You'll recall a prior post where I specifically stated I would prove men were stupider than women, so it should come as no surprise to you that I would remain on point. — Hanover

You do realise that I am a woman. And you are a man.

Stupidhead.

Next, stop attacking my story. It was a good story, nice plot line, developed characters, and, if you'd have asked instead of launching into attack mode, you'd have known the setting, a picturesque town in the wine region of France. A wonderful place, but for the French. — Hanover

Listen here, old horse, but I darn well attack whatever I please. Your story lacked stamina and finesse, lustreless like your personality. There were no colours in the words, no robustness in the characters. In France? Where is the blushing, voluptuous milkmaid preparing her cow, or the dashing youth overflowing with testosterone that catches a glimpse of her ankles and becomes enamoured, or indeed the bitter middle-aged man with a giant, provocative moustache who is prepared to kill so he can marry her? The suspense! The intensity! But no, you were resolved on bringing forth from your creative womb some dodgy couple hanging out in a car park in Detroit.

But that's not what I'm arguing (at least I'm bright enough not to admit it here), but I'm saying the impulse precedes the rationality, and, while the impulse may be ultimately defensible rationally, it is not the basis. For that reason, when a woman says her judgment tells her X, all the rational defenses in the world hold no weight, not because the woman isn't rational (ahem, just clearing my throat), but because the intuition is immovable and rational defenses appear as lame excuses. — Hanover

Have you never encountered a person who appears to believe that his/her partner is cheating or doing things behind their back only because they themselves have cheated and done shifty things? The person is misinterpreting the guilt that they feel by projecting the blame onto others. How can you say that intuition precedes rationality, when it is rationality that regulates and articulates our behaviour and our responses? What we call 'intuition' is just a feeling, an emotional response and indeed it is our subjective or unconscious constitution that we experience though these sensations, it is absolutely useless without reason and rational thought. It just makes a person anxious or depressed or feeling all weird without understanding why.

There is no 'women are irrational' or 'men are stupid' or all these generic stereotypes that you are continuously formulating as part of some broader generalisations between the two sexes. There is just "intuition" and "rationality" and the former is dependent on the latter. Doesn't matter what gender you are, you are either irrational or rational. Kantian distinctions of intuition is more objective and conscious vis-a-vis representations, but the idea of how most interpret the word 'intuition' is that sensation we feel that is devoid of any real indication of factual properties. We can create meaning to these feelings and rather imaginatively too, but the conditions for any authentic retrospection requires factual determinates dependent on reason.

Most are domesticated geldings, but trained stallions are the best because they have a touch of independence from the experience that I have with them and I love being tough back to try and control them. Although you would likely be more experienced then me with horses, I love that feeling when we reach a moment where what we both want is somehow aligned, like we're both thinking the same thing. Speed.

Rode one of my horses today and had a good workout. lol. — Lone Wolf

I love horses, especially riding fast because they are beasts, cars that are alive and that means a little less control from you and a bit of trust in them. It is so exhilarating. And your butt has a good workout :razz:

Men's intuition is a mix of experience and rationality, but not just true intuition. It's something, but it's different...The difference, as you can see, is that the gentleman in our example could be convinced his conclusions were wrong because his intuition didn't offer him the certainty and clarity as did the young woman in our example. — Hanover

I accidentally deleted my post about pap smears and stallions. Such a good post, too. It thoroughly confirmed that you were wrong. :fear:

Nevertheless! Intuitions never offer certainty, that is why it is 'intuition' and exists as a feeling, a sense that something is not right but that you rationally or consciously cannot understand or articulate why. It is a feeling and the response is often emotional, such as experiencing anxiety and it could well be that culturally through concepts of masculinity, many men fail to be given the adequate training to explore such feelings. They just avoid it or, lacking the experience, interpret it incorrectly.

I mean, are you suggesting here that women are intuitive, or are you suggesting that men are dumb? Your story has no correlation, in my opinion, to intuition at all, it is about rationality or the lack thereof. There is also a balance of probability here. More men tend to cheat, you would have to be one hell of a stupid girl to not figure out that he is doing shit behind your back, from changes in his behaviour and responses to you. It is all rational, your ability to interpret others.

What exactly would be in the vacuum cleaner bag when you emptied it? Some old French fries, maybe a credit card receipt, you know, whatever might have fallen into your lap on your way to work? — Hanover

Woke Kantians understand that the thing-in-itself is just another name for God. — Thorongil

Really. :meh: How would you know?

He bounced around with you, but where you were fighting, he was just along for the playful ride, maybe even smirking. Your intuition keeps telling you he didn't care about you, and that's why. You felt yourself struggling, crying, yearning and he just rode the roller coaster with his hands in the air enjoying the ride. — Hanover

This really hurts, because I knew that but didn't want to believe it. I think he really did not care about me at all and all those games stemmed not from any feelings of affection but rather a deep hostility toward me for not giving him the sole thing that he wanted. I think that is why I was so sad, because I wanted to hold his hand and for him hold mine back, but he treated me in such a way as to make me feel afraid of him. I yearned for him to 'see me' and get to know the real me so that he may realise that bullying me was wrong, that I am a good person, but then I kept myself hidden and never showed him who I was because he was bullying me. Do you see the confusion he wrought? I felt ugly, small, afraid, and terribly sad and I tried everything I could to be friends with him, behaving in ways that I thought he may like while hiding who I really was. I also think that I needed to tell myself that his hostility stemmed from somewhere innocent and maybe that is what I still want to believe, but only to save myself from the hurt that someone I like didn't like me. He enjoyed his games and I needed him gone, I needed help from friends at that time because I was struggling with so many emotions I didn't understand - more than humanly possible - while dealing with him in the shadows. I needed other people to think for me because I was so helpless.

I just liked him, that's all. I didn't do anything to deserve that and I blamed myself for so long as though something was wrong with me and that is why I got sick. I wished I was strong enough to see all this back then so that I could have prevented all that hurt by finding the empowerment to walk away from it all myself. And without any resentment, jealousy or hostility, I still do look at his life and see that while he may be having fun, I would be miserable in his shoes and can see why he would enjoy hurting someone like me to escape that life.

Anyway, never again. Hold my hand?

I'm just saying that women's intuition is a thing. — Hanover

Fair enough, but are you saying that men don't have intuition?

Hey Tiff, I think Timeline is talking about your rabbit thingy. — Hanover

Is that the thing with the vacuum cleaner?

If you want to chat with other willing members on the subject privately, you are more than welcome to as we are committed to such privacy. But, unfortunately, that conversation will not occur with me. I would suggest giving up and maybe having a look at some of the other thread topics and subjects currently underway to broaden your understanding of philosophical content.

As I said to you in the PM, there are guidelines that you can follow and my reasoning for deleting your thread is because, I am sorry to say, but Atlantis does not exist in Florida. You are trying to convince everyone of your position without any merit other than your backyard machinations. Whilst I am a bit concerned that you think that some legitimacy exists in your theory, on these forums context matters and unfortunately there is absolutely no correlation between your position and something of philosophical substance that illustrates a proper argument. Bringing Plato to the fore does not suddenly justify that Atlantis exists in Florida.

I hope that helps you in some small way.

We all do post game analysis because we want to know what went wrong, but sometimes you realize the game was lost for so many reasons, it's hard to really isolate any one thing. And it's actually easier to lose for a thousand reasons than just one bad play, where you sit around wondering "what if" I hadn't made that one blunder. You guys weren't compatible because your values were different, your communication styles were different, your ambitions were different, and it sounds like you were a whole lot smarter than him.

But love is indiscriminate and you fell for Hotty McHotty and got a bit battered, but you're better for it now. — Hanover

There are a number of post-game regrets that I have, despite the entirety of the problem being caused by him. One predominant flaw on my side was that I took the advice from others who told me he was crazy and gave me tips to try and get rid of him, which just made me look really bad. They saw in him a pretty strong attachment and suggested the best thing to do was present myself in a way that would put him off so that he can leave willingly. I regret listening to others, because I know that despite his overwhelming flaws, we actually were compatible. I hid all of that, the joker that I am, the traditional person that I am, the intelligence etc. I genuinely believed at one point from what others were telling me that he was going to hurt me and so I closed the door to his initial knocking (or banging I should say) until I later figured out that all I needed to do was control the situation. By the time I opened the door and tried to trust the situation, he was in the shadows, behind the fucking trees or whatever.

A man in my current job recently started this whole flirt game with me despite being in a relationship and I was phenomenally brutal in my honesty against his behaviour right at the beginning that he backed off very quickly and has since shown me nothing but respect. There is nothing wrong with flirting with your partner or when the conditions are right, but I realised that I have a lot of integrity in my own person, that I am not someone's plaything or mistress or side woman, that virtue and honour actually mean something to me so no man will ever be able to cross that line with me. In a way, I am proud that despite Hotty McHotty being ridiculously sexy, despite him having that strange power over me, I was on the flip-side still strong enough not to allow him to take away my virtue and honour. That is why I know that I love myself, because I respect who I am. But I do regret presenting myself as someone that I am not, although it came from a place that only wanted to protect me.

Yeah, it looks like you guys had a major communication break down. That's frustrating even with people you remotely like, much more someone you really want to be with. — Hanover

:up:

Weird — Hanover

Where is your imagination? Tools are sometimes required to achieve desired outcomes, no?

Why not hold a placard that says "The sky is blue" as well, considering you wish to inform the Israelis of the obvious. Oh, and thanks for the invite. I had to wash my hair that day anyway so couldn't have made it anyway. — Hanover

Do you like Israel or something? Shampooing your hair is of vital importance to your grooming regime, let's not forget, but hey, you are welcome to hang out with us and our chic, trendy Tel Avivian brahs.

I don't want to divert too much, but I do believe the distinctions between men and women go beyond the simple anatomical. You sort of conceded it above where you asked for more understanding by men regarding how they treated women. Men and women are each screwy in the own weird ways, but I am so aware of the magical Spidey sense that women have, I often watch their reactions to see what I'm missing, much like you notice your dog when its ears perk up. — Hanover

You are still wrong, sorry, I am not going to agree with you. Think about those women who are consistently abused by their partners and yet continue to 'love' them as they remain in the relationship despite being treated like dirt. There are also very manipulative women who advantageously use men for personal gain and men who only use women for sex alone as though she were a commodity. The differences between men and women in some instances are perhaps the ease for a woman to remain monogamous comparatively, which is clearly seen in homosexual communities where gay men seem to run rampant whereas gay women form long-term relationships (not to say either cannot do one or the other, but predominantly). Why do you think religion is full of male prophets? Because men were the one's that needed the information.

Some women, and I hope to class myself in this category, are independent, intuitive and loving and they simply want to find a person who stands equal to them. If you are not like that and you meet someone who is, you will think she is magical. It's like calling someone holy just because they are good people. They are not holy. A psychoanalyst may help you find out things about you that you never knew, but that does not make them have some magical Spidey sense, all they are doing is holding a mirror. Women are holding that mirror to make you see yourself better, but men are also holding that mirror. You are stupid and you happened to meet someone who isn't.

Hanoverian therapy methods are transcendent in nature, requiring objectifying one's own conduct for introspection. — Hanover

Is this sesh free of charge too? If not, I can pay you when me and Cavacava meet in Israel in a couple of months by holding up a placard writing 'Hanover is a Sexy Beast' somewhere deeply religious to the dismay of passers-by. Like in a bus.

My long winded absurd diversion into a non-existent therapy program only means to say that you looked stupid only to yourself. He thought you looked pretty and still wanted pretty girl to hold his hand. I know everything about men, remember? — Hanover

He never said anything of the sort so I am only left with what was actually said - or not said - but it is nice to imagine that he liked me. You do know quite a lot about men that I would have never thought of myself.

Now splain yourself. There's no pining, hints of sadness, crying. No one is saying "pauvre pauvre TimeLine" because (1) you're not expressing pain, and (2) we don't speak French here. But the point here is that you seem to be seeking not comfort from your non-existent sadness, but instead some sort of understanding of what you're doing wrong in this dance, asking why do you keep stepping on folks' toes. Is that right, or was there really a time of genuine pining and heartbreak that you've just not shared (you can tell us anything, don't be a shy bird). I mean it sounds like you guys stopped seeing each other and you were like "what the fuck was that all about'? — Hanover

I am not a shy bird and am one of the few people here that speak openly about my personal experiences in a Nussbaum kind of way, so here is the honest truth. Just a little over three years have since passed and I nearly died from a broken heart. Quite literally. At one point, his behaviour hurt me so much that I became considerably sick. I cocooned myself away and stopped living and nothing, no one, no matter how much they would implore me to move on and let go, I found myself crying myself to sleep almost every night. I lost all trust in men and there were some days that I wished I never met him because maybe then I would have met someone else and would have been happy. The worst part about it all was that he never let me be me, he never allowed me to show him who I really was because I was too busy either feeling fear or confusion, wondering what he wanted or didn't want and it makes me angry, his games made me so angry because he escaped any responsibility in the hurt that he inflicted, likely telling himself that he done nothing wrong. I am almost certain he is oblivious to how much pain he has caused me and it hurts imagining him shrug his shoulders and tell himself otherwise, just as criminals do. I tried to be someone he would like that I got lost in his maze, realising that I knew nothing about who I really was.

I am very good at hiding my pain. I have always been good at that, because I see such pain as a type of weakness and because I have been on my own from a very young age, appearing strong is a survival mechanism; but deep within I am just a little girl. I had to fight to survive and I needed to survive this as I have everything else in my life. I had to face him and when I saw him again about a year ago, we didn't talk but the 'what the fuck was that all about' seed was planted within me, the empowerment started to grow because he was real again and I could see in his own life that he was simply having fun, that there was so much wrong with him and his social circle that I started to pity him and felt foolish. I was comparing me, someone like me, as being small and worthless because of his behaviour when, in fact, it was the other way around and that is not just the anger talking. As I said, he likes girls that dress like teenage clowns, that have no mind, their ambitions in life are basic and rather than trying to morph into a girl that he would like as I had tried to before, I finally began to see that I do have a mind and I am proud of it, so I started writing a blog writing essays, that I do have proper ambitions and I am proud of it, so I finished a masters degree and volunteered internationally, that I know good people and so intentionally kept my social networking small and intimate.

From that misery grew a powerful transformation and while indeed I am still that little girl inside, still wishing in some way that he could read this and realise his mistakes, still tearing up as I write about my experiences with him, still hoping that he would call me and apologise hoping to reconcile a friendship, still wondering whether he would ever find confidence to be himself and live a life not in the shadow of others but as himself, in the end it is only facts that I can rely on and the facts are that he is long gone and that he never cared for me. Why would he? He never knew me. I never knew me. Until now.

I hope in some way that some of the men here are able to see the importance of being gentle to a woman's feelings.

Your requirements are reasonable, but you don't need to try to universalize them to prove their legitimacy. That is, plenty of women have different requirements than you (thank the good Lord (playful jab)), but different strokes for different folks (allusion to the stroking inherent in the Tootsie Roll). — Hanover

Sorry pal, no stroking in the Tootsie Roll. It kind of involves curling.

Since forever. I labor under no illusions that my insights exceed yours. Your femaleness puts you light years ahead of me in comprehending emotions and motivations. Truth. — Hanover

Wrong. We are just as stupid as you men. We are not light years ahead and that is almost borderline sexist that harbours the notion that somehow we are 'motherly' in our understanding of the male mind and therefore responsible in managing men. Nope. You guys are just as fucking weird to us as we are to you.

But anyhoot (note the Hanoverian method of language adoption and the feelings of comfort it elicits), I didn't read the man child's mind. I just stated the universal truth that all men want women to crawl on their laps like kitty cats (mind out of the gutter perv - talking meowing regular old cats here). — Hanover

Man child. Perfect phrase. As mentioned, I wanted to crawl all over him like a kitten the truth be told, and he remains the only man I have ever met that had some sort of a strange power over me. He was damned attractive. He may have only wanted that, but in doing so he allowed me to catch a glimpse of who I was, someone who would never give that to anyone unless he was the right man. I proved to myself that I am worthy to only be for the one person and the right person (as in, I didn't have sex with him).

Now I am to learn that the failure of the relationship had little really to do with a failure to communicate and his general idiocy, but just old fashioned incompatibility — Hanover

No, his failure to communicate and his general idiocy is confirmation of our incompatibility, that I am compatible with men who are confident and who respect me and admire me as I would them.

Timeline, male only kitten crawls? :eyes: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Sorry lovely, I just don't see myself gliding all over your bodice as though I were playing Wham-o Slip N' Slide. I like man alone. :cry:

Choice B. He likes you. He's not a sociopath. He's a retard. Give the retard some love. Damn girl. — Hanover

I figured that out eventually and tried to respond in a way I thought he may understand considering his ridiculously strange behaviour, but he didn't understand and then I looked stupid. Anyhoot.

A guy doesn't tell you that because he suspects you already know it. That's what all guys want. — Hanover

Since when were women mind readers? This verifies the complexities wrought by many men who, I think, expect to be loved without doing or saying anything. She is not your mother. There are conditions. To add to that, she doesn't want to be worshipped neither does she want to run around after man, just a friend to hang out with and share in life and experiences as equals, as well as figure out new and evolving sexual positions. I mean, have you heard of the Tootsie Roll? I just made that up, see, and I could have practiced that shit on him if he were normal.

What I really don't like is this deflection of responsibility justified as some innocence or vulnerability. It is accountability that differentiates between a boy and a man. I know articulating feelings can indeed make a person feel vulnerable, but a bystander that says and does nothing is just as guilty despite being able to tell himself that he is free from any responsibility. He hid in the shadows and while I did bless his awkward and almost deranged little heart for a while and why I tried to communicate at his level because I wanted to give him a shot, what did he expect to get out of doing that other than being able to tell himself that he was free of any responsibility and walk away should things go awry?

I don't know, you end up missing out on life, on what could be real and beautiful because when you are strong enough to go and take what you want, you really are happier as a person.

To be fair, you're not respecting vulnerability limitations. Telling people you care about them ought to be easy, but it's not, male or female. Do you really say that if you're not sure where the guy stands or do you wait (and wait and wait) for him to say it first? Methinks you're just as much a scaredy cat as he is, little miss pretends to be balls to the wall, caution to the wind, express my love like no other. — Hanover

Your partner is a reflection of the person that you are. I like hiking and sports, writing essays, listening to local bands, travelling independently, having a small number of friends and leading a small life. I dress normally. I love my job working with kids and have no further ambitions (I am very content in my work). I enjoy being creative and visiting art galleries. I am deeply passionate about human rights. He doesn't like girls like me - which I think is the real reason for his behaviour - he likes popular girls that have no mind enough for him to control, that dress like teenage clowns and pretend to care about things, things that will make them look good and ultimately him by extension rather than genuinely, that the people he associates with will approve of her. I am not someone they would approve and therefore I am not even worth it for him. We are different people like that because I would give up so much for someone I cared for and that was the only reason why things never manifested, not because he was innocent or vulnerable or I was scared.

Prolly God hates you. — Hanover

:halo:

And why, for heavens sake, is it that every time I promise to commit myself to study over the weekend, the weather is glorious? Do you have an answer to that, Mr. 'I know everything'?

My emotional retardation takes this as rejection, you learner of nothing. I'd be sad, but I forgot what we were talking about. Here's your quandary: all guys are emotionally retarded. You just have to take one in and give him a good home and pet his head. It's just mean as shit to leave them in the rain wondering what to do. — Hanover

Listen here you defender of man, why would I cuddle up to one who has given me no indication that he wants me to crawl all over him like a kitten? It is simply an exchange of information that explains what you are genuinely feeling. Here is some prepared earlier:

I really like you.
I enjoy your company.
I want to get to know you better.
I really admire you.
You are so fucking awesome.

It is an indication of how you feel so she can know where she stands. You don't stalk someone and say nothing, you don't send affectionate messages to her pretending to be someone else, or love songs and short stories and completely freak her out thinking is this guy a psychopath or does he like me?, and then, when she gets scared and backs away trying to get rid of him because of her confusion, he thinks she is crazy.

Fucking hell, man.

Sally's outreach to bring John closer is interpreted as rejection and pushing away. John's outreach to bring Sally closer is interpreted as rejection and pushing away. John sees Sally as a confusing, emotional creature unable to grasp his arguments, and he likely describes her as crazy. Sally sees John as uncaring and stubborn and likely describes him as childish and not fully human. — Hanover

Let's work through the predominant points here in your research.

1. The misinterpretation
1(a). He thinks I am confusing, emotional and unable to grasp what he is actually on about to a point that he thinks I am crazy
1(b). I see him as uncaring and stubborn and completely childish and not fully human.

:up:

2. The misdirection
2(a). He thinks I am not interested in him because I won't get physically close to him.
2(b). I think because he does not express his admiration for me or make the appropriate gestures that would make me believe he is interested.

:up:

3. The hopelessness
3(a). He thinks I am rationally retarded
3(b). I think he is emotionally retarded

:down: No. He is just emotionally retarded. End of story there.

4. The retardation

We didn't work out because of a mixture of stupid shit that could have been avoided if he wasn't emotionally retarded.

Your essay is pretty good, but certainly needs to be improved.

Why is it that you have no difficulty describing his failures to us, but not to him, the only person who actually needed to hear it, and could you have described his failures to him in a caring and supportive way that built him up, not one that justified your annoyance and frustration? — Hanover

He would not allow me. This is exactly what I wanted to do above all else, to sit with him and talk, but he played games as a strategy to avoid the possibility that I may reject him and his intense affection was often matched with intense anger, which would frighten me and why I was confused about what he actually wanted and how I could communicate with him. I tried to express that I cared for him with that in mind so that he might open up and feel more comfortable talking to me knowing that he wasn't going to be rejected, tried to articulate his faults through fictional stories and suggesting personal examples as a comparative means to get him to acknowledge his behaviour and perhaps even to feel empathy because I felt that anything direct - no matter how gentle I express it - he would not be capable of accepting, and conversely I was frightened of the potential reaction he may have that I was left conflicted between whether or not I should even be helping him that in the end all that was left was a series of bullshit stories and no actual communication. He knows nothing about me. I failed because of what you say, that was all that I wanted and I was working around his madness trying to figure out ways we could actually talk.

Maybe you did love him, but he didn't love you. — Hanover

I don't think I loved him either. I was more hurt by the confusion he wrought. All I wanted to know was what he wanted (sex, friendship, love, enemies?) and there was a part of me that wanted to give him a shot and another part of me that wanted him to just fuck off. I don't like playing hide and seek, I am very fond of honesty and confidence and it caused me to think I needed to play back, which just made a mess of everything and he never found out the real person that I am because of it. I then realised that this game-playing confirmed we are very different people and it would not have worked out because I want someone mature, someone who does not follow the herd but his heart, who would give up holding onto all that and experience life and he is nothing like that, on the contrary he is almost pathological in his need for approval from others. As friends, though, I still feel like we could have been awesome. You live and learn.

Anyway, nice chat. We should do lunch sometime.

That sucks that he treated you poorly like that. I am very glad this guy doesn't play games. He's usually pretty honest, never led me to believe that he might love me back. Probably the best friend I ever had, but I have to let him go now. It wouldn't be fair or right to hold him back.

You are right, healthy relationships can only work if both people can accept themselves. I've struggled with that for a very long time. To the point of bitter self-hatred. — Lone Wolf

The problem was not how he treated me, that is the point, the problem was me because I allowed him to treat me that way and I did not stamp my own self identity into my relations with him and instead followed his method of courting, whatever the fuck his method was. I should have stopped him right from the beginning and taken control, if I knew what I wanted. That was because I didn't really understand what it was that I wanted in a man and perhaps even had a bias toward the traditional attitude to courting that expects a man to be in control. It is actually really hard to find someone that aligns with what you want, meaning that we tend to feel we need to make concessions and perhaps to some degree we have no choice in that, but not the major things, things that mean something to you.

Lone Wolf, I think you are highly articulate and your attitude and system of thinking is top notch, but the process of finding that empowerment and love for yourself is not easy. It took me years and I too struggled considerably to find that and even then it can sometimes feel shaky. Relationships with others can make you feel even more vulnerable. The first thing, though, is admitting that you lack this and you are, but it takes time and great deal of effort, something that is hard to see when you feel heartbroken. Sometimes, when people around you - even from childhood - consistently tell you that you are not good enough either directly or indirectly, you are not aware that such reverberations of that negative view become ingrained into the very fabric of your identity that your perceptions become much the same. To find your own voice takes a lot of letting go, a lot of freedom - which is scary - to say that you are going to do things your way and never expect anything from others, even if it is expecting love and respect.

I think you understand by saying that if you loved him you would need to let him go, it is just hard right now, but it will ease soon enough.

I really don't wanna go to work. — Sapientia

Then don't? Pull a sickie and smoke me a kipper.

Summed up it is just a simple childish heartbreak. Thought I loved him, but oh well. — Lone Wolf

I think there is a reason why one feels as though their heart is broken and it is not childish to feel that way, a painful longing with the hope that he reciprocates. I thought I loved someone and he treated me rather callously, playing so many games that I was nauseous from the dizziness. It still can reduce me to tears. I then realised this man that I loved was no man at all. He was boy. Although I knew - though I never showed him - that he and I were very similar and that I knew we would get along really well, he was incredibly messed up as a person, despite having a good heart. So was I. The timing was not right and it took years to realise that. Now, I feel empowered, myself, strong and my trajectory is clear and I have never felt this happy. You cannot love others or be in a healthy relationship until you first find the love for yourself and that is when you know what you want.

Your partner should be a reflection of who you are, you should admire them. If you don't, you'll probably end up miserable. You may be heartbroken now, but wounds heal.

How did things go? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

It went really well, I am surprised at how empowered I feel. :strong: I welcomed conversations about the past, holding firm to never blaming her but rather articulating in my gentle way all that I have experienced over the last several years. She felt sad for me, which is unusual because she was never the type to care (crocodile tears) but I had gone through so much that it really stopped her, before explaining my improvements in work and study. She told me she admired me. People can change and it is simply time for me to grow up.

My sister was there too and we got on really well. She is an anthropologist and is married to an American who is a keen hiker and we're both very close in age so we clicked well. I am taking everything slow but I think wounds are healing and it really shows my solid improvement as a person.

You remembered :cry: Thank you, much needed as it has been on my mind all day.

This statement really isn't limited to Israel, but takes an unrealistic view and overly protective view of children. Some children simply are in fact dangerous. That's a fact. It's not like someone is innocently confused regarding the danger of his behavior until age 18 and then suddenly he's malicious. — Hanover

I think you are misconstruing the intent behind what 'danger' entails and while, indeed, there are dangers to stone-throwing, the real impetus behind the excessive use of force and the nature of criminalising behaviours as represented by children like Amir is the overall danger, the symbolic danger that may form the impetus to mobilise further attacks, which is why she was arrested several days after the incident when it became viral. Palestinian children are regularly detained and even shot and killed for throwing stones and the continuity of undermining the laws by security personnel is intended to deter the threat and promote submission to their authority. What is questionable here is whether such martial rigidity ultimately creates the very enemy they are seeking to deter.

When I was in Denmark, I was in a fellowship of international students undertaking research on Islamic communities and one of the students was formerly in the military and he asked me, "you are at war; if you see a child on the mountain ahead of you, would you shoot the child?" I immediately responded with no, before he stated, "you have no choice but to kill the child. The child could be used by the enemy to obtain information to be given back to them." It was distressing, to say the least, but understandable. This parallels the problematic security situation in Israel, only they are not in a state of war that would merit such drastic behaviour and yet they are clearly not out of danger either. So, the real problem here is not the 'unrealistic and over protective view of children' but whether such trauma inflicted on children will in fact produce tomorrows enemy adults who then become the real danger.

I think there is a schism between the representations in BoR where actual people parallel the mythical. If we re-imagine it to simply be some fantastic dream that John had, the beast could in fact be the lamb and therefore the rider of the white horse and the 'death' itself is really the death of his attachment to evil as represented by the Harlot (the beast 'kills' the harlot in the end, despite her being able to control and manipulate him initially), because if you read the first part of the book, it talks about all the wrongs committed by the lamb and mentioned a woman 'Jezabel' that he tolerates and who parallels the whore of Babylon.This death is therefore a death of evil, in that sense, and his move to marry the 'New Jerusalem' or the good woman involves building a new tabernacle which I don't think is the 'sucessfull spread of the gospel' in any institutional sense, but rather the spreading of what the gospel itself really intended, that chasteness and superiority as you say.

It points out that the majority of the depictions of the dragon are female, and of course St. George on the white horse being the symbol chasteness and male superiority. St. George's saving the princess then becomes chastity saving purity (the Princess as the blessed virgin Mary) from the evil female. — Cavacava

This is interesting. Is there any semblance with the white horse of death in the Book of Revelations and the wife of the lamb? The 'death' itself is the death of the beast and the 'harlot' who was in control of or riding the beast, choosing to marry the pure woman.

That's not what I said. I was simply saying they carry out assassinations. I disagree with all assassinations including those commited by France, Russia and the US. All I was trying to say is that assassinating people doesn't help build relationships. — René Descartes

Assassinations are bad. The deep state is a scary world. I am talking about what they are doing and, yes, there are mistakes as much as there is progress as it is a young state in an extremely hostile environment. I was in Israel when they signed a multi-billion dollar deal with Jordan. I met Israelis that continuously stage protests against the government in support of Palestine and the Palestinians themselves have vocalised to me that they are happy for the strong support coming from Israeli citizens for them. I was with these women.

It is full of Israeli people who are genuinely desirous of peace and who simply want a place to call home. Is everything about America simply Trump? Do we believe that the loud noise made by rednecks or evangelicals to be an epitome of that country? There are many left-wing and right-wing suggestions being made against them and indeed there are wrongs - I am from Australia and we have committed genocide to our indigenous peoples and continue to breach human rights against refugees and asylum seekers - but communicating the faults and follies of a country is an important aspect to democracy.

They still carry out assassinations with Mossad. I don't see in what way that is trying. — René Descartes

You don't see many things. So, should we say that France, Russia, the United States should not exist?

Maybe, it wouldn't be that extraordinary, but does that rise the level of declaring Israel a nation rife with human rights abuses? — Hanover

No one is saying that it is rife with human rights abuses, but that there are abuses, excessive use of force, detaining children in poor and sometimes extreme conditions, interrogating and violating not only international law but even Israeli domestic laws. If Israel is even conscious of the fact that disproportionate use of force against minors continue to occur and made efforts to raise the standards of applying measures that ensure procedures are correctly adhered and yet time and time again clear evidence shows continuous breaches that result in the deaths of many children, how could you possibly suggest the following:

...but you're views on children are overly defensive and entirely unrealistic in your declaration that they are not dangerous. — Hanover

Are you serious?

The claim that any group of people have a "natural and historic right" to a nation in a certain location, separate and distinct from a legal right, is necessarily biased, however, as it favors a particular group of people over other groups. In other words, it's a claim that a particular group of people, and no other group of people, are entitled to a nation at a certain place. So, I think reference to rights in these cases is best avoided. Israel simply exists. — Ciceronianus the White

I think you are confusing divine law here as indigenous populations had legal systems that we today do not recognise as 'law' and natural rights emerged to coexist so as to recognise the historic meaning of content that is valuable to populations as beneficial users of the land, a mechanism for recognition that is ultimately aimed at resolving disputes but also to ameliorate the content behind the legality. International customary law is binding as it demonstrates the meaning from this identification and therefore qualifies the content of the rights and interests of members of that society and their relationship to the land, which international law and human rights in particular, being universal and inalienable, helps build that bridge. It is heterogeneous and variable but nevertheless this is what Native Title rights are in Australia.

Exclusive use and possession of lands envelops a number of factors and in the case of Israel, notwithstanding the dissolution of imperial control in the region, failures that need to be recognised by poor leadership of the Palestinian people (Grand Mufti Amin al-Husseini sided with the German Nazi's against the United Kingdom and the Allies who, at the time, controlled the region). There are legally binding recognition 'tests' to determine a 'state' including the required permanent characteristics and the ability to consolidate adequate control over the territories, a solid system of governance, diplomatic capacity, and a permanent population among others. This could actually be achieved for Palestine as part of the two-state solution, and while consistently undermined by Israel, poor Palestinian leadership that continues to disregard international law by failing to recognise the state of Israel will only perpetuate the problem. Let us not forget the misappropriation of millions of dollars by leaders like Arafat and Abbas while the Palestinian people continue to suffer.

I actually believe that Israel really is trying - as seen with their diplomatic relations with Jordan and Egypt, in particular the former and some amazing contracts they have signed vis-a-vis gas and electricity - but where they fail is the Netanyahu revisionism and the vocal reverberations of the ultra-orthodox community that scream nonsense of which 70% of Israeli people roll their eyes to. Their brutality is used as an effective method to deter violence - particularly following the intifada - but I think it is backfiring when they have a chance now to build effective and positive methods of acceptance.

It's probably best to let go of self-righteousness because the prospect of turning out to be the demon is always on the horizon, and it hurts all the more to find this out if you thought you were a saint. — frank

That is a risk that you need to take when it comes to fighting for justice and for righteousness and it needn't be with a sword. I was once having a conversation with a woman who changed her studies from international relations to design and her reasoning behind that was religious, afraid that if she were to make public decisions that she may inadvertently cause people suffering and she did not want to be a part of that. I found that to be truly selfish and paradoxical, considering that her fears only enable bad people to do exactly what she was afraid of committing. If you care about the complex whole or the wheel - that you are a part of - then you need to find the courage to improve enough to understand what it is to be righteous and take care of that whole. Righteousness has been the impetus to every decision I have made in my life, beyond what I want or desire, because I am a part of the wheel. Human rights is universal.

Forgive? Yes. Forget? If you can figure out how, please let me know. The closest I got was compartmentalizing my past, taking the strength of character that it built within me and place that chapter of my life, on a shelf, tied with a bow, ready to be pulled down if necessary but I have never felt the need to do so. Every so often I catch myself making sure that chapter is still there, maybe to remind myself of the strength I needed to get through that and come out a smiling and loving person. I have a feeling you will see more of the beautiful person you already are~ — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Some nights while curled in bed, you remember something, a harsh comment made against you from a person that you love and a part of your heart feels torn away and lost from that loneliness that only your tears anaesthetises. It is those nights where memories can feel unforgivable, but that is the reason for forgiveness. It is something that you give, a giveness and it takes a great deal of strength and even a greater deal of courage to accept that memory, to accept that person. That epitomises what it means to give love and not when this love is reciprocated.

I only had a hard time with forgiveness because I wanted others to change, to improve, to acknowledge their wrong doing because I loved them and wanted to be with them, but it is impossible to be in the presence of those that never acknowledge their own wrong doing, on the contrary, they will happily lie to themselves and others in denial that they have done any wrong. Forgiveness is thus an acceptance and the tears are really just a dream, a wish for something you can never have.

So much love right now :fire:

I am currently going through a process of applying philosophy into the real world, moving up professionally and teaching myself to better myself. I have never felt so at peace, months have passed and not a moment of anger or sadness, just peace. This Friday, I am meeting up with my mother who did quite a lot of wrong to me as a way to learn how to apply forgiveness for wounds that are very deep, because forgiveness is something that you give as is love. Authenticity is simply a way of thinking.

We love you :love: This place wouldn't be the same with you floating around sharing the spaced-out sexiness that is you. But I am almost certain that you are even more caring and kind in reality since places like this really never do a person justice, so I can imagine how much you mean to your family and your dad. I wish him peace.

Similarly, although I can see the significance, upon contemplation, of the ethics against eating meat and consuming animal products, it hasn't so far been compelling enough for me to drastically change my lifestyle, and that's not the end of the world. You only live once. — Sapientia

Would you eat ugly black cats for breakfast on toast with vegemite? I mean, you only live once.

It seems problematic to me that vegan (and possibly vegetarian ethics) hinges on the claim that we don't need to eat meat.

So that if we were carnivores then there could be no moral issue which seems to be quite an arbitrary point at which to invoke ethics.

I can't figure out exactly how to frame my objection though. But it seems to be that behaviour that is essential for survival cannot be subject to the same type of moral claim as non-survival related conduct.

Although that said all conduct to survive could compromise morality. So in a sense the amorality or immorality of nature compromises morality anyway. — Andrew4Handel

When I was 15, I was temporarily living in the countryside and I witnessed a ram being slaughtered; I watched in horror as it screamed and pulled back and away as the farmer pulled it toward where it was to be killed and such an experience changed my attitude to the treatment of animals. I have been a vegetarian ever since and vegan by default only because I am dairy intolerant, though I eat eggs. There are a plethora of available foods that compensate for any nutritional losses that one would encounter on a carnivorous diet but it is just a matter of looking and/or being guided correctly. Physically, we actually do not need to eat meat and vegetarians are considered to have the most healthiest diet.

There are two reasons why I am not against eating meat but rather would like to evoke conscious eating of meat that promotes better farming practices and avoids mass production through food chains such as McDonalds. This is because the latter practices is having huge environmental impact - particularly with cow meat and fishing - where clear-cutting trees, soil erosion as well as the methane production and greenhouse gases to farm them is fast becoming a serious concern together with the killing sharks and whales that is impacting on the balance of our marine life, not to mention the growing list of endangered species; all this is actually ruining the balance of our ecosystem. We need to make a more conscious effort in how we approach meat-eating and sometimes vegetarianism or even veganism is simply a way of communicating the importance of this consciousness. It does not make eating meat morally wrong, but ignorance to how you eat meat as morally wrong because ignorance is no excuse.

Conscious farming practices are growing as people are now eating meats from farmers that treat their animals properly - i.e. free range and well fed - but are also using regenerative agricultural practices. It simplifies the process or bring it back to 'real' as people are becoming aware of how problematic mass production of meat is to both animal rights as well as our environment.

Land is acquired by war, government force, treaty, and purchase, and the question isn't clear when it's morally rightfully one's own, which places Israel's rightful presence as morally ambiguous as Australia's and the US's. The Palestinian right to the lands is just as morally right as the Manhattan Indians right to NYC, only in the latter case no one takes such a claim at all seriously. — Hanover

I accept the legitimacy of sovereign states as defined by international law whereby such states as members of an international community are subject to the equality principle based on particular characteristics as per the declarative theory test. This would make Israel, as a sovereign state, subject to international human rights law (see Montevideo Convention) however the erosion of human rights is when legitimacy of statehood is accepted on the basis of national law where sovereign powers begin to exercise categorical breaches of human rights obligations based often on potentially ideological underpinnings and violating the League of Nations Mandate (hence the "certain ferocity in protecting those lands" and the Levy Commission Report).

In 1992, Australia' high court case Mabo vs. Queensland overturned the Terra Nullius concept used by the colonialists as justification for the possession of Australian land, despite the indigenous population living here for thousands of years and this declaration was likely inhabited by the vicious concept that the indigenous people were not 'civilised' and why the disgusting White Australia Policy only recognised as loathsome in the 1970s. It took even longer for the government to apologise for the genocide and even the latter is a word not used to describe what they did to indigenous children.

Referring to your statement, indeed, Palestinian statehood has regularly failed the State Recognition tests for a number of reasons, but not what you suggest (vis-a-vis land acquisition) but rather the ambiguity of permanent characteristics where the government is unable to consolidate adequate control over the territories. You speak of war, force, treaty and purchase, but there is also constitutive recognition by the international community - hence why UN resolutions recognising Palestinian statehood cannot be undermined, as well as other characteristics such as defined territory, a solid and unified system of governance, international relations and diplomatic capacity, and finally a permanent population all of which have been undermined both as a result of bad Palestinian leadership but - the latter in particular as per the settlement buildings - by Israel because the intention is clear that they are infringes the Palestinian right to self-determination.

The security and continuous threats of violence plays a pivotal role in this and it is clearly understandable given the constant threats against Israel and particularly the disbelief against the existence of Israel. If cases against Israel were taken to international courts, Hamas would likely be guilty since Israel was merely defending against attacks aimed at Israeli civilians. But if we really want to discuss land occupation and international law, we can remove the potentially emotive elements relating to the Palestinians by focusing on the Golan Heights.

So, yes, innocent children should not be detained, but dangerous children should, still keeping in mind they are children and should not be treated as punitively as adults. — Hanover

Ahed Tamimi is one such girl detained by the Israeli police for kicking a soldier and while I congratulate the soldiers in that instance for not responding to her frustrated resistance, is she "dangerous" enough to merit 10 years imprisonment?

I don't understand how you would assume that I am not taking a "generous view" toward the Israelis when I am well aware of the continuous security threats and have said it as such - hence the relationship between security threats and children's rights - but children are not dangerous. You need good people in dangerous cities to respect and trust the police, just as much as these children belong in schools, to be protected by a safe home, and to be given opportunities so that they can see Israel for what it really is, a beautiful place. Do you not understand that?

Questions like what gives our Australian announcer the right to live on Aboriginal lands are not discussed, nor is the question of what has instigated the martial law tactics of the Israelis addressed (although maybe later in the film they offer a balanced explanation of both sides, but it seems not). — Hanover

While I do agree that the ultra-orthodox community - though they have the loudest voice (let's not forget Yitzak Rabin) - is actually a small minority in Israel and we could say the same for many countries in the world that violate children' rights, i.e. child soldiers, slave labour and sexual crimes; Australia indeed has a deplorable past with the genocide they have committed against Indigenous peoples and even today continue to violate international human rights conventions with their horrendous treatment of asylum seekers, but it is not about the right of self-determination neither is it pointing fingers here and saying that one is worse than the other. The rights of children are universal and it is our responsibility to protect this right. The question here is not about the possession of land but whether there is any justification to violate Convention of the Rights of a Child for the sake of security.

No.

In Israel, martial law prohibits freedom of expression and association that enables the military to exercise powers that can detain and intimidate children who are subject to martial law and Israeli police continue - in places like East Jerusalem - to violate adopted laws such as Law 5731-1971 (‘Youth Law’) - that attempts to improve the treatment of minors. Order Number 1745 explains the lawful process of interrogation against minors suspected of committing security offences and yet within it - 136d(b)6 - it hypocritically states, “This article does not apply to minors suspected of committing security offenses,” So, :chin: ? I suspect the intention of the Knesset amending the Penal Code to increase the sentence of stone throwing with a minimum imprisonment of three years is to use intimidation to protect residents living in illegally built settlements in the occupied territories of Palestine and/or to try and change the mindset by using fear tactics to enforce submission. It is dubious to say the least whether these hostilities will in fact prevent the makings of future terrorists. These children experience mental health and post-traumatic symptoms from being detained from their families, stripped naked, interrogated, before going back to living in proximity to a wall protected by armed soldiers that continue to use aggressive tactics.

I don't care what country you are from or what religion you follow. The rights of children are universal and to use the pointing fingers card is really not on.

My attitude toward the non-human universe is not one of wonder or sacredness, it is one of family, home. — T Clark

:100: I totally agree.

Some of us, however, don't have a family or a home and so the universe becomes their family as a lonely child would their imaginary friends. Some even go so far as to pretend that the objects around them that they feel nothing for are a part of who they are. We need to go back to the heart of who we are as people, to re-create the importance of home, of family. I may never have had a family, but I know that I am bursting with love that I now give that to the universe around me as a whole, that I feel truly happy when others are.

Yeah, I saw this and was pretty astonished because it changes the idea of how the universe and galaxies are formed. Galaxies contain characteristics such as thin and thick disk, bar(s), galactic nucleus etc, and in this instance there appears luminous (stellar) halo without any dark matter.

Going on what you are saying about DM, galaxies lens the light between our observations here on earth and the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and provides us with a greater understanding of larger scale structures as well as dark matter as the latter must exist to ensure that galaxies themselves to do collapse or evaporate and thus hold form. The best way to describe dark matter is an unknown, non-luminous material that we cannot directly see. Einstein’ theory elucidates that matter and energy are two different states, therefore dark energy and dark matter can also be treated with the same separateness, although our understanding of either phenomenon remains problematic. The temperature fluctuations in the CMB have enabled scientists to measure the existence of cold dark matter (CDM) where measurements of the brightness and intensity of the radiation field is explained using temperature. So Dark Matter must exist to hold galaxies together and for the perturbations in the CMB, but Dark Energy is the source of the cosmological constant or the energy that enables both expansion and acceleration of the early universe.

There are different type of DM as mentioned, including Hot Dark Matter – which differs from Cold Dark Matter because the former’ speed and movement are caused by neutrino particles and are faster or more energetic.Hot dark matter would not have permitted larger scale structures to have adequately formed because of the high speeds. There is also Warm Dark Matter that no one really cares about, nevertheless it contains inert or sterile neutrinos as well as properties called gravitinos and that the theory is the medium between hot and cold matter that would ultimately balance the theoretical combination of general relativity with the theory of supergravity.

A Dark Matter Halo was observed when the outer edge of a spiral galaxy contained matter that moved at the similar speeds to the matter within the inner part of the galaxy, which contradicts gravitational laws since the outer edge should in fact be moving slower and thus this is explained in the form of dark matter, matter that does not directly need light to interact. When you look at elliptical galaxies, DM halos are more dense in the centre of the galaxy but this suggests that it does not envelop the galaxy despite dark matter halos being the material that envelops galaxies and galaxy clusters to balance the gravitational pull that would otherwise cause an evaporation or collapse. Dark matter halos are apparently formed through gravitational instability. According to inflationary cosmology, inflation is pushing Ω to 1 with Ω being the mass density divided by critical mass density, thus the asymptotic curvature of the universe is being exponentially flattened. During this process of expansion, a small volume of dark matter expands with the universe as it reaches critical mass density, before it turns and collapses to form "viralized dark matter halos" and continues to grow either by "accreting material... or merging with other halos."

There are three types of matter, namely that of dark matter, ordinary matter (baryons) and photons or “light” and as the early universe expands and cools as hydrogen is formed through ‘recombination’ which is where charged electrons and protons bound together to form hydrogen atoms. The CMB is during this period of recombination had photons separate and no longer bound by matter, the strength of these oscillations or perturbations is measured and the height of these oscillations measure dark matter and the smaller or more compressed, the more dark matter over regular matter. In this instance - as in with this galaxy - there is more regular matter.

So this changes shit.

You made it sound like you knew what my favourite pieces are. — René Descartes

You did say.

One of my favourite pieces of music. — René Descartes

So, ah, anyhoot.


My. No.1 played song on my iPod.

That Strauss is pretty good. Why, what were you thinking?