hey man, you realize spending enough introspect on the web to formulate concepts of undesirable and disconcerting characters as hysterical narcissists and then post a discussion topic to tell us about it is a bit hysterical and narcissistic.

neurotic: where the concept of a problem becomes bigger than the problem. Oh look at that, we just combined narcissism and hysteria for its definition.

o_O

No1PhD they teach you in conflict resolution that's how people wind up following the tossed wrench off the building...

something about don't poke the bear

ie. the trick about violent engagement is that it depends utterly upon self governing by the source of the violence not to escalate in nature because sure as sunshine you're a contributor by engaging, however the catch-22 is self governing, for whatever reason has already gone south when there's violence in a social environment.

eg. if you really want to play dominant male every time someone cracks the sads try satire, at least it generally garners resumption of a thinking process even when it is provided to levy a mild disdain. Say something like, "I killed an AC unit once when I found out it was sleeping with my wife." He might actually laugh and regain his temperament whilst realizing his display had somewhat offended you.

It's just smarter. And believe me I'm no stranger to a serious streetfight. I just go out of my way to avoid them, not pick them. They're not actually fun, someone always winds up in hospital, there's blood everywhere, and everyone involved starts off with presumption of criminal guilt when the cops show up, which is a pain in the butt.

It's terrific and healthy to be a youthful adult and you can be your entire life.

But a child mind in an adult body is a dangerous person. The tantrum of a child is the violent crime of an adult.

People don't realize that about violent people. In the course of justifying their behaviour they entertain a childlike perspective, eg. "It wasn't me," with your hand still in the cookie jar.
To them they're just levelling the directness and innocence of a child at the situation, that's why they seem irrational as an adult. But to them, they don't see it, they've rationalised themselves.

If you're complacent as an adult, you don't see how far off the rails you go. There's no measure to rule by because you're the one in charge of your behaviour. No omniscient parent to slap you into line when you don't keep it all straight in your head.

Because of the amount of damage any fully grown primate is capable of, be youthful, not childlike. Keep it straight in your head, use the right words when you think it even. That's how you self govern without relying on fallible judgement to control yourself.


Tomorrow's philosophy lesson is about the fact that birds actually eat bees.

Well, if you don't start choosing who you give your heart to wisely, life is going to teach you the hard way to do so.

So you can just sit back and enjoy the painful ride, or start choosing more wisely before life shows you why you need to. Some people never get a clue and just wind up permanent train wrecks. Maybe that's you.

There are lots of things about life you can't really choose, who you have a relationship with is not among them.

If you feel crap about a personal relationship, everything about that is your choice and always was and always will be.

A clinical psychologist would follow.

make up for every single moment in my life a naked woman hasn't been in front of me?
and I can keep that up for years, it takes years of sexual dedication and commitment to finally burn the memory of absence of a naked woman away. many years of going at it like teenagers. everywhere. all the time. at your parents house. under the trampoline. picnic rhymes with something sexual. you like the beach? I like their changerooms and clubhouses. some restaurants have unisex toilets y'know. I put the emphasis on pleasure in cruise. forget the mile high club, it's the climb to altitude club, the experiencing some turbulence club, the entering a landing cycle club, the in flight movie club. and I actually think you're supposed to have sex on the balcony at a resort. fyi there's a storage locker under the seats at public water centres. The blanket fort I make at music festivals isn't for drugs.

I do it because I care.

He may have simply packed his own suitcase and headed for the scottish highlands but, fearing consequence has refused to make any statements to police.

Well a rather common general intimidation could be the expectation of more commitment than the amount of time given to know you very well can justify.

Younger women in particular tend to prefer opening the sexual floodgates when the premise is a committed relationship, but just like everyone else do actually enjoy sex and fall prey to the fact burgeoning relationships are largely sexually based no matter what your morals.

Now I'm talking about penetration here but just intimate affection with a welcome allowance of arousal is a form of sexual intercourse. Even just that arousal might make a woman feel slutty or cheap if given too readily perhaps, and some commitment to seeking a committed relationship together, even if just illusory is oft commonplace.

Now here is where you can draw a disparity, if too concerned with genuine commitment in priori, you maybe asking young guys to commit to a relationship with a girl they hardly know in order to have any form of sexual intercourse (ie. mutual arousal and intimacy), which itself is part the basis of any relationship.

The truth is you need to take some degree of chance with a person you're interested in developing a relationship with, trying to control its development from the beginning may seem like being in control of your life but to another person it may seem more like trying to control them. And that's the big red flag that chases young guys away, they don't like being controlled by girls who could be just playing games with them. If you take some chance, it's less like playing games...but yes there is risk: you could choose badly and get hurt by letting a playa in.

So the answer is learn to identify playas, and take a chance on sincere guys. You can't treat both the same, whatever chases one away chases both away. You just have to learn to identify which is which in order to know who to act differently with.



That's the best I can do given there is no specific information provided.

Technically the only way to violate the 2nd ammendment is if a foreign power invades, institutes martial law and bans guns.

If your own government does it, that's just called democratic reform.

You're already in a relationship with everyone you encounter by default, the word means how you relate to the person in front of you.
If you want to steer any particular relationship, from say "stranger" to "acquaintence", you don't really have to be too imaginative to figure out how. Try saying Hi. When that doesn't work, try being funny. If that bombs out, work on your sense of humour.

Just be yourself and open but wise. That makes a cool person, everybody likes a cool person.

Friends or contacts on demand however, that's folly. Time is what gives people opportunity to shine naturally, without even trying.

I'd say never approach any dating format like a consumer, what you'll get is salesmen.

Basically I'm suggesting a terrorist attack can do the apocalyptic Earth scenario like so many sci-fi movies, but if a nuclear holocaust happens it's beyond any sci-fi, it's a dead planet virtually guaranteed. No life, none. Not plants, not bacteria.

True in terms of targeting life for collatoral instead of structures and technology.
But straight up, raw nukes at megaton yield are geophysical events in planetary terms. They don't do collatoral damage, they do planetary damage. That's a game changer, that would prohibit any life, turn us into Mars or something like that, incapable of supporting any life.
And there's still literally thousands of them, waiting to be used.

The biggest soviet warhead is called satan. It is believe each one has an incalculable chance of causing serious geophysical damage to the planet if detonated. They had about 2500 of those.

The american titans are just as bad. Similar number of those prior to decommissioning. East and west were never any better than each other in this sphere.

Tsar bomba was the largest nuke ever detonated, and that was just the primer for a dual stage nuke that would have more than twice the yield used in anger. And that one created a new phenomenon called secondary nuclear shock, where the destructive shockwave is so powerful it bounces up and down in the atmosphere for thousands of kilometres in every direction. During the Tsar bomba test, buildings a thousand km away in northern siberia were knocked down. An american spyplane several hundred kilometres away over the arctic, had its paint burned off it by the flash.

Nukes are bad. We don't listen, but nukes are bad.

Nuclear holocaust was coined by NASA during the early 60s when astronomical satellites detected fluctuations in the magnetosphere of the Earth (our magnetic fields protecting our atmosphere from destruction by stellar radiation). These fluctuations at first signified a catastrophic geophysical event with the potential to cause extinction. A report was submitted to Washington and it was identified these fluctuations coincided with atmospheric nuclear testing of hydrogen bombs.

Everyone signed the nuclear test treaty immediately following that, although underground testing continued.

Also...blondey starting this thread...is so hot :D

Back to the original post, I also pictured Planet of the Apes straight up as a landscape of the postulate.

I think evolution would most certainly back any species that happened to crawl its way to the top of the food chain.

180,000 years ago homo neanderthalensis was far better equipped and more technologically advanced than our forebearers (we're a blind evolutionary branch of hominid, neandertal was more linear but the ice age ending was a game changer).

60 million years ago the raptor species and its various subspecies clearly showed dinosaur evolution in terms of social organisation and adaptability. Had the age of dinosaurs continued, might the raptors have taken the role of hominids?

Should we disappear, why wouldn't whales take over the world? Or big cats start getting smarter? Is there some evolutionary reason this isn't possible? More like the opposite. Evolutionary vacuums are filled by diversification in consequence of evolutionary principle.

Civilisation by our reckoning favours tool use and cognition, but what if ours isn't the only measure?

If you came across an alien world to encounter talking cats, would you not suggest they were civilised?

See it's your name: blondie. We can't stand the sexual frustration of imagining exactly where you're blonde...

I think I watched too many american soapies back in the 70s because all I read was something like you married the girl you didn't really like who was secretly your cousin but later it turned out she was your mother just before it was finally revealed at the season cliffhanger that you had a sex change prior to a car crash which left you in a coma with no memory of your past and in fact, you are your mother's sister.

Christmas means: drinkies.

Go ahead and ask me what a normal day means to me :D