It is not rude to say that a book has a dilapidated cover or is bulging. Notice that my comment was in response to YOUR cliche about BOOKS.



Is that your demonstration of a reasoned argument? Why so emotional?

Are such things "all or nothing" as suggested by: "don't want to ever have anything to do with again"

If any person (biologically related, in a relationship, or not) does things that one regards as unacceptable, they CAN LIMIT contact without "ever again" being involved (unless the offenses are intolerable).

All-or-nothing, Black-or-white thinking acknowledges that the person does not recognize alternatives.

When I buy a book that I intend to keep I choose a copy that has a cover that is not dilapidated or bulging at the seams.

Concerning content of various books: When ANY person relies upon cliches and platitudes, criticizes others for what they have NOT said, resorts to name-calling, makes foolish ASSumptions and assertions, etc, I conclude that they are probably not very mature mentally or emotionally and are likely to be incapable of reasoned discussion.



Weight control is simple (not necessarily easy) -- eat what the body needs in the amount it needs to maintain appropriate body composition. Self-control is involved. Excuses don't control adipose tissue (body fat).

There was no implication of a "date" so "stand up a lady" did not apply in any way. I just do not choose to spend time in kennels.



I do not watch television. However, an arranged visit to a wildlife sanctuary would appeal if there was mutual interest. I prefer a natural setting over commercial entertainment.



There is no implication in anything I say that any women are drawn to me. In fact, I make some effort to discourage unwelcome attraction or attention.



Problem? What problem?



Actually, the UN-attraction is mutual and warranted.



My comments do not stem from any "attraction" but rather from my observation that many women prioritize pets above relationships with human males. It simply eliminates them from any interest on my part if pets (or children or religion) are the focus of their life.

For some it did and became a venue for personal comments.



Those with any sense have "qualifications" -- some of which are more "politically correct" or popular than others. Loving dogs appears to be more popular than maintaining physical condition.

Tolerate means basically to put up with, endure, or to allow without interference. How might that apply within a relationship?

Is it intolerant to be opposed to or to refuse to accept:

1.General attitude of laziness
2.Persistent negative attitude
3.Lack of self-control
4.Verbal or physical abuse
5.Infidelity
6.Financial irresponsibility
7.Short temper
8.Violent mood swings
9.Substance abuse
10.Dishonesty
11.Too little (or too much) libido
12.Add others

Would it be fair to say that we are all intolerant of some things (but may criticize others for being intolerant of different things than we choose)?

Those who attempt to act as salesmen for religion are often its most effective enemies, particularly when demonstrating their assumed superiority (by regarding all who do not accept their preaching as "ignorant" or "infidel" or "heathen").

It is not surprising that religion is declining in developed / better educated nations where such attitudes are more likely to be recognized for what they are -- religious bigotry.

I have no interest in visiting kennels -- and have very limited interest in people who prioritize pets above people.



Wiping feet might have applied more when leaving than upon entering.

Perhaps the ultimate along these lines is a woman I encountered who had posted at the front door of her house a sign which read:

"These premisses are maintained for the comfort and safety of animals. If you don't like that please go away."

I did go away

In my opinion the author made the common blunder of using blanket statements as though they applied to men in general (or all men)

SOME men are problem-solvers, detail oriented, anxious to please – others are not. Some men prefer confident women – others are intimidated by confident women. Some are providers – but some are dependent.

A few of her "solutions" may be good ideas for people in general – show appreciation, be receptive, etc – but some can be a recipe for disaster; such as "Start to trust that your man really does want to make you happy. Your trust will make him be a better man for you." Apply that "reasoning" to a man who is a user / opportunist / player and imagine the results.


There are often communication problems between people regardless of gender. Even in our "information age" many people do not develop communication skills.

Many are Non Religious BECAUSE they have read the bible and competing religious texts and concluded that tales about talking donkeys and snakes, dead bodies coming back to life days after death, gods flying through the air unaided, etc are FOLK TALES, legends, fables.

Thousands of years ago people did not distinguish between fantasy and reality – and many in modern times believe tales from that era are literal truth.

Yes, there is SOME wisdom in the bible just as there is SOME wisdom in millions of other books – even those written by people we consider evil monsters. So what? There is some truth in the lies of politicians. So what?

Shall we accept entire works as truthful and accurate if we can find an occasional truth?

"Spiritual REALITIES" is an oxymoron / contradiction in terms.



"Soul" is a religious concept that cannot be shown to be anything more than imagination



How can one KNOW which, if any, of the thousands of "gods" that "we need in our lives?"

People tend to become convinced (usually during childhood) to "believe in" the gods popular in their society and to dismiss and demean all competing gods and religions as false (failing to recognize that their favorites are no more likely to be true than others)

I am one who expects a PARTNER or MATE to be an EQUAL mentally, physically and personally (not identical). I do NOT have the same expectations of FRIENDS.

Here is a link to an article (bit long to copy here) that discusses communication problems between men and women (from a female perspective).

Which, if any, of the ten items mentioned do you think have merit?

Comments?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2550918/Cant-understand-man-Thats-hes-speaking-Menglish-heres-fluent-too.html

I have opened threads regarding such things -- questioning why those are important in friendship (unless the true agenda is coupledom / mate finding).

One was on the subject of why it is acceptable for a woman to require that a man be over a certain height but less so for a man to require that a woman not be overweight. Another asked why specify an age requirement for friendship.

Millions / Billions of people worshiping thousands of different "gods" each profess to have chosen the right one (with a half a percent chance or less of being right) -- and maintain that the "gods" worshiped by others are "false" but their favorite is "real."

The Satan character makes a convenient evil "adversary" for the good "god" in some belief systems -- and is often used to scare people (particularly children) into conforming to the dictates of self-identified "priests", "prophets" and amateur worshipers.

i wonder if that stems from being scared of everything?


The emotion "fear" is a great motivator and fear of death is evidently very prominent for many (most?) people. That fear can be manipulated by others to promote all sorts of agendas.

Santa and gods seem to have a lot in common

Not everyone hates war. Many profit from war.

Most "common people" hate war but even some of them favor war.

A wise person said, "You can't reason a person out of a position that they emoted themselves into."