|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 11:05 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Welcome to the train wreck!
Their "refutations" entail casting doubt on the assumptions required for dating the age of universe via light travel times. They suppose that the speed of light may have changed at some point in the past, that time dilation would account for the discrepancies between their biblical view and the facts (they essentially split this into two separate categories "Rigidity of Time" and "Sychronization") and finally something they call "naturalism".
There is no evidence that the speed of light has changed such that we would perceive a 6000 year old universe as a 14 billion year old one. We do have at least a hundred years of evidence during which the speed of light hasn't changed.
Even though Answersingenesis would have us believe otherwise, time dilation is taken into account when calculating the age of the universe from observed light sources.
That leaves us with "naturalism". I quote:
| Quote: |
| Naturalism is the belief that nature is �all that there is.� Proponents of naturalism assume that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural laws. This is not only a blind assumption, but it is also clearly antibiblical. |
If a science weren't assuming a natural explanation for whatever phenomena it were observing, then it wouldn't be science. The supernatural is, by definition, not a part of science.
Yes, in order to calculate the age of the universe since the big bang, some big assumptions need to be made.
In order to discredit those assumptions, Answersingenesis makes bigger assumptions.
In short, Answersingenesis would have us believe that their assumptions that observed universal constants have drastically changed - and left no observable evidence of said change - such that currently observable evidence fits their "the universe is 6000 year old" theory, or that there is a supernatural force (God, duh!) are more reasonable than science's assumptions that universal constants are, and have been in the past, constant and that there is a natural explanation for the age of the universe.
To say nothing of radiometric dating. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
To explain this there is the white hole cosmology...
Or Cosmological relativity ...
Which do I follow? I'm not sure. I'm not a physicist.. and I haven't investigated this particular area before... |
That you accept by default virtually unknown theories like "white hole cosmology" or "cosmological relativity" - despite, admittedly and unsurprisingly, knowing virtually nothing about either of them yourself - as opposed to the current, easily observed well-researched facts is very telling indeed. |
And what about you and your instinctive knee-jerk default slamming of creation theories that you don't even understand nor have investigated?
Yes, I am predisposed to explanations that support creationism. that doesn't mean I overlook their flaws though if and when I encounter them.
Evolutionists have no excuse though. They claim to be cold hard scientists objectively interpreting facts. Dissapointing to find then, that they are little more than emotional children making up fairy tales. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
To explain this there is the white hole cosmology...
Or Cosmological relativity ...
Which do I follow? I'm not sure. I'm not a physicist.. and I haven't investigated this particular area before... |
That you accept by default virtually unknown theories like "white hole cosmology" or "cosmological relativity" - despite, admittedly and unsurprisingly, knowing virtually nothing about either of them yourself - as opposed to the current, easily observed well-researched facts is very telling indeed. |
And what about you and your instinctive knee-jerk default slamming of creation theories that you don't even understand nor have investigated? |
I've read the links you posted. I know and understand the creationist arguments.
Understanding does not equal acceptance.
You've proved as recently as two or three pages ago that you don't even know what radiometric dating (something you desperately seek to discredit) is, which I pointed out and you promptly dropped.
I'm still waiting for your evidence that three examples (67% of which are obvious fraud) constitute a "truckload" of examples of the failure of radiometric dating. And that "every time" a radiometric dating facility is given a sample without a guesstimate beforehand they "make a massive gaffe".
Since you've only given these three examples and radiometric dating has successfully been applied thousands of times more often, I have to assume you have nothing.
| Junior wrote: |
| Yes, I am predisposed to explanations that support creationism. that doesn't mean I overlook their flaws though if and when I encounter them. |
I have yet to see you point out any flaws in creationist theory. I have seen you vehemently deny that there are any flaws in creationist theory at all. You've repeatedly stated that the case for creationism is "obvious".
| Junior wrote: |
| Evolutionists have no excuse though. They claim to be cold hard scientists objectively interpreting facts. Dissapointing to find then, that they are little more than emotional children making up fairy tales. |
You just said that you support either "white hole cosmology" or "cosmological relativity" based purely on the fact that they support your theory of the age of the universe, and your "excuse" is that you're being more objective that those that support the theory of evolution. 
Being a bit of a physicist myself, let's have a look at those two theories:
| rationalwiki.org wrote: |
| The main idea of white hole cosmology is that the world was created inside a black hole and that earth was subjected to intense time dilation so billions of years could have passed outside the field while only a few days would pass inside it. |
Whoa Nelly!
Talk about assumptions! Right off the bat, in order for current observed scientific facts to squeeze their way into your cosmological view, we have to accept that the earth - despite no evidence supporting it - was created inside of a black hole.
Read the rationalwiki.org article. There's a lot of well-referenced, nasty math (that yes, I do half-understand) that shows it is a load of bunk.
Cosmological relativity I can find almost nothing on (read: outside of creation.com or some such creationist website.) The few discussions I've found on more reputable science sources (physicforums.com, natscience.com) classify it as interesting but unsupported by observational evidence. Until I know more, it's really pointless to comment.
I now know a great deal more about both of those theories than you, and yet my reactions are "knee-jerk" while yours are apparently well though out and objective... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 7:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| brento1138 wrote: |
| geldedgoat wrote: |
No, my disagreement stems from my study and understanding of philosophy and theology.
|
That's nice. People are free to disagree. I just hope they don't start going around, entering schools, and telling them to add religious books to the science curriculum. It's best to keep unfounded beliefs in an unfounded belief environment, not a science environment. |
Whoa whoa, slow down, bud. I know that Bible-in-schools argument is nice and shiny, but try to stay focused. I'm only here to rein in your rampant anti-theism, not help Junior pull you around by your nose (in fact, I think the only comment I've made in this thread concerning evolution was actually in opposition to Junior).
| Quote: |
| geldedgoat wrote: |
I wasn't raised with Hinduism either, yet I don't dismiss the veracity of the Rig Veda in the same manner as I would Peter Pan.
|
This is where you & I differ. Just because one work of fiction is older[...] |
Again? Do you still want to try to claim that you aren't attacking religion? I'm amazed you still don't see that throwing 'fiction' around like that is every bit as stupid as your earlier comments about the probability of the divine's existence.
| Quote: |
| All I have done is defend science against fundamentalist religion[...] |
No, brentie, that's not all you've done. If it was, this would still probably be a fight between you and Junior. As it is, a surprisingly large chunk of your posts have no goal other than to ridicule and attack religions as a whole (I say 'surprisingly' because normally tripe like yours gets threads locked with the quickness; here's hoping you aren't the cause of that here).
| Quote: |
| I never inferred that all Christians resort to extreme violence. |
No, instead what you implied was that religious parents (specifically Christians) who disagree with speciation, abiogenesis, and radiometric dating being taught in public schools are only one good sermon (or a couple good tequila shots) away from gearing up with guns and explosives and killing people to further their agenda. That was beyond hyperbolic, and you could not have been more wrong to make such a ridiculous comparison. That you continue to try to dance around your mistake makes you look even more foolish. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| (physicforums.com, natscience.com) classify it as interesting but unsupported by observational evidence. Until I know more, it's really pointless to comment.. |
Right. I'll try and research it when and if I get time.
Interested to know, though, do you believe in the sanctity of human life? Because your philosophy demands the obliteration of the unfit. To you it appears that human life is only of value when it is of use to the community or race.Thus disabled or defective infants should be eradicated. The physical order downtrods the moral order at every confrontation, thus we are only helping advance homo sapiens by ridding ourselves of inferior people or races. The strong naturally supplants the weaker.
I presume you are fully supportive of eg the american eugenics movement, the scandinavian sterilisation programs.
If not, why not? Because it is fully recommended by your theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pucciniphile
Joined: 23 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We're not saying that Evolution is right,
we're only saying that Evolution is the way it is.
I believe I told you the story of a case in which I had trouble explaining this to a piano teachers' mailing list. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2011 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So you don't believe in the sanctity of human life? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pucciniphile
Joined: 23 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2011 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Junior, I'm not sure what your reasoning is.
I'll make a few guesses and hope that one of them is right.
■ Pucciniphile believes that Evolution is morally right.
Evolution destroys life.
Therefore, Pucciniphile believes that destroying life is right.
It seems that I had this difficulty with a group of piano teachers one time.
I told them that boys and girls evolved differently.
They all ganged up on me as if it were all my fault, calling me a male chauvinist and a Leav it to Beaver fan.
I never could figure out why it's my fault.
Did they think I was responsible?
Gender roles appearing millions of years before I was even born,
so I had nothing to do with it.
Or did they think I thought this was all God's idea?
Here I will have to confess that I don't know.
God is invisible, so I don't even know whether he exists or not,
much less what his will is.
Satan is invisible, so I don't even know whether he exists or not,
much less what his will is.
Maybe God is responsible for all this, maybe Satan is responsible for all this, maybe a gang of extraterrestrials is responsible for all this, maybe 'most anything!
All I know is what science tells us.
■ Pucciniphile believes that nothing unfortunate could be true.
Pucciniphile believes in Evolution.
Evolution desecrates life.
Therefore, Pucciniphile believes that life should be desecrated.
There is nothing new about arguing against Evolution based on wishes.
Reverend Moon said that he would not like to be an ape, and therefore Evolution is false.
But that doesn't stop Reverend Moon from being an ape.
Not everything one wishes is true.
I wish I was a world-famous composer, but that doesn't make it true.
We're all very sorry about any wrong-colored pepper moths in the city or wrong-colored pepper moths in the country that got eaten up, but we can't do anything to help them.
We're all very sorry about any of the first polar bears who were dark-colored and were too easily visible, but we can't do anything to help them.
We're all very sorry about any nylon bugs who were born before their time came, so they had to starve to death, but we can't do anything to help them.
We're all very sorry about any of the early Eskimos who weren't fat enough, so they had to freeze to death, but we can't do anything to help them.
If you don't like what Evolution has done, blame it on Evolution, not on Evolutionists.
■ Pucciniphile believes that nothing sacred can be desecrated.
Pucciniphile believes in Evolution.
Evolution desecrates life.
Therefore, Pucciniphile believes that life is not sacred.
It is highly dubious that nothing sacred can be desecrated.
The Nazi soldiers got malicious pleasure out of making Jews throw copies of the Talmud on the floor and stamp on them.
That is a fact even if you believe in the sanctity of the Talmud.
On January 31, 1968, North Vietnam launched a military campaign against South Vietnam, even though that day was the Vietnamese New Year, and the most important Vietnamese holiday.
That is a fact even if you believe in the sanctity of the Vietnamese New Year.
Your insinuation that all Evolutionists are Social Darwinians is all baloney.
We have told you that Darwin himself did not subscribe to Spencer's philosophy.
We told you that Darwin resented having his name attached to the philosophy.
But that went in one ear and out the other, along with everything else we tell you.
We have also told you about the opposition to Social Darwinism within the Evolution camp.
We have told you about Peter Kropotkin and his book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution.
In this book, he expressed the view that mutual aid was not only morally right, but played a significant role in Evolution.
But that went in one ear and out the other, along with everything else we tell you.
But hopefully it won't go in one ear and out the other this time.
It is a very interesting book, and it is available on-line any time you want to read it.
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why do you hesitate so much to give a straight answer?
| Pucciniphile wrote: |
Your insinuation that all Evolutionists are Social Darwinians is all baloney.
We have told you that Darwin himself did not subscribe to Spencer's philosophy.
We told you that Darwin resented having his name attached to the philosophy. |
The game is up, Tomato.
Evolutionists would be happy to smother babies. The early eugenecists advocated exactly that. Because they see it as no tragedy to snuff out a chance cluster of cells.
| Quote: |
Darwin prepared the way for eugenics. Indeed, his immediate family would soon be involved in that movement -- his sons George and Leonard became active in promoting it (Leonard serving as "president of the Eugenics Education Society, the main eugenics group in Great Britain"), and his cousin Francis Galton became the founder of the "eugenics crusade." Evidently, Darwin was sympathetic to eugenics: West quotes him as vowing "to cut off communication" with his disciple Mivart when the latter "criticized an article by Darwin's son George that advocated eugenics."
Darwinists are always trying to set a distance between the theory of evolution and the eugenics movement, but West cites Darwin, in The Descent, as approving of how "the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated" among "savages," and disapproving of how civilized men "build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick," with the result that "the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind." Then, comparing man to livestock, Darwin added, "no one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man." After this statement, he gave lip service to compassion for the weak, but the implication remained that such compassion undercut the survival of the human race.
The Darwinian basis for eugenics
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=0908-gardiner |
Darwin paved the way for a secularism in which man loses his special place as decreed by Judeo-Christian values. Instead of being in the image of God, or posessing a soul, he is apparently only an ape. Evolutionism erases all creeds and morality and makes infanticide, euthanasia and abortion morally justifiable.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HijackedTw1light
Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pucciniphile, I'm still confused about your position. How should knowledge of evolution guide our species?
I'm curious because earlier you said that evolution can help us deal with the world�s problems:
| pucciniphile wrote: |
Our ecological mess might be alleviated if more people turned Evolutionist, saw the fix which our slow Evolution has put us in, and compensated for it.
In fact, ALL of the world's problems might be alleviated if more people turned Evolutionist. |
Can you elaborate? I understand evolutionary psychology provides a possible historical accounting of psychological issues, but I don�t see how it lights up our path.
People don�t need to accept the narratives of evolutionary psychology to know that ruining the environment is bad. People don�t need to be Steven Pinker fans to know that men and women are different. Likewise with prejudice, racism, etc. We already knew. Evolutionary psychologists didn�t discover these issues. In fact they could only come up with origin stories for issues that were already established. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pucciniphile wrote: |
Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution.
In this book, he expressed the view that mutual aid was not only morally right, |
Thats sweet of him but in reality his argument is untenable. It amounts to apologetic weaseling and excuse-making. Evolution theory states that morality is fluid and changes over time, depending on circumstances and cultures.
..in other words, anything goes and essentially nothing can be said to be right or wrong.
This is in sharp contrast to the immutable Judeo-christian philosophy of divine laws, written in stone. Morality has a divine authority. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pucciniphile
Joined: 23 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't have access to The Descent of Man, but another Website says that Darwin spends all of Chapter 21 refuting eugenics.
Creationists are quite fond of quoting out of context, so this will not be a historical first.
As soon as I get a new VISA card, I'll buy a copy and see for myself.
| Junior wrote: |
| Evolution theory states that morality is fluid and changes over time, depending on circumstances and cultures. |
How does Evolutionary theory state that?
| Quote: |
| Darwin paved the way for a secularism in which man loses his special place as decreed by Judeo-Christian values. Instead of being in the image of God, or posessing a soul, he is apparently only an ape. |
What does that have to do with eugenics?
Last edited by pucciniphile on Sun Oct 09, 2011 4:57 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pucciniphile
Joined: 23 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| People don�t need to accept the narratives of evolutionary psychology to know that ruining the environment is bad. |
Then why do people keep on ruining the environment?
The only way I know is to make people aware of why they are unconcerned about what is distant in the future and what is distant geographically.
Our great great grandchildren are distant in the future and the melting polar ice caps are distant geographically.
We've tried TV advertising, we've tried printing pamphlets and brochures, and we've tried using the word "green" as an advertising word.
| Quote: |
| People don�t need to be Steven Pinker fans to know that men and women are different. |
Then why do people keep on failing to understand the differences?
The Yahoo Answers site is replete with questions from women asking why men act the way the do,
and questions from men asking why women act the way they do.
I have answered some of these questions in Evolutionary terms and have been thanked for it.
| Quote: |
| Likewise with prejudice, racism, etc. |
Ever travelled overseas with a group?
Ever been the only white person in a group of black people, or vice-versa?
Ever listened to a person raving and ranting because a white person is dating a black person?
We've tried political correctness, we've tried saturating the media, and we've tried Sunday school teaching.
The only solution I know is to make people aware of where their feelings of prejudice come from.
If you know of any better solution, I'd like to hear it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pucciniphile wrote: |
| I don't have access to The Descent of Man, but another Website says that Darwin spends all of Chapter 21 refuting eugenics. |
Why would he refute his own theory? Or both his sons who were grade A eugenecists?
| Quote: |
| As soon as I get a new VISA card, I'll buy a copy and see for myself. |
Nice diversionary ploy but you can easily have access to the full horror online.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F937.1&viewtype=side&pageseq=1
| Pucciniphile wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
| Evolution theory states that morality is fluid and changes over time, depending on circumstances and cultures. |
How does Evolutionary theory state that? |
It states that morality developed and continues to develop by evolutionary processes.
So obviously of course it changes, and has changed, historically.
Morality is relative to its evolutionary stage of development and also relative to its ability to preserve the species. So of course evolutionism denies any fixed moral code.
| Quote: |
| Darwin paved the way for a secularism in which man loses his special place as decreed by Judeo-Christian values. Instead of being in the image of God, or posessing a soul, he is apparently only an ape. |
What does that have to do with eugenics?[/quote]
You're really playing dumb here I see.
You can always tell when tomatos beat because you have to absolutely spell out the most basic concepts. And even then he tries to wriggle out of the corner.
Eugenics is a straightforward application of Darwinian principles to ethics and society.
In fact the founder of modern Eugenics, Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, based his ideas on The origin of species.
German eugenics leaders relied heavily on Darwinian principles.
The first eugenics organisation in the world was the German society for race hygiene.
| Quote: |
Alfred Ploetz founded the German Society of Racial Hygiene in 1905. However, a eugenic social agenda only gathered support after the humiliating loss of WWI, when Germans felt beset by adversaries both outside and inside their borders.
In 1927, the Rockefeller Foundation provided funds to construct the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics in Berlin, which came under the directorship of the appropriately named Eugen Fischer. Adolf Hitler read Fischer's textbook Principles of Human Heredity and Race Hygiene while in prison at Landsberg and used eugenical notions to support the ideal of a pure "Aryan" society in his manifesto, Mein Kampf (My Struggle).
When Hitler came to power in 1933, he charged the medical profession with the task of implementing a national program in race hygiene. The first key element was the enactment, in 1934, of a law permitting involuntary sterilization of feebleminded, mentally ill, epileptics, and alcoholics. ERO Superintendent Harry Laughlin's model sterilization law was closely modeled, and his contributions to race hygiene were recognized with an honorary degree from the University of Heidelberg. The "marriage laws" of 1935 prohibited unions between "Aryans" and Jews, as well the eugenically unfit.
By the outbreak of WWII, in 1939, an estimated 400,000 people had been sterilized. However, in 1940 the need for hospital beds for wounded soldiers prompted a "final solution" for "lives not worth living." Psychiatrists and medical doctors identified more than 70,000 mental patients who were poisoned with carbon monoxide in extermination centers at psychiatric hospitals.
After gassing of mental patients ceased in 1941, medical and other personnel with euthanasia experience were reassigned to concentration camps in Poland, where hydrogen cyanide gas was used to kill Jews, gypsies, Slavs, and Social Democrats.
http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/topics_fs.pl?theme=41&search=&matches= |
A lot of first hand source material in that link. Check it out.
| Quote: |
Galton's presentation of eugenics came on the heels of Charles Darwin's 1859book, The Origin of Species. Evolutionary theory took precedence as the human race was divided into the "fit" and "unfit," and eugenics became thescientific community's calling as it promoted ways in which, according to Galton, "social control may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations whether physically or mentally." Darwin quoted Galton repeatedly inhis next book, The Descent of Man. Galton and Darwin agreed that intelligence, courage, and good and bad moods were influenced by family upbringing, while features such as mental illness tended to be inherited
Read more: Eugenics, Information about Eugenics http://www.faqs.org/health/topics/45/Eugenics.html#ixzz1aIjIydj2 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HijackedTw1light
Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, I get it now, pucciniphile. You think if we give someone an evolutionary understanding of where their behavior comes from, they will effectively compensate for it on their own. A couple points/questions:
1. Are the origin stories of evolutionary psychology reliable?
Explanations for psychological origins might help us, but only if they are valid. Evolutionary psychology narratives are basically impossible to falsify in experimentation, so they lack scientific rigor. They're often referred to as "just-so" stories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story
Don't take my word for it. This is from leading Darwinian theorist Jerry Coyne, Professor of Biology at the University of Chicago:
| Quote: |
| There is an increasing (and disturbing) tendency of psychologists, biologists, and philosophers to Darwinize every aspect of human behavior, turning its study into a scientific parlor game. But imaginative reconstructions of how things might have evolved are not science; they are stories. Stephen Jay Gould satirized them as �Just-So Stories,� after Kipling�s eponymous book that gave delightful but fanciful explanations for various traits of animals (�How the Leopard Got His Spots,� and so on). |
(Jerry Coyne, p248, �Why Evolution is True�)
2. What�s your basis for the claim that knowledge of evolutionary theory leads to attitude adjustment on world problems that affects the world in a positive way?
| pucciniphile wrote: |
| HijackedTw1light wrote: |
| People don�t need to accept the narratives of evolutionary psychology to know that ruining the environment is bad. |
Then why do people keep on ruining the environment?
The only way I know is to make people aware of why they are unconcerned about what is distant in the future and what is distant geographically. |
Some people still harm the environment, yes, we agree. But it doesn't follow that accepting evolutionary psychology will get people to stop.
You are free to believe it will, but you've provided no evidence. Do you have some backup besides the "thank-you" you received on yahoo answers?
To me it seems that giving someone an explanation of why he is the way he is often just gives him an excuse to justify his own behavior, it doesn't change him. I�ve yet to come across a magazine article that says, for example, that men are hard-wired to go after hot blondes, so now that you know that, you don�t have to go after hot blondes. It's exactly the opposite. The explanation is dropped with a wink and a nod, tacit acknowledgment of basic drives we can't stand against. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
