Still, I argue that this is merely an argument for case preserving file systems rather than case sensitive ones.
No No a million times NOOO!!!
Picture this situation. You're migrating your webserver from windows to *nix. You scan through all of your documents and find out that every link matches every file name perfectly. You go ahead with the migration and a raft of crap breaks because at least in the case of windows, "case preserving" means "I will store the file one way and fucking lie to you about how it's actually stored when you ask".
Any thing that causes your computer to flat out lie to you is not worth having.
I did realise later that you could be the person who said you don't take part in this lifestyle.
That was the first time I said it. You must be thinking about somebody else.
That also makes you opinions pretty worthless by your reasoning, because you don't really know that it 'works'.
If you actually used your brain and learned to read, you'd have noticed that I never expressed an opinion. I merely proved that your opinion was worth less than nothing. Mine would be worth little more on that topic which is why I refrained from expressing an opinion that I knew was total bullshit. My purpose here is merely trying to convince you to do the rest of the world the same favor.
I've been thinking about it all (as usual), and it just makes a joke of the traditional idea of love.
Well, maybe you should start dealing with the fact that the "traditional idea of love" you're talking about is a joke anyhow. The traditional idea is that the woman is the man's slave and can be beaten or killed at will. Perhaps you shouldn't take a recent idea and pretend that it has some sort of exalted status in the massive variety of human relationships.
u suggesting that lawyers and judges should spend a few years being a criminal before they're allowed to become lawyers?
You really are a deeply stupid person, aren't you. Lawyers opinions on criminals are meaningless. Their job is to make arguments based on the law either to force a person to be locked in a cage or murdered regardless of guilt or to get a person set free regardless of their innocence. That's the case for criminal attorneys anyhow. So your example has no relation to the subject at all. The fact that you think such ridiculous bullshit even makes sense proves you to be really fucking dumb.
but I don't have to be a 'poly for a few years' to decide whether or not it would work. Not to decide if it would work for you. You're correct in that case as I've said many times. In order to do what you're trying to do though which is deciding what will and will not work for others, you would have to to even begin to start forming a basis for a reasonable opinion. The fact that you are only you and not every single person in the world would doom you to failure in your attempt to make absolute statements.
You don't seem to know anything about polys yourself cuz you haven't actually said anything other than people can be 'happy' in that lifestyle.
Which matters not a bit because I'm not expressing any opinion on them. My sole issue this entire conversation has been the same. Your failure at basic critical thinking skills and your militant asshattery.
People can be happy for a short while being promiscuous, but I've never heard of that lifestyle ultimately making people happy, because it doesn't have any permanency.
And Monogamy does? Ever looked at the divorce rate and the rate of unfaithfulness? Seriously, you're trying to argue a position a monkey wouldn't take up. Mostly because that monkey is too busy fucking groups of other monkeys.
If someone is ignorant, teach them, otherwise you are just promoting the situation.
I've tried, but you have a militant death grip on your ignorance. You can't stop trying to claim that you know how to run everybody in the world's lives better than they do themselves. That's idiotic beyond belief and a sure sign of a diseased mind.
Taking the permanent companionate love element out of a romantic relationship means it becomes pretty much all just about sex and having fun together when things are good, and giving up when things go bad
So rather than think, you're still making up bullshit and claiming that's the destiny of anybody who can't cram themselves in the little box you have prepared for them. Thanks for nothing shithead.
Personally I figure I was born without having an opinion on much of anything.
Exactly. Were you born with a belief in god? No, then you were born an atheist.
Until you either come up with the question on your own or somebody presents the question to you, it'd be insane to say that you already have a stance.
You don't need a "stance" to be an atheist. You just need no belief in god. Like everybody is born and stays until they are brainwashed by abusive parents.
But we could switch the starting position around (eg. "You are the one saying there is no God.")
No you can't. The situation is not symmetric in any way shape or form. The idea of god did not exist until a person invented it.
I can only say there is no god *after* someone invents the myth and then claims it exists. Mostly it's not worth even denying, usually I just laugh.
You're playing semantics.
Not at all. It's is a fact that the situation is not symmetric.
Anyone who thinks that their disbelief is anything except a matter of faith is deluding themselves.
Twaddle and nothing but. I don't have faith god doesn't exist. The very idea is stupid and ridiculous from the get go, so much like leprechauns and the tooth fairy it can be rejected out of hand since nobody has ever come up with a single reason to think that such an entity exists. Additionally said mythical entity has never done anything to give anybody any evidence of its existence.
* - If you want to go back and start at the top, you'll find that the people bringing up god are the one's trying to convince everybody else that there is no god. It's not the believers who are running around trying to convert people.
In this thread, sure. In the real world, you might want to look at the millions of murders and the thousands of cultures exterminated for the purpose of spreading these idiotic belief systems.
In fact, if you could give hard evidence that god exists, I would convert to christianity immediately. But I won't hold my breath.
Why would you convert to Christianity just because he proved god existed? Heck, just proving god exists creates more questions, the most obvious being which of the thousands or millions of proposed gods is it?
Personally, I do not believe in God, but I know that it is because I choose that belief. I am not some cold rationalist with mountains of evidence to prove my position. It's purely a matter of faith.
I do not believe in god, but I didn't "choose" that. I, you, and every other person who ever lived was born an atheist. I never chose to be otherwise.
There is a tremendous difference between blind faith and not choosing to buy into some idiotic belief system.
No, it just doesn't prove anything one way or the other. He may have existed (there is evidence consistent with his having done so), or he may not (that evidence may not be entirely reliable, since it contains claims that many find implausible).
What evidence is there that he ever lived? As far as I can tell there isn't one single scrap.
Oh, and I forgot to mention. Every time it skips past a chunk of commercials I get a big smooch from the wife. Wife not included, you'll have to get your own;-)
And it works? What kind of false positive rate do you get? False negatives?
Yep, it works very well. There are other options than just the one check box which you can play with if needed, including choosing between various methods of commercial detection.
I think my last false positive was like a year and a half ago. False negatives, or "unautomatically skipped commercials" I'd say probably a couple a week depending on how much I watch in a given week. The neat thing is it will flag a lot more than it actually skips automatically. It flags them as "I think it might be a commercial" or something to that affect...not that those labels show up anywhere or anything;-) If it doesn't skip automatically, you can hit 'z' and it will skip what it flagged. That almost always works for me if it didn't automatically work. Failing that, you can skip 30 seconds or whatever amount of time you set.
I get your point, but I don't think you have any right to complain about being 'judgemental'.
I have a right to complain about anything I please. The fact that I am correct in that assessment means that my opinion on that has value. I backed it up with facts. That's the difference.
My opinion entitles me to think it's bad for others too, you seem to be very offended that I think your way of life will cause you problems. If you're so sure then why are you getting up tight about it?
Where did you get the idea that I engage in that lifestyle? I never even tried to offer an argument in support of it. I was merely pointing how your points were totally uninformed and therefore worthless. Your opinion doesn't entitle you to shit. The value that the society you live in places on free speech entitles you to have *and* express any opinion you care to. None of that has any bearing on the fact that your opinion on the effects of a lifestyle you have no experience with on people you don't know is less than worthless. Given that fact and the fact that you know that that is true if you had any integrity at all you wouldn't bother spouting off your less that worthless opinion. That is the point. You don't know shit about the issue, so don't spout off your meaningless drivel. It's quite simple, honest, and polite.
You are trolling, because I've not tried to get you to change, I just explained why Iiiiiii think it wouldn't work, of course for people less jealous than me, it seems it could. Or possibly the way you're acting on/. shows why you need multiple relationships you do seem kind of insecure (overly defensive).
No, I am not trolling. You really need to grow up and realize that pointing out gaping holes in your logic is not trolling. However, continually spouting bullshit that you know full well that you have no way of even assessing the validity of *is* trolling. You might want to go look up the definition.
You didn't explain why you thought it wouldn't work. You explained how it was wrong and couldn't work. That's something you are incapable of assessing. That ignorant idiocy is my sole complaint with you. It has nothing to do with insecurity, and I'm married to one woman in a non open relationship, so the rest of that made up crap is likewise meaningless.
I still don't care about being overly ignorant of your way of life, because I really don't want to treat people like you.
Again with the delusional nonsense. Be as ignorant as you like, but show some simple basic courtesy and STFU about it.
I understand ur point fully, but you need2stop accusing and making snap judgements yourself, and understand if u want2say that other people can think what they want 'as long as it doesn't affect you' or whatever, then it doesn't mean that you complain about them being ignorant just because they don't agree with you or don't think something will really work.
I'm not making any snap judgments. That would be what I'm complaining about you about. The only "accusations" I've made I backed up with facts and you've admitted to all of them. Your continual refusal to take that admission and try to do something worthwhile with it does speak to massive character flaws on your part. Again, those are facts, not baseless accusations. It has nothing to do with agreeing with me. I've never even put forward a position on the poly lifestyle. My sole complaint with you is your continual pushing of a position of which you are entirely ignorant. You have nothing to back up your position, so a decent person would just STFU in that situation.
Now, go take out your insecurities on someone who else.
You're the only one threatened by things you don't even know anything about. Here's an idea: How about you refrain from forming opinions on topics you don't understand. Either inform yourself about the issue, which in this case means spending a few years involved in poly relationships, or stay the fuck out of it since you've refused to inform yourself about it.
If more people would act like decent human beings instead of blindly ignorant, judgmental pricks like you have proven yourself to be the world really would be a better place.
Repeatedly. That's basically the only thing I've been complaining about.
You are sitting there trying to criticize and belittle my *opinion* while claiming that I am wrong to hold that opinion, and that I'm trying to force it onto you. I am not trying to force it onto you, I've simply been trying to explain why I hold the opinion I do. Even if it's due to 'ignorance'
Your opinion that it wouldn't work for you is perfectly fine. Your opinion that it's wrong for others is not perfectly fine. It's ignorant because you've never been involved in such a relationship and therefore it's not even possible for you to form an opinion that has any value. Spouting your worthless opinion about how other people choose to live their lives when it has no possible effect on you proves you to be an ignorant judgemental asshole. That is my only problem with you as I've repeated several times. Just grow up and start acting like a mature person instead of like an ignorant child.
Now please kindly stop trying to troll me.
I'm not trolling anyone. You are an ignorant fool. You have not only proven that many times in the course of this conversation, but you seem to have a militant death grip on your ignorance.
Just deal with the fact that you are spouting off about bullshit that you know nothing about and quit spouting off your idiotic nonsense about how you know best how others should live their lives.
It's this obsession with not offending anyone even if it means allowing them to be driven insane or manipulated that allows the Church of Scientology to do what it does, under the banner of religion, at the discredit of real religions which teach real values.
If you actually look at what most religions say versus what they do, you'll realize that pretty much the only "value" taught by them is hypocrisy.
Remember the Pilgrims who came here came so they could practice their own religions without persecution
No. The pilgrims were tossed out on their asses because all the rest of the people in their countries were sick of them trying to oppress everyone else. They were the radical intolerant extremists. That's why Europe is mostly free of these extremist whack jobs and we're plagued with them.
I also failed to mention that all the priests that agreed with me were Jesuits, which are pretty much the scholar branch the Catholic church (gross generalization, I know).
It's really not a generalization gross or otherwise. There does not exist a single Jesuit who isn't *very* well educated. Other Church folk than the Jesuits engage in scholarly pursuits, and the Jesuits do more than just read books but neither of those facts makes your statement a generalization any more than saying that the Navy is pretty much the ocean branch of the US military.
As a Christian, I don't like seeing people criticize my religion
Then rather than whine about it why don't you work to make your religion into something that isn't *deserving* of criticism and contempt? That would be the simple honest straightforward path. This is just more of the same bullshit entitlement no personal responsibility crap that's plaguing this country.
Minor nitpick -- You said "right to the pursuit of happiness" not "right to happiness" -- even the chemically unbalanced can pursue happiness, though it may be a Don Quixote or Capt. Ahab type of pursuit.
Major nitpick. "Pursuit" in this context means an activity one regularly engages in, not something one chases after.
Your failure to take into account the historical context and the meaning of the word at that time it was used led you to make a major mistake in your interpretation.
For me, a cult is a group that wants you to join so that they can grow in power or income. A religion is a group that wants you to join so that you can be happier.
So you're saying that religions don't exist and everything that calls itself one is really a cult? Makes sense.
Got anything to back that up? Every piece of credible information I've ever found denies this. The Romans used sticks basically. There was no cross bar.
Of course, there is really no scientific evidence of anything in the Bible
Actually, there is. Several ancient cities have been found by archaeologists using just the Bible. So there is plenty of scientific evidence for *some* of the events and places in the Bible. Just the whole Jesus thing and all the mystical stuff appears according to all available evidence to be nothing but nonsense.
Solomon was a king, not really the best comparison to a the modern IT (or whatever) worker. It was quite common for leaders especially to have multiple wives and concubines in those days.
Which is meaningless. It was *and still is* quite common for men to have multiple wives. You are trying to claim that just because you find a certain lifestyle to be fine for you that therefore everyone in the world should live that way and that their lifestyle choices are *wrong*. See, you've jumped way over the line from rational expression of a reasonable opinion to ignorant judgmental prick when you start trying to claim that other people's lifestyles are wrong *for them*. You have no way of knowing shit about that, so the fact that you even bother to offer an opinion that you know full well is utterly worthless demonstrates that.
The fact that you are so out of touch with reality as to assume that *extremely* recent attitudes toward relationships are somehow magically the "right" ones ignoring damn near the entirety of human history just because that's how you were raised demonstrates your tenuous grip on reality.
Maybe there was more to it though, I never studied history (cue "you're so ignorant" comment).
So you know damn well that you are ignorant of the subject, yet you won't STFU. Why do you insist on continually demonstrating that not only are you ignorant, but you don't give a flying fuck about how ignorant you are and will loudly proclaim your opinions which you have admitted to knowing are utterly worthless since you're ignorant of pretty much everything that could inform your opinion.
That's what you just said You don't know shit. You know that you don't know shit, yet you will not shut the fuck up about what is better for other people who you don't even fucking know.
That's exactly the delusional asshatted thinking that leads to the fucked up nanny state laws we're plagued with.
You have no worthwhile knowledge of the topic. You have admitted this freely. Given this a sane rational person with any integrity at all would shut their mouth instead of continuing to go around telling other people how to live their lives.
By definition you're going to be with different people at different times and will find it more difficult to support any one of your partners emotionally. That's just a fact.
No, it isn't a fact. You just pulled that out of your ass without anything to back it up. You've already admitted to being ignorant of every topic which would enable you to know anything about the topic, so you have no way of knowing what even is a fact or not. This type of nonsense makes you look like a fool, and a pigheaded one at that.
You can't rely on someone 100%. It's easy to have happy relationships if you are never getting too close. If you're not expecting someone to be there for you, then you won't be sad when they're not there. You may personally see that as a positive point, but I don't, so it's all just down to preference again.
I don't see it as a positive or negative. I see it as some stupid ignorant bullshit you spouted knowing full well that you're too ignorant to even form a valid opinion. That's a tremendous difference.
They like how they no longer have any secrets from their friends. Guess what? I can be honest with my friends without having to have all of us having open relationships!
Wow, so fucking what? Nobody is running around telling you that the know what's best for you and you should live their lives according to your personal moral code which you've already demonstrated to be completely fucked.
Other people aren't you and so for you to get all judgmental about things which you do not understand is really stupid and sleazy. Just deal with the fact that other people enjoy living their lives in a way that makes them happy and you're irrelevant to that.
Given how ignorant you are by your own admission about everything around this topic, why are you so determined to keep pushing your totally unsupported "morals" on other people? Your morals are obviously shit if they allow you do be so deeply dishonest, so keep them to yourself or get some that actually work.
...allows me to point out that people are *more* likely to get hurt in long term open relationships than they are with a long term monogamous one, as the relationships are by definition more complicated.
But none of that does anything toward reaching that conclusion from that premise, because the one doesn't imply the other. More complicated implies more interactions between the individuals positive *and* negative. The increased positive could have an ameliorating effect to cancel out the increased negative interactions and then some. It could go the other way or any of a number of different things.
It does not in any way imply that they are more likely to get hurt, since everyone in monogamous relationships gets hurt as well anyhow and without measuring that for a baseline you don't even have anywhere to start coming up with a hypothesis, let alone draw your certain conclusion.
That was just faulty logic.
I don't think this kind of thing will have been going on for a long time
Wow....Just wow.
How many wives did Soloman have? Ever heard of the Greek and Roman empires?
They were all quite famous for quite a bit of all that.
Slashdot Mirror
Still, I argue that this is merely an argument for case preserving file systems rather than case sensitive ones.
No No a million times NOOO!!!
Picture this situation. You're migrating your webserver from windows to *nix. You scan through all of your documents and find out that every link matches every file name perfectly. You go ahead with the migration and a raft of crap breaks because at least in the case of windows, "case preserving" means "I will store the file one way and fucking lie to you about how it's actually stored when you ask".
Any thing that causes your computer to flat out lie to you is not worth having.
How does one perform self-flagellation on another?
It's complicated, kinky, and illegal in 12 states.
I did realise later that you could be the person who said you don't take part in this lifestyle.
That was the first time I said it. You must be thinking about somebody else.
That also makes you opinions pretty worthless by your reasoning, because you don't really know that it 'works'.
If you actually used your brain and learned to read, you'd have noticed that I never expressed an opinion. I merely proved that your opinion was worth less than nothing. Mine would be worth little more on that topic which is why I refrained from expressing an opinion that I knew was total bullshit.
My purpose here is merely trying to convince you to do the rest of the world the same favor.
I've been thinking about it all (as usual), and it just makes a joke of the traditional idea of love.
Well, maybe you should start dealing with the fact that the "traditional idea of love" you're talking about is a joke anyhow. The traditional idea is that the woman is the man's slave and can be beaten or killed at will.
Perhaps you shouldn't take a recent idea and pretend that it has some sort of exalted status in the massive variety of human relationships.
u suggesting that lawyers and judges should spend a few years being a criminal before they're allowed to become lawyers?
You really are a deeply stupid person, aren't you.
Lawyers opinions on criminals are meaningless. Their job is to make arguments based on the law either to force a person to be locked in a cage or murdered regardless of guilt or to get a person set free regardless of their innocence. That's the case for criminal attorneys anyhow.
So your example has no relation to the subject at all.
The fact that you think such ridiculous bullshit even makes sense proves you to be really fucking dumb.
but I don't have to be a 'poly for a few years' to decide whether or not it would work.
Not to decide if it would work for you. You're correct in that case as I've said many times.
In order to do what you're trying to do though which is deciding what will and will not work for others, you would have to to even begin to start forming a basis for a reasonable opinion. The fact that you are only you and not every single person in the world would doom you to failure in your attempt to make absolute statements.
You don't seem to know anything about polys yourself cuz you haven't actually said anything other than people can be 'happy' in that lifestyle.
Which matters not a bit because I'm not expressing any opinion on them. My sole issue this entire conversation has been the same. Your failure at basic critical thinking skills and your militant asshattery.
People can be happy for a short while being promiscuous, but I've never heard of that lifestyle ultimately making people happy, because it doesn't have any permanency.
And Monogamy does? Ever looked at the divorce rate and the rate of unfaithfulness?
Seriously, you're trying to argue a position a monkey wouldn't take up. Mostly because that monkey is too busy fucking groups of other monkeys.
If someone is ignorant, teach them, otherwise you are just promoting the situation.
I've tried, but you have a militant death grip on your ignorance.
You can't stop trying to claim that you know how to run everybody in the world's lives better than they do themselves.
That's idiotic beyond belief and a sure sign of a diseased mind.
Taking the permanent companionate love element out of a romantic relationship means it becomes pretty much all just about sex and having fun together when things are good, and giving up when things go bad
So rather than think, you're still making up bullshit and claiming that's the destiny of anybody who can't cram themselves in the little box you have prepared for them.
Thanks for nothing shithead.
That is astonishing.
What, your failure to understand basic logic?
Personally I figure I was born without having an opinion on much of anything.
Exactly. Were you born with a belief in god? No, then you were born an atheist.
Until you either come up with the question on your own or somebody presents the question to you, it'd be insane to say that you already have a stance.
You don't need a "stance" to be an atheist. You just need no belief in god. Like everybody is born and stays until they are brainwashed by abusive parents.
But we could switch the starting position around (eg. "You are the one saying there is no God.")
No you can't. The situation is not symmetric in any way shape or form.
The idea of god did not exist until a person invented it.
I can only say there is no god *after* someone invents the myth and then claims it exists.
Mostly it's not worth even denying, usually I just laugh.
You're playing semantics.
Not at all. It's is a fact that the situation is not symmetric.
Anyone who thinks that their disbelief is anything except a matter of faith is deluding themselves.
Twaddle and nothing but.
I don't have faith god doesn't exist. The very idea is stupid and ridiculous from the get go, so much like leprechauns and the tooth fairy it can be rejected out of hand since nobody has ever come up with a single reason to think that such an entity exists. Additionally said mythical entity has never done anything to give anybody any evidence of its existence.
* - If you want to go back and start at the top, you'll find that the people bringing up god are the one's trying to convince everybody else that there is no god. It's not the believers who are running around trying to convert people.
In this thread, sure. In the real world, you might want to look at the millions of murders and the thousands of cultures exterminated for the purpose of spreading these idiotic belief systems.
How many assumptions can you stack on one another before it all comes crumbling down?
;-)
As many as you like provided you make the right assumptions
In fact, if you could give hard evidence that god exists, I would convert to christianity immediately. But I won't hold my breath.
Why would you convert to Christianity just because he proved god existed? Heck, just proving god exists creates more questions, the most obvious being which of the thousands or millions of proposed gods is it?
Personally, I do not believe in God, but I know that it is because I choose that belief. I am not some cold rationalist with mountains of evidence to prove my position. It's purely a matter of faith.
I do not believe in god, but I didn't "choose" that.
I, you, and every other person who ever lived was born an atheist.
I never chose to be otherwise.
There is a tremendous difference between blind faith and not choosing to buy into some idiotic belief system.
Why? Because I suggest that someone prove a negative and you're going to tell me that "you can't prove a negative."
No, because you're just begging the question.
You're presupposing that there is some merit to the idea of God in the first place.
You're the one proposing one, you're the one who must prove it.
I have no need to disprove god any more than I need to disprove the tooth fairy.
That is the deep flaw in your argument. It's a fallacy from the start.
God would've had a reasonable motive for creating full-grown humans
He hates changing dirty diapers?
No, it just doesn't prove anything one way or the other. He may have existed (there is evidence consistent with his having done so), or he may not (that evidence may not be entirely reliable, since it contains claims that many find implausible).
What evidence is there that he ever lived?
As far as I can tell there isn't one single scrap.
Oh, and I forgot to mention. Every time it skips past a chunk of commercials I get a big smooch from the wife. ;-)
Wife not included, you'll have to get your own
And it works? What kind of false positive rate do you get? False negatives?
Yep, it works very well.
There are other options than just the one check box which you can play with if needed, including choosing between various methods of commercial detection.
I think my last false positive was like a year and a half ago.
False negatives, or "unautomatically skipped commercials" I'd say probably a couple a week depending on how much I watch in a given week. The neat thing is it will flag a lot more than it actually skips automatically. It flags them as "I think it might be a commercial" or something to that affect...not that those labels show up anywhere or anything
If it doesn't skip automatically, you can hit 'z' and it will skip what it flagged. That almost always works for me if it didn't automatically work.
Failing that, you can skip 30 seconds or whatever amount of time you set.
Ok, how do you flag the commercials?
Check the box labeled "Automatically flag commercials".
I get your point, but I don't think you have any right to complain about being 'judgemental'.
/. shows why you need multiple relationships you do seem kind of insecure (overly defensive).
I have a right to complain about anything I please. The fact that I am correct in that assessment means that my opinion on that has value. I backed it up with facts. That's the difference.
My opinion entitles me to think it's bad for others too, you seem to be very offended that I think your way of life will cause you problems. If you're so sure then why are you getting up tight about it?
Where did you get the idea that I engage in that lifestyle? I never even tried to offer an argument in support of it. I was merely pointing how your points were totally uninformed and therefore worthless. Your opinion doesn't entitle you to shit. The value that the society you live in places on free speech entitles you to have *and* express any opinion you care to. None of that has any bearing on the fact that your opinion on the effects of a lifestyle you have no experience with on people you don't know is less than worthless. Given that fact and the fact that you know that that is true if you had any integrity at all you wouldn't bother spouting off your less that worthless opinion.
That is the point. You don't know shit about the issue, so don't spout off your meaningless drivel. It's quite simple, honest, and polite.
You are trolling, because I've not tried to get you to change, I just explained why Iiiiiii think it wouldn't work, of course for people less jealous than me, it seems it could. Or possibly the way you're acting on
No, I am not trolling. You really need to grow up and realize that pointing out gaping holes in your logic is not trolling. However, continually spouting bullshit that you know full well that you have no way of even assessing the validity of *is* trolling. You might want to go look up the definition.
You didn't explain why you thought it wouldn't work. You explained how it was wrong and couldn't work. That's something you are incapable of assessing. That ignorant idiocy is my sole complaint with you.
It has nothing to do with insecurity, and I'm married to one woman in a non open relationship, so the rest of that made up crap is likewise meaningless.
I still don't care about being overly ignorant of your way of life, because I really don't want to treat people like you.
Again with the delusional nonsense.
Be as ignorant as you like, but show some simple basic courtesy and STFU about it.
I understand ur point fully, but you need2stop accusing and making snap judgements yourself, and understand if u want2say that other people can think what they want 'as long as it doesn't affect you' or whatever, then it doesn't mean that you complain about them being ignorant just because they don't agree with you or don't think something will really work.
I'm not making any snap judgments. That would be what I'm complaining about you about.
The only "accusations" I've made I backed up with facts and you've admitted to all of them. Your continual refusal to take that admission and try to do something worthwhile with it does speak to massive character flaws on your part. Again, those are facts, not baseless accusations.
It has nothing to do with agreeing with me. I've never even put forward a position on the poly lifestyle. My sole complaint with you is your continual pushing of a position of which you are entirely ignorant. You have nothing to back up your position, so a decent person would just STFU in that situation.
Now, go take out your insecurities on someone who else.
You're the only one threatened by things you don't even know anything about. Here's an idea: How about you refrain from forming opinions on topics you don't understand. Either inform yourself about the issue, which in this case means spending a few years involved in poly relationships, or stay the fuck out of it since you've refused to inform yourself about it.
If more people would act like decent human beings instead of blindly ignorant, judgmental pricks like you have proven yourself to be the world really would be a better place.
When did I ever say that?
Repeatedly. That's basically the only thing I've been complaining about.
You are sitting there trying to criticize and belittle my *opinion* while claiming that I am wrong to hold that opinion, and that I'm trying to force it onto you. I am not trying to force it onto you, I've simply been trying to explain why I hold the opinion I do. Even if it's due to 'ignorance'
Your opinion that it wouldn't work for you is perfectly fine.
Your opinion that it's wrong for others is not perfectly fine. It's ignorant because you've never been involved in such a relationship and therefore it's not even possible for you to form an opinion that has any value. Spouting your worthless opinion about how other people choose to live their lives when it has no possible effect on you proves you to be an ignorant judgemental asshole. That is my only problem with you as I've repeated several times. Just grow up and start acting like a mature person instead of like an ignorant child.
Now please kindly stop trying to troll me.
I'm not trolling anyone. You are an ignorant fool. You have not only proven that many times in the course of this conversation, but you seem to have a militant death grip on your ignorance.
Just deal with the fact that you are spouting off about bullshit that you know nothing about and quit spouting off your idiotic nonsense about how you know best how others should live their lives.
It's this obsession with not offending anyone even if it means allowing them to be driven insane or manipulated that allows the Church of Scientology to do what it does, under the banner of religion, at the discredit of real religions which teach real values.
If you actually look at what most religions say versus what they do, you'll realize that pretty much the only "value" taught by them is hypocrisy.
Remember the Pilgrims who came here came so they could practice their own religions without persecution
No. The pilgrims were tossed out on their asses because all the rest of the people in their countries were sick of them trying to oppress everyone else. They were the radical intolerant extremists. That's why Europe is mostly free of these extremist whack jobs and we're plagued with them.
At least get the basic historical facts correct.
I also failed to mention that all the priests that agreed with me were Jesuits, which are pretty much the scholar branch the Catholic church (gross generalization, I know).
It's really not a generalization gross or otherwise.
There does not exist a single Jesuit who isn't *very* well educated.
Other Church folk than the Jesuits engage in scholarly pursuits, and the Jesuits do more than just read books but neither of those facts makes your statement a generalization any more than saying that the Navy is pretty much the ocean branch of the US military.
As a Christian, I don't like seeing people criticize my religion
Then rather than whine about it why don't you work to make your religion into something that isn't *deserving* of criticism and contempt? That would be the simple honest straightforward path.
This is just more of the same bullshit entitlement no personal responsibility crap that's plaguing this country.
Minor nitpick -- You said "right to the pursuit of happiness" not "right to happiness" -- even the chemically unbalanced can pursue happiness, though it may be a Don Quixote or Capt. Ahab type of pursuit.
Major nitpick.
"Pursuit" in this context means an activity one regularly engages in, not something one chases after.
Your failure to take into account the historical context and the meaning of the word at that time it was used led you to make a major mistake in your interpretation.
Hope this helps.
For me, a cult is a group that wants you to join so that they can grow in power or income. A religion is a group that wants you to join so that you can be happier.
So you're saying that religions don't exist and everything that calls itself one is really a cult?
Makes sense.
Romans really did crucify people using crosses.
Got anything to back that up? Every piece of credible information I've ever found denies this. The Romans used sticks basically. There was no cross bar.
Of course, there is really no scientific evidence of anything in the Bible
Actually, there is. Several ancient cities have been found by archaeologists using just the Bible. So there is plenty of scientific evidence for *some* of the events and places in the Bible. Just the whole Jesus thing and all the mystical stuff appears according to all available evidence to be nothing but nonsense.
Solomon was a king, not really the best comparison to a the modern IT (or whatever) worker. It was quite common for leaders especially to have multiple wives and concubines in those days.
Which is meaningless. It was *and still is* quite common for men to have multiple wives. You are trying to claim that just because you find a certain lifestyle to be fine for you that therefore everyone in the world should live that way and that their lifestyle choices are *wrong*.
See, you've jumped way over the line from rational expression of a reasonable opinion to ignorant judgmental prick when you start trying to claim that other people's lifestyles are wrong *for them*. You have no way of knowing shit about that, so the fact that you even bother to offer an opinion that you know full well is utterly worthless demonstrates that.
The fact that you are so out of touch with reality as to assume that *extremely* recent attitudes toward relationships are somehow magically the "right" ones ignoring damn near the entirety of human history just because that's how you were raised demonstrates your tenuous grip on reality.
Maybe there was more to it though, I never studied history (cue "you're so ignorant" comment).
So you know damn well that you are ignorant of the subject, yet you won't STFU.
Why do you insist on continually demonstrating that not only are you ignorant, but you don't give a flying fuck about how ignorant you are and will loudly proclaim your opinions which you have admitted to knowing are utterly worthless since you're ignorant of pretty much everything that could inform your opinion.
That's what you just said You don't know shit. You know that you don't know shit, yet you will not shut the fuck up about what is better for other people who you don't even fucking know.
That's exactly the delusional asshatted thinking that leads to the fucked up nanny state laws we're plagued with.
You have no worthwhile knowledge of the topic. You have admitted this freely.
Given this a sane rational person with any integrity at all would shut their mouth instead of continuing to go around telling other people how to live their lives.
By definition you're going to be with different people at different times and will find it more difficult to support any one of your partners emotionally. That's just a fact.
No, it isn't a fact. You just pulled that out of your ass without anything to back it up.
You've already admitted to being ignorant of every topic which would enable you to know anything about the topic, so you have no way of knowing what even is a fact or not. This type of nonsense makes you look like a fool, and a pigheaded one at that.
You can't rely on someone 100%. It's easy to have happy relationships if you are never getting too close. If you're not expecting someone to be there for you, then you won't be sad when they're not there. You may personally see that as a positive point, but I don't, so it's all just down to preference again.
I don't see it as a positive or negative. I see it as some stupid ignorant bullshit you spouted knowing full well that you're too ignorant to even form a valid opinion. That's a tremendous difference.
They like how they no longer have any secrets from their friends. Guess what? I can be honest with my friends without having to have all of us having open relationships!
Wow, so fucking what? Nobody is running around telling you that the know what's best for you and you should live their lives according to your personal moral code which you've already demonstrated to be completely fucked.
Other people aren't you and so for you to get all judgmental about things which you do not understand is really stupid and sleazy.
Just deal with the fact that other people enjoy living their lives in a way that makes them happy and you're irrelevant to that.
Given how ignorant you are by your own admission about everything around this topic, why are you so determined to keep pushing your totally unsupported "morals" on other people? Your morals are obviously shit if they allow you do be so deeply dishonest, so keep them to yourself or get some that actually work.
...allows me to point out that people are *more* likely to get hurt in long term open relationships than they are with a long term monogamous one, as the relationships are by definition more complicated.
But none of that does anything toward reaching that conclusion from that premise, because the one doesn't imply the other.
More complicated implies more interactions between the individuals positive *and* negative. The increased positive could have an ameliorating effect to cancel out the increased negative interactions and then some. It could go the other way or any of a number of different things.
It does not in any way imply that they are more likely to get hurt, since everyone in monogamous relationships gets hurt as well anyhow and without measuring that for a baseline you don't even have anywhere to start coming up with a hypothesis, let alone draw your certain conclusion.
That was just faulty logic.
I don't think this kind of thing will have been going on for a long time
Wow....Just wow.
How many wives did Soloman have?
Ever heard of the Greek and Roman empires?
They were all quite famous for quite a bit of all that.