Wuzzums

So because something does not apply to you it's "100% pure laughable bullshit". Good to know. We've all been wasting our time on science and whatnot and all we had to do is just check what you're doing and how you're feeling. And please don't repost the same post a third time.

That's a false dichotomy. The purpose of life is passing on genes on a base level. Saying sexuality is social and not reproductive is a contradiction in of itself because the purpose of society is to further society-propensity genes. What he's basically saying is that "sex is not for reproduction, it's for making babies" which betrays a complete ignorance of biological facts and logic ultimately. Evolution offers us the best solution for survival and considering that humans are the most advanced species out there then their most common traits are indicative of what the best recipe for survival is. If they're mostly monogamous OR polygamous then that is the best path to take for gene survival. You can be as polygamous as you want but don't accuse people for choosing monogamy because of social norms when you suggest that polygamy should be the social norm.

"The purpose of human sexuality is social, it's not reproductive", said no biologist ever. The best description of sexuality I have ever read is The Red Queen by Matt Ridley. It tentatively touches human interaction in its last chapter, but a large part of the book is explaining the sexual habits of peacocks with some pretty blatant subtext.

When I see women interacting with each other to me it seems like they're in a Mexican standoff. It's a very tense situation. One female sets the tone of the conversation (as in what the agreement has to be) and the rest, one by one, have to reciprocate. If one of them fails to do so then she gets kicked out of the group albeit in the most polite fashion. Such tactics include: bringing out topics she doesn't care bout, talking about past events in detail with someone else in which she had no part in, changing location to one that's inconvenient for her, breaking apart the group altogether, pretending they didn't hear what she said, if men are around they start flirting with them to make her feel like she's intruding on a private moment, and so on. As to women preferring hanging out with men, I don't think that's true. The way I see it they're just poisoning the well, they always find a way to talk trash about other women yet when they're in the company of those women they're meek as a babe. Imagine a guy pulling that shit. He'll immediately be branded as having no spine, and rightfully so. Now that I think about it, I can't remember of one instance when a woman complimented one of her peers that wasn't present. They act like salesmen. It's easy for Bill Gates to get investors if he's the only one there and constantly talks shit about Steve Jobs. And don't forget, usually women never seek out conflict so of course she'll say she prefers male groups over women if the topic comes out when she's in a male group.

I like how they showed that each personality trait had the same general characteristics yet a different trait was in charge in each person. The conflict began when the same trait took control in both the father and the daughter, AND the red trait was also the one that started conflict withing the mother by projecting adulterous thoughts. There's a lot of potential in this concept.

Your body is your property. If you choose to give your body away after a disease then fine. If you don't then nobody is justified in taking it. If a person does not choose and make preparations accordingly (like some sort of fund for special care just in case, or express a willingness to donate one's body) then I don't think it's justified for anyone to make that choice for them. The operative word here is "justified". Sure, a person CAN make that choice for them and I don't see it as the initiation of force BUT it is not justified. Like for instance, I am justified in shooting someone in self-defense, I am not justified in shooting someone that is clinically braindead.

Translation: "We'll say anything just to get some pussy."

"Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus studies memories. More precisely, she studies false memories, when people either remember things that didn't happen or remember them differently from the way they really were. It's more common than you might think, and Loftus shares some startling stories and statistics, and raises some important ethical questions we should all remember to consider." I think this stresses the importance of objective evidence over hearsay and even witnesses. The case of Michael Brown comes to mind where I heard witnesses changed their initial statements or told contradicting stories. They might not have done it with malicious intent or because they were under coercion, they might have just been telling the truth how they remembered it. Regarding the childhood abuse instances of implanted false memories. If our brain cannot differentiate between an implanted memory and a true memory, then it shouldn't matter for the victim whether it actually happened or not because for them the scars are real. However the perpetrator should still suffer consequences. Given that the damages are the same, should a person that implants a false memory suffer the same repercussions as an actual molester? What do you think?

After you mentioned starting a career my instinct makes me ask the question: Is your car obsession a bonafide obsession or is it avoidance? Do you think about cars all day or does the thought come in pairs like you're first wondering about your career/job prospects then find yourself browsing car forums? For instance, if you were obsessed about cars you would've probably picked a job closer related to cars or a job that would enable you to own lots of cars. If it's avoidance then you buying or not buying the car won't fix it, you'll just find another distraction. I know I do this all the time. Whenever I have something to do that I don't particularly enjoy or that is very dull, about 10% of the time it takes me to finish the work is actual work and the other 90% is avoidance (like compulsively checking e-mails, forums, youtube, PORN, etc). So what can you do about it if it is indeed just avoidance? Aside from forcing yourself through sheer willpower, you can replace your habit with something more productive (like exercising, yoga, etc).

People are ultimately responsible for their own actions as adults. Stefan gives empathy and sympathy, not excuses. It's a person's choice to continue doing what they've been doing since they were a kid and complain that nothing is changing. Reminding them of that they're allowed to make different choices is giving them responsibility. We mock people that waive that responsibility away in the same fashion we put people in jail for murder. Unconditioned sympathy and love for the people that make mistakes is tantamount to hatred and a lack of empathy for the people that do make the right decisions.

It also depends on someone's self knowledge and knowledge in general, thus the same visual cue can mean different things for different people. For instance, you see a well dressed man: fancy haircut, shiny clothes, well groomed, stylish boots. You can assume he's smart and makes a lot of money thus he can afford to spend a lot of time on himself. If you get more information however that assumption changes completely. Maybe he also uses public transportation, which means he doesn't have that much money and what he has he mostly spends on his appearance. Maybe his clothes are way too shiny indicating he wants attention onto himself which betrays a narcissistic trait. And maybe the heels of his boots are unusually high which should indicate he maybe has a height complexion. Some people are fat because they never exercise. Some people are fat because they don't want to attract attention onto themselves. The more knowledge you have about yourself and people in general the more accurate information you can get from their appearance.

The Louis CK clip is very interesting. It's back when he was still married. He got divorced and said he couldn't be happier now, he also has shared custody with his kids. His newest material is A LOT more positive, especially towards kids: Even in his tv show "Louie", there is a lot of stuff about peaceful parenting.

A brand is not a product. A t-shirt is a product. A branded t-shirt is still a t-shirt, but it has its quality approved by said brand. This is what the brand sells, reputation. The reputation that it sells products of a certain production quality. Gucci, Armani, whatever, they all commission workshops from around the world that they tested and found on par with their requirements. If the workshops are in China then so be it. We can't go to China to look around for such shops to buy the same quality goods at a fraction of the cost, nor do we know all the intricacies of exporting such goods, nor do we have the blueprints of creating such goods. Gucci does however and if we wanna have the goods delivered comfortably to us we must pay for that service additionally. For example, Luxottica is the world's manufacturer of eyewear. A pair of glasses from them is worth let's say 50$ if you're living right next to the factory. If you're an ocean away and that same pair of glasses has a brand on it then it will cost you up to 950$ extra. I myself used to live next to a clothing factory. They had a store and the prices there were crazy small, I remember buying a 1$ t-shirt. Because it wasn't branded I took a gamble on the quality and in this particular case I won. That 1$ t-shirt lasted me a lot longer than other t-shirts (branded) that I paid 20 times more. Of course, the same factory might also be commissioned by Lacoste but I can't possibly know that because them advertising it is tantamount to them stealing the Lacoste brand. Another thing. These branded products must pass a quality test. If one stitch is a little wonky on some purse or the 'S' on some Sony product is inverted they're gonna get rejected. Sometimes these rejected products are sold to cover some of the losses (but still at a fraction of the price we see them valued in stores). This is how the "Low, Low, Low Crazy Prices" stores get their merchandise. When you're buying a PS4 from such places it's a gamble. The PS4 might be there because it was rejected for having an inverted 'S', or it was rejected for having something wrong with its GPU.

Joaquin's Phoenix's character is indeed very likeable and sweet. We are given glimpses into his past idyllic relationship and it makes us wonder "What happened?". Then he falls in love with an artificial intelligence which was molded to his own liking. This all makes for a very narcissistic personality. When we meet his wife we learn the marriage didn't work because of him, she accuses him of being unable to understand other people's emotions. His wife asserted herself into his worldview and it ended the marriage, Olivia Wilde's character asserted her own needs and it ended the brief relationship, finally Samantha develops her own preferences as she grows and, of course, it ended the relationship. Or his neighbors, he doesn't really show much interest in them even though their marriage just fell apart. He just goes with the flow. Samantha's evolution as a character really shows this side of Joaquin's character. She doesn't have any needs and preferences at first and constantly boosts him up by being curious and supportive. Everything looks great. Yet when she doesn't act according to his wishes she gets attacked. How dares she sigh, how dares she talk with other people, how dares she not respond when called upon. I also liked the retro theme they went for. Very original.

Maybe this will be the final straw for people and they'll look for alternatives such as Bitcoin.

A very important rule in a debate is to never assume the other person knows what he's talking about. He said: "There's been a number of anarchist societies. If what you said is true, then how come not a single one of them could resist being taken over by governments? there aren't any anarchist societies left." This is not an argument by any stretch of imagination. He has to give an example of an anarchist society or his whole argument is void. The Wright brothers: "We're gonna build a machine that can fly!" Your friend: "It's impossible. There's been a number of machines in the past. If what you said is true, then how come not a single one of them could fly?"

JADEN: "When you think about an apple, you also think about the opposite of an apple." WILLOW: "And then you think about what you think, which is very dangerous." WILLOW: "I mean, “Whip My Hair” was a great thing. When I look back I think, “Wow, I did so much for young black girls and girls around the world. Telling them that they can be themselves and to not be afraid to be themselves.” And I’m doing that now but in a whole different way, coming from source energy and universal truths." Basically this whole article is public school propaganda. It's like the "Faces of meth" posters. "Dear readers, these 2 rich kids don't go to public school and look at all the dumb things they say. Any questions?"

I don't know if it's what you're looking for but I'm pretty good at illustration work. Here's my online gallery to judge for yourself: http://georgel-mcawesome.deviantart.com/gallery/

This app is foolproof... unless the son figures out how to answer and then close the call quickly. Sharon. You. Idiot.

"Is the YouTube video of men trying to take a 'drunk girl' home fake? Does it matter?" "Are jews not actually to blame for all of Germany's woes and not an inferior race? Does it matter?"

Apparently you don't need a spine to land a spaceship.

Gosh, I really can't say. I have favorite segments from shows but can't remember the title of the shows. The only one that I can recall right now is "Help, my ex-girlfriend is in the attic" specifically the segment that gives the title (don't remember what the rest of the calls were about). I think it's light, entertaining and gives a great example how an actual adult handles such a situation.