to keep this snowball rolling or it will just fizzle out.
This might seem like a stupid question but can anyone tell me what criteria the Google algorithm uses o rank sites? Is it simply based on traffic?

Is anyone else surprised that The Phillipines is one of the top 5 countries visiting PF?

Any country that participated or supported the destruction of that region of the world in 2003 should be accepting these refugees with open arms and pockets. They should be given automatic entry, access to public housing, support in finding a job and social assistance until they can find a job.

I think it was a great idea to add a science and technology category.

The rise of right wing politics ,in seemingly civilized European countries, is troubling.

Here in Canada we just elected a liberal government ,who are promising to significantly increase the number of syrian refugees we take in, in a landslide and booted out a party that was extremely xenophobic. I can't figure out why our populations would react in such different ways.

I believe he is already dropping the ban hammer on those that are being too critical.