Lol, I love how you call her 'sister' as if you care about her, harbor real affection or something, and then wantonly demean and belittle her as if she were insane. It's not going to persuade her, you know. That tends to turn people off Ucheaa. But then you openly admit you're mostly on here to stoke fires so I guess you already knew that.

You mean gave universal permission to hold the priesthood? Since, ya' know, we mormons had black members since the 1830's and never banned them from joining the church (not a cult).

Also, that is not the way things operated originally. Under Joseph Smith the church was radical and very much progressive, and under his administration several black people held priesthood authority and leadership positions in the church, Mr. Elijah being a prime example. The ban came when every mormon apologist's favorite leader- Brigham Young, decided his opinions would become general policy. A decision that became a widespread problem for over a hundred years until the church was indeed pressured- from without as well as within, to change its stance. Thousands of members had already been protesting the act.

Just to keep the record straight here.

Lol, WE'RE IN THE MATRIX! NOOOOOO

But let's consider this in the context of short-sighted men avoiding spats with women they supposedly admire.

First off, one of the ethical 'dilemmas' men face in long-term relationships is choosing whether or not to admit to their partners that they're not beautiful anymore at some point when either youth fades or life takes its toll and the supermodel bod begins to vanish.

This has to be one of the easiest problems to deal with regarding honesty with your partner. Because for one, beauty is a personal thing. People are attracted to different people for different reasons, and pop magazines have nothing to do with it. And while there are general rules of attraction that do govern what a person is attracted to to some extent (like symmetry), a woman that a man loves and cares for and shares intimacy with over time will become beautiful to their man in a deeply personal way that transcends their girl's looks so that no matter how they look- the feeling that 'this is the most beautiful person on earth' remains the same, provided that man is not destroying the relationship by wasting away their lives on porn and cheating with other people or otherwise being a conceited douchebag to the person they supposedly loved.

So even if a lover becomes old and haggard, or loses some of that supermodel flair, a man who loves that person in sincerity without deviation will find with the passage of time not a diminishing, but a flourishing and growth in the beauty of the woman he loves. He can sincerely say under any circumstance that,"You are beautiful." Because to him she is just that. Societal standards be damned, they change with the breeze anyway.

The harder part of honesty is being open about *who* you are, and what kind of life you lead. Because smart girls, the ones who are honest with themselves, will not worship at the altars of neanderthals, cheats, and scum no matter how much they're packing on their biceps or their abdominal area, or even their wallets. The trick here is to then is to wiz-en up, and rather than focusing on being the next Apollos, the thing is to become a good man, full of and becoming better in the characteristics that guide actions to a destination that is rich in love and affection, in giving oneself and not thinking of what you'll get back. Then relationships grow unabated, then honesty flows like a river whose damn just broke, because what's there to fear?

So be good, be your best self, and then honesty will flow as naturally as the inevitable affection you've secured for each other by your wise actions. =)

Of course, I could be wrong. But I seriously doubt it.

That is the question isn't it. The only quantifiable, testable way I could think of is to imagine different ways of examining an object and then performing tests to see if the metaphyiscal experiment worked. The problem with that is that any acceptable measure of testing requires use of the senses. Which leads me to wonder- can anything be measured or understood without sensation of one kind or another? What does a person born with the absence of all sensation think?

That is the question isn't it. The only quantifiable, testable way I could think of is to imagine different ways of examining an object and then performing tests to see if the metaphyiscal experiment worked. The problem with that is that any acceptable measure of testing requires use of the senses. Which leads me to wonder- can anything be measured or understood without sensation of one kind or another? What does a person born with the absence of all sensation think?

Hehe, a priori knowledge is independent of experience. Kant believed that we have understanding that existed independent of our life's experience. Some people use this idea to explain how some people come into this world and somehow appear to know more than they were ever taught.

Separately, but relevantly, Kant believes that objects have two appearances, both true: That we perceive things through our senses and because of our senses we see a filtered concept of an actual object. The implication being that objects have a 'true' or 'original' appearance outside what our experience tells is true, though he would never say that objects as they appear are not true because of the filtering.

He believes then, that based on this idea, this a priori concept, that objects could possibly be discerned as they really are, and not as they appear to be, if we had some way of perceiving them without filters. This raises some interesting questions like- what do our senses filter, if anything? If they do filter some things how would we ever know it? Even if we did know it how could we change it?

hehehe

lmao, well said! =D

The philosophical thought of the day is this- What is more important in the grand scheme of a relationship? Determining who you love the most, where passions are greatest? Or deciding who is best for you? And if one supersedes the other in importance what are the respective implications upon the choices a person is then beset with?

For example, because I believe that the latter is more important to consider for both persons, I would not date princessment. Not because she isn't gorgeous and attractive as a human being, she is. But there is a religious disparity there that, even if we decided to bridge it successfully, would be the source of a inter-relationship contention and disunity which has been perpetuated for more than a century and shows few signs of abating.
Conversely, if I believed the other source of logic to be true, then the romanticized version of love and its pursuits would have to be my guiding light in discerning who to be with.
However, there is a serious flaw in this mode of thinking which becomes apparent some time after a couple joins based on this drive to a feeling- that being that should there ever be a period of time where the relationship felt to be lacking in terms of passion and love, it would follow in accordance with this theory, that one or both persons would be justified in abandoning the other should another option appear that is more viable in the context of the first rule, and they would be justified by that rule. Provided the overarching beliefs they have consist largely of a hedonist approach to life and no intersecting values or morals, etc. It's a fun thing to consider. =D

l.m.a.o soooo hard. hahaha

She took a compliment from a mormon!

Harvey Harvey Dent xD

What a load of crap. There are faithful men and boys, and both are capable of loyalty and disloyalty. What does age or maturity have to do with it? It's a choice, not a statistical certainty derived from age or social development. Where on earth does this kind of logic stem from?

Yep, haha. Speaking of which, lovely legs by the way. =)

That'll earn you some interesting messages in your inbox I suspect. =p

Merry Christmas to you my attractive friend. =)

I'm pretty sure it would be against forum rules to say... xD

What do you think Kant means when he discusses a priori knowledge in the context of discerning the true or 'original' nature of any thing? Do you think his theory is reasonable enough that the scientific method could be applied to test its validity?

Lost in Reverie. Hands down.

Aye, there's the core of it. My aunt will feel grief this time of year, her husband was gunned down and she left with three children to raise. I myself am sad that this will be my first Christmas alone, 2000 miles away from family. I'm still really glad to have the life I enjoy, lots of advantages and decades of life still in me to pursue my dreams with, but missing those connections, being without the folk I love most this time of year makes everything else feel a little hollow, empty. What joy is there in life, if not in the people it's shared with?