A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You can lead my horse to pudding, but you can't make me get off it, because over that I have mathematical control. Future testing will prove me right. This is not about faith. You just have to accept everything I say until the evidence is available to support me. Who are you to decide for everybody who is or is not a God of deciding what is important? How many times do I have to say this?

I believe Angakuk is in a particularly good profession to decide who is or who is not God of anything, and he has the math book to prove it. One of the chapters is even titled "Numbers".

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm not. I can easily entertain the thought that he could be right. Unfortunately you have offered no reason at all to consider such thoughts to be correct. I am sorry you are dogmatic to the degree that you can't even entertain the thought that he was wrong.

There's one problem with this statement. I'm not being dogmatic.

dog·mat·ic (dôg-mtk, dg-)
adj.
1. Relating to, characteristic of, or resulting from dogma.
2. Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles

dogmatic - definition of dogmatic by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Truth #1: Justification is necessary for human beings to gain at another's expense, and if the justification isn't there, they cannot do it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Labeling it a truth does not make it one. I've asked you several times to support this alleged truth, and you've had nothing at all to offer.

I have, but it will never satisfy you or make you curious to learn more, or want to wait until more empirical evidence comes in to support his claims. These claims are falsifiable you know. You would rather go back to your comfort zone of compatibilism even if it is contradictory. It really is. The blameworthiness they attribute to certain actions is saying that someone' choice, other than the type of compulsion that gets an exception, is free and therefore deserving of blame and punishment. What they are saying is that he didn't have to do what he did because he could have chosen otherwise; nothing was stopping him from making the correct choice. That is the standard definition. All compatibilists are doing is excluding one type of behavior. This type of free will which they believe is deserving of blame does not mix with determinism (they are mutually exclusive positions) no matter how you frame the wording. Why would you give up on knowledge of this import if there was the slightest possibility that he was right? It's not like he's making a wild assertion and not backing it up by a detailed demonstration (even though it's not to your satisfaction).

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There's one problem with this statement. I'm not being dogmatic.

dog·mat·ic (dôg-mtk, dg-)
adj.
1. Relating to, characteristic of, or resulting from dogma.
2. Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles

dogmatic - definition of dogmatic by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

LOL! Your "Truth #1" looks like it might have been an example in the dictionary definition you just posted. What do you mean you're not dogmatic?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What they are saying is that he didn't have to do what he did because he could have chosen otherwise; nothing was stopping him from making the correct choice.

Do and did are actions. A whole hell of a lot can go on in the mind before any action is performed.

Can one choose not to immediately act on a conscious decision, in order to contemplate or gather information, thereby changing the antecedent conditions, and then choose to perform a different action?

Can one consider an array of possible actions, weighing the possible consequences, comparing the actions and consequences to their personal values, morals, and beliefs and then only performing the action that seems "right"?

In my opinion all that is required for one to be considered a moral agent responsible for his/her actions is this ability to weigh, measure, and contemplate before acting...to choose different actions in one's imagination first...even if Lessans was right and the final decision rests on which of those imagined action>consequences sequences seems the most satisfactory. Someone without this ability to to weigh, measure, and contemplate before acting cannot be held responsible for their actions.

I do not call this free will, because all of this is caused, however the antecedent conditions can be consciously changed in myriad ways merely by thinking before acting.

[But]

What is your response to this excellent post, peacegirl? It would be a shame if you had accidentally missed it.

Originally Posted by koan

An important non sequitur in Lessans "logic" leading to freeing the world of all evil:
"In order to hurt another, man must be able to derive some satisfaction from this,"(p78)

Wrong. Much of the hurt that is done to others is with complete ignorance that anyone in the world has feelings of importance. I'm not sure what Lessans did in his relationships with others but he seems to think that everyone who hurt him had taken the time to think about it first. His solution relies upon that. In reality, many assholes are completely oblivious to the concept that pursuing their ambitions is a)hurting anyone b)happening in a world in which other people even have feelings. There is the occasional person who acts maliciously because they get joy from seeing someone else turn red with rage but that is the minority of injustice.

Where do you think the expression "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes from? People simply don't realize the harm they cause more often than not. In making that mistake Lessans has failed to even recognize the source of evil let alone provide any hints at its successful removal.

Let me guess. It goes like this:

Seemore: All swans are black.

Interlocutor: Actually, most of them are white.

peacegirl: Some of them are white, but this is really insignificant. The fact that some swans have this rare genetic disease doesn't mean all swans are white. This is ridiculous.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I believe Angakuk is in a particularly good profession to decide who is or who is not God of anything, and he has the math book to prove it. One of the chapters is even titled "Numbers".

What are you talking about But? I don't get a shot at explaining this discovery because Lessans said the laws of our nature are God, and that Angakuk, because he is in the religous profession, gets to decide this? You are so out the door it amazes me that you don't see what you're saying. It's okay, you're not the only one. It's a common theme when people use one's stature to decide truth.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

What is your response to this excellent post, peacegirl? It would be a shame if you had accidentally missed it.

Let me guess. It goes like this:

Seemore: All swans are black.

Interlocutor: Actually, most of them are white.

peacegirl: Some of them are white, but this is really insignificant. The fact that some swans have this rare genetic disease doesn't mean all swans are white. This is ridiculous.

We're too far gone in this discussion to go back to this elementary syllogism. And after all this time you couldn't even spell Lessans' name right? What's with you But?

[But]

My But is fine.

Also, why do you call your dad "See-More" by his last name? That's unusual.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by But

My But is fine.

Also, why do you call your dad "See-More" by his last name? That's unusual.

She thinks she is showing objectivity by separating Seymour Lessans, the author of the book, from Daddy

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There's one problem with this statement. I'm not being dogmatic.

dog·mat·ic (dôg-mtk, dg-)
adj.
1. Relating to, characteristic of, or resulting from dogma.
2. Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles

This is a very accurate definition of what Lessans and Peacegirl have said in the book and this thread.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL! Your "Truth #1" looks like it might have been an example in the dictionary definition you just posted. What do you mean you're not dogmatic?

You know very well what I mean. This is not an arrogant assertion or an unprovable principle.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

She thinks she is showing objectivity by separating Seymour Lessans, the author of the book, from Daddy

Can't you see that LadyShea cannot separate the fact that he was my father from Lessans, the author? She thought that by scouring the internet to find out this revealing secret, that she was doing everyone a favor. Well she was not, and she is still using the fact that he was my father against me. And this is being objective?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do and did are actions. A whole hell of a lot can go on in the mind before any action is performed.

Can one choose not to immediately act on a conscious decision, in order to contemplate or gather information, thereby changing the antecedent conditions, and then choose to perform a different action?

Only if he has had enough experience in his life to know that collecting more information (if it's available) is a smart thing to do. Even so, you cannot blame someone if he only has a limited amount of information at his disposal and acts on that limited knowledge. Many times we learn from our experiences, and our mistakes teach us not to make rash decisions and to be more patient. But this doesn't change the fact that regardless of our options, or what we believe our options are, we base our decision on those options in the direction of greater satisfaction. Some people are extremely limited in options and have to base their choices on what is available at the moment.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Can one consider an array of possible actions, weighing the possible consequences, comparing the actions and consequences to their personal values, morals, and beliefs and then only performing the action that seems "right"?

In my opinion all that is required for one to be considered a moral agent responsible for his/her actions is this ability to weigh, measure, and contemplate before acting...to choose different actions in one's imagination first...even if Lessans was right and the final decision rests on which of those imagined action>consequences sequences seems the most satisfactory. Someone without this ability to to weigh, measure, and contemplate before acting cannot be held responsible for their actions.

I do not call this free will, because all of this is caused, however the antecedent conditions can be consciously changed in myriad ways merely by thinking before acting.

Of course it can be changed in myriad ways as long as one is still contemplating, but after the choice has been weighed, considered, analyzed, and chosen, it could not have been otherwise. What if someone weighs, measures, contemplates and ponders in his imagination first, and then chooses something that is good for him (such as stealing food from someone because he was hungry), but bad in the eyes of the law? Then what? Of course he is responsible for his actions because he performed the action, but to say he is morally responsible because he chose something that was wrong, and that he could have made a different choice that was right, is a false assertion. How could he have made a better choice when this choice was good in comparison to not stealing, which was bad, according to his circumstances?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What are you talking about But? I don't get a shot at explaining this discovery because Lessans said the laws of our nature are God, and that Angakuk, because he is in the religous profession, gets to decide this? You are so out the door it amazes me that you don't see what you're saying. It's okay, you're not the only one. It's a common theme when people use one's stature to decide truth.

That whole exchange was meant as a joke, and But wasn't even involved in it.

Chill out, dude. You seem unable to even remotely comprehend what you read these days.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know very well what I mean. This is not an arrogant assertion or an unprovable principle.

It is unproved, it is an assertion, and deeming it a "truth" is very arrogant.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Can't you see that LadyShea cannot separate the fact that he was my father from Lessans, the author? She thought that by scouring the internet to find out this revealing secret, that she was doing everyone a favor. Well she was not, and she is still using the fact that he was my father against me. And this is being objective?

The question was why do you refer to him as Lessans instead of "My father" or "My Dad"? You are the one that creates a separation in this way, and your purpose in doing that is to try to demonstrate your objectivity, correct?

[naturalist.atheist]

I think that peacegirl calls her dad Lessans to lend him more gravitas than he would have if he were just daddy. As crazy as peacegirl is, even she is not delusional enough to think that Lessans is respected by or even known by the rest of the world. Even though she is aware of this, she lacks the rational ability to understand that spending her time at FF will not improve Lessans exposure to the world much.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Only if he has had enough experience in his life to know that collecting more information (if it's available) is a smart thing to do.

The why and how and extent of it is irrelevant to the question.

Can someone refrain from acting on their first impulse or immediate impression or not?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Even so, you cannot blame someone if he only has a limited amount of information at his disposal and acts on that limited knowledge.

The quantity and quality of information available can be a mitigating or aggravating factor in deciding to what level they are responsible for an action.

Again, the question is can someone refrain from acting on their first impulse or immediate impression or not? If so, they are responsible for the action, as they had the ability to have chosen a different action.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Many times we learn from our experiences, and our mistakes teach us not to make rash decisions and to be more patient. But this doesn't change the fact that regardless of our options, or what we believe our options are, we base our decision on those options in the direction of greater satisfaction. Some people are extremely limited in options and have to base their choices on what is available at the moment.

So what? Do they or do they not have the capability of contemplating actions before performing them?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Can one consider an array of possible actions, weighing the possible consequences, comparing the actions and consequences to their personal values, morals, and beliefs and then only performing the action that seems "right"?

In my opinion all that is required for one to be considered a moral agent responsible for his/her actions is this ability to weigh, measure, and contemplate before acting...to choose different actions in one's imagination first...even if Lessans was right and the final decision rests on which of those imagined action>consequences sequences seems the most satisfactory. Someone without this ability to to weigh, measure, and contemplate before acting cannot be held responsible for their actions.

I do not call this free will, because all of this is caused, however the antecedent conditions can be consciously changed in myriad ways merely by thinking before acting.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it can be changed in myriad ways as long as one is still contemplating, but after the choice has been weighed, considered, analyzed, and chosen, it could not have been otherwise.

Yes, once an action has been performed, it cannot be unperformed, it becomes an actual truth that a specific action was performed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What if someone weighs, measures, contemplates and ponders in his imagination first, and then chooses something that is good for him (such as stealing food from someone because he was hungry), but bad in the eyes of the law? Then what?

He knew it was against the law, and did it anyway because he found the possible consequence of being held accountable by the authorities acceptable when weighing all the possible scenarios, and he is responsible for taking that action.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course he is responsible for his actions because he performed the action, but to say he is morally responsible because he chose something that was wrong, and that he could have made a different choice that was right, is a false assertion.

I said nothing about judging an action right or wrong, I only discussed one being responsible for their actions because they could have not acted, or performed a different action after contemplating the factors.

Judging what is right or wrong for others is very subjective, based on the values system of the person making the judgment.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How could he have made a better choice when this choice was good in comparison to not stealing, which was bad, according to his circumstances?

I said nothing about good or bad, I said only responsible for his action. It's not about whether he could make a "better" choice (better is subjective), it's about if he could have performed a different action.

If the person knew what the law stated, and the possible consequences of breaking the law, and chose to break the law instead of choosing a different action, he/she is responsible for breaking the law.

Again, judging what is good or bad for others is very subjective, based on the values system of the person making the judgment.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There's one problem with this statement. I'm not being dogmatic.

dog·mat·ic (dôg-mtk, dg-)
adj.
1. Relating to, characteristic of, or resulting from dogma.
2. Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles

dogmatic - definition of dogmatic by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Oh, but you are, Peacegirl. Your behaviour fits this definition perfectly. You are constantly dogmatically asserting and repeating unproven claims and principles - often the very claims and principles you have been asked to support - such as that compatibilism is wrong and contradictory, that one cannot harm another without justification under Lessans' changed conditions, that conscience has a natural state of perfection it is only prevented from reaching by our environment of blame, and that your claims are falsifiable. You are dogmatic on all of these points. They are unproven, and you just keep on arrogantly asserting them over and over again.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have, but it will never satisfy you or make you curious to learn more, or want to wait until more empirical evidence comes in to support his claims. These claims are falsifiable you know. You would rather go back to your comfort zone of compatibilism even if it is contradictory. It really is.

There's that dogmatism again. And no, you haven't given me ANY reason to believe that a justification will always be required. The closest you came was in asserting that it was just obvious.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The blameworthiness they attribute to certain actions is saying that someone' choice, other than the type of compulsion that gets an exception, is free and therefore deserving of blame and punishment. What they are saying is that he didn't have to do what he did because he could have chosen otherwise; nothing was stopping him from making the correct choice. That is the standard definition.

No, that is not what compatibilists are saying. The compatibilist definition of freedom is NOT the same as the contra-causal/libertarian definition (which seems to be what you keep wrongly referring to as the 'standard definition'). And you are again conflating the two different senses of 'could have chosen otherwise' - which I have specifically corrected you on, and which you have specifically ignored yet again.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All compatibilists are doing is excluding one type of behavior. This type of free will which they believe is deserving of blame does not mix with determinism (they are mutually exclusive positions) no matter how you frame the wording.

You are clearly either lying, or have not been paying any attention at all to the discussion we've been having for the last several days. Only contra-causal freedom is incompatible with determinism. The compatibilist type of freedom which I have defined for you is PERFECTLY CONSISTENT with determinism - causal determination and compatibilist freedom are not at all mutually exclusive positions. You are again just dogmatically asserting the things you would like to be true, instead of actually engaging with the points I have made. I have specifically explained to you the compatibilist definition of freedom, how it differs from the contra-causal variety, and how it is not incompatible with causal determination. But you just ignore all of my explanations, and revert back to claiming things you know are not true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why would you give up on knowledge of this import if there was the slightest possibility that he was right? It's not like he's making a wild assertion and not backing it up by a detailed demonstration (even though it's not to your satisfaction).

That's exactly what you and your father have done. You both make wild assertions that you cannot back up with detailed demonstrations. What happened yesterday? I bumped my last reply on compatibilism for you, noting that it was very long and highlighting the important bit for you. What did you do? You tried to answer the whole thing, only got halfway through, and never even got to the important bit. This is ridiculous.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course it's an excuse. It's exactly what you say every time you are asked to support something you are unable to support.

I know you believe that. My question was why? Why do you believe that conscience has this innate level of potential perfection it would reach in the absence of blame? So far this is just a big fat assumption which neither you or Lessans have done anything to support.

You still aren't answering the question. What makes you think there is any natural full throttle state for conscience to reach? Consider again the jumping analogy. We have no natural full-throttle state for jumping that social practices prevent us from reaching. Our natural jumping ability is no greater than our past evolutionary circumstances have required it to be. Why is it not the same with conscience?

Sorry, but this is not answering me at all. Telling me he carefully observed things after years of reading and analyzing doesn't tell me jack shit about why a justification is allegedly always necessary. Nor does it help for you to repeatedly assert that the only exceptions are extreme cases of mental illness.

Yet again, your response does not address the point. Why did he not anticipate such an obvious problem? Why did he not anticipate the need for him to provide evidential support for his own claims about conscience? And I'm afraid not using the scientific method certainly does make his non-discovery unscientific. If you don't use the scientific method then you are not doing science.

Bump.

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The concept of aesthetically pleasing is real. The concept that any individual will find various examples of things more or less aesthetically pleasing when compared to each other is real. Beautiful is simply a descriptor used to denote that the individual finds something highly aesthetically pleasing compared to other examples.

What was it you were fond of saying about your continued use of the phrase "traveling images"? A Shortcut.

The word beautiful is a shortcut to describing a real concept.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People can love other people for many different reasons and be enamoured, but marriage is a separate issue that is related to procreation and sexual desire in order to achieve that end. You cannot tell me that marriage and sex are unrelated, or just a peripheral aspect.

It is not a separate issue. Marriage and sex may or may not be related, depending on the people in the marriage.

It is icing on the cake for some people. It is central to other people. It exists on a large scale of importance and any individual or couple may fall anywhere on that scale.

Romantic and erotic are not synonyms.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Love is simply a deep affection (caring and tenderness). That may or may not include an erotic component and may or may not include a romantic element. (Romance comes from a type of story involving chivalry and heroism and mystery elements and is tied to those traits)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Mystery elements? I think you're reading too many Harlequin novels.

You do not know the definition or origin of the word Romance/Romantic apparently

Click this link for a discussion of the word's origin- The Mavens' Word of the Day

Definition of ROMANTIC
1
: consisting of or resembling a romance
2
: having no basis in fact : imaginary
3
: impractical in conception or plan : visionary
4
a : marked by the imaginative or emotional appeal of what is heroic, adventurous, remote, mysterious, or idealized
b often capitalized : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of romanticism
c : of or relating to music of the 19th century characterized by an emphasis on subjective emotional qualities and freedom of form; also : of or relating to a composer of this music
5
a : having an inclination for romance : responsive to the appeal of what is idealized, heroic, or adventurous
b : marked by expressions of love or affection
c : conducive to or suitable for lovemaking
6
: of, relating to, or constituting the part of the hero especially in a light comedy

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Love is a deep affection, that is true. I love my family more than anything in this world. I love my animals and my friends very much also, but I'm talking about male/female love, or homosexual love that brings two people together because you connect on a sexual level as well as other levels.

Sexual attraction may or may not accompany love.

If it does accompany deep affection, then sexual attraction is absolutely not the only meaning of love and marriage as Lessans repeatedly asserted.

It is not sexual attraction alone, as Lessans asserted, either.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That whole exchange was meant as a joke, and But wasn't even involved in it.

Chill out, dude. You seem unable to even remotely comprehend what you read these days.

How can I take anything as a joke in here?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, people fall in love with people, but in the new world a person will grow to love their partner after marriage, not before, as long as this aspect of their relationship remains strong. I'm talking about young love; people who never had a sexual relationship yet. If someone wants a person with a particular talent, they will look for that as well, but I will say again that without sexual attraction at its base, it's not a marriage in the way marriage is typically defined. Most people would not get married to a person without this attraction unless there was some kind of monetary benefit or other motive. In the new world, sex and marriage are one and the same.

I have never heard of a true marriage being one that is not consummated.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is icing on the cake for some people. It is central to other people. It exists on a large scale of importance and any individual or couple may fall anywhere on that scale.

I never saw two young people excited to get married and have little sexual appeal for each other. If sex is not central to their relationship, that is not the kind of love most young people are looking for in marriage because they want to raise a family together, and that involves sex.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

By definition, that's what romantic (erotic) love is.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

By who's definition? Why do you think erotic and romantic are synonyms?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why I clarified "romantic". It is the eros kind of love that involves sexual desire.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Romantic and erotic are not synonyms.

Sexual desire is essential to romantic attraction and relationship

Sexual desire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Love is simply a deep affection (caring and tenderness). That may or may not include an erotic component and may or may not include a romantic element. (Romance comes from a type of story involving chivalry and heroism and mystery elements and is tied to those traits)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Mystery elements? I think you're reading too many Harlequin novels.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You do not know the definition or origin of the word Romance/Romantic apparently

In terms of a relationship, romance is the appetizer that leads up to the main entree.

Marriages that don’t maintain their sexual vitality are very much at risk. Plan together to protect and promote your sex life.

Married Sexuality - Marriage & Sex

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Click this link for a discussion of the word's origin- The Mavens' Word of the Day

Definition of ROMANTIC
1
: consisting of or resembling a romance
2
: having no basis in fact : imaginary
3
: impractical in conception or plan : visionary
4
a : marked by the imaginative or emotional appeal of what is heroic, adventurous, remote, mysterious, or idealized
b often capitalized : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of romanticism
c : of or relating to music of the 19th century characterized by an emphasis on subjective emotional qualities and freedom of form; also : of or relating to a composer of this music
5
a : having an inclination for romance : responsive to the appeal of what is idealized, heroic, or adventurous
b : marked by expressions of love or affection
c : conducive to or suitable for lovemaking
6
: of, relating to, or constituting the part of the hero especially in a light comedy

5c is the closest to how I'm using the word: conducive to or suitable for lovemaking

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Love is a deep affection, that is true. I love my family more than anything in this world. I love my animals and my friends very much also, but I'm talking about male/female love, or homosexual love that brings two people together because you connect on a sexual level as well as other levels.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sexual attraction may or may not accompany love.

In our society, that's true. You can have sex without love, but that does not change the fact that in order to be "in love", sexual desire plays a major role and you can't separate the two. I have never heard someone say how in love they are without the possibility of a sexual relationship, or being in a sexual relationship.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If it does accompany deep affection, then sexual attraction is absolutely not the only meaning of love and marriage as Lessans repeatedly asserted.

You can have deep affection for someone, but if it's not romantic in the sense of a desire to possess someone in the ultimate act or to have the possibility of engaging in the ultimate act of lovemaking, then it's not the kind of love that Lessans was describing as being as important in an intimite relationship.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Neither you nor Lessans get to define other people's feelings or how they are prioritized in their own lives and relationships.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans made an accurate observation. I am not prioritizing people's relationships but if you look carefully you will see that what draws two people together for the purpose of marriage is not personality alone. It's sexual attraction.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is not sexual attraction alone, as Lessans asserted, either.

If everyone has a good personality (I'm not sure how you define a good personality), this will not be the main criterion in finding a mate. It will be sexual attraction first and foremost because that will be the glue that keeps the marital bond healthy.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can I take anything as a joke in here?

How can this thread, the book, and your posts, be taken as anything but a joke?

Those who don't 'get' the joke, soon become the 'butt' of it.