Easily the 2nd oldest occupation

well I still like my idea of the Flinstones and the quarry work being the first.

digital.noface wrote:

megan1986 wrote:digital, stop mirroring my criticisms of you back on me.

Does it sting?

It doesn't make you clever to do so even though you believe it does. Also, every post you make is a post in opposition to someone or something and worded in a way to give the impression of intelligence. Try humility, it works wonders. Why must everything be a debate with you? All I am going to say is try conversing with people. Not everything has to be an argument. These are good sound words, hopefully you will take my advice. If not, I still wish you the best of luck -megan

I have friends, if I feel like conversing, I see them (Not to a forum full of self-absorbed strangers). I come online to sharpen my mind, by learning, listening and debating. My dream is to be utterly spanked in an argument; this is one of the rarest and most productive opportunities to learn.

As for humility, it is an active pursuit of mine. It is a priority I try to incorporate into everything I do. Wouldn't you consider it a bit rich for a self-professed narcissist to be offering advice on humility?

It is also recreational. I enjoy debate. If you don't, please don't feel obliged to join in. However, engaging in debate is healthy. A dislike of debate is indicative of either a fear of losing, self doubt in ones abilities, or the conceited belief your own position is unassailable. Afraid, insecure, or arrogant; which are you?

I also love a debate (which should seem obvious), and do debate my points often and I do it well, and I usually win, but I do not turn everything into a debate...I choose my battles wisely. If someone say's that they like the color red, I would not argue that they should like the color blue just because I like the color blue...Why would I unless I felt so insecure that I always had something to prove? So insecure that I could not live unless everyone had the same values and beliefs as me? So demanding that I must force feed fact upon fact down my arguer’s throat just to prove that I am not wrong? I don't need to prove anything to anyone because I already know the inherent truths that are true for me. If I see another with the same view as mine, I acknowledge them and give them kudos. If I see someone with a different point of view, and the topic seems important or interesting or a challenge to me, I debate. If I hear something that I disagree with, but figure, that is their own decision, I do not debate and I let it be. You do not. You just notice everything wrong about the world and about people and insist on pointing it out to them. Some people are going to take your arguments as personal attacks, and what I am doing is letting you know how you might seem to others, because you seem oblivious to it.

Honestly though, you must realise that what you engage in isn't a debate at all (or at least I estimated that you might be intellegent enough to realise this point)? Your posts are riddled with logical fallacy: Appeal to ridicule, ignorance of refutation, all your posts are filled with loaded questions if I am correct? These are just tactics, and further the argument in no way. Which goes back to my first conclusion of you, what you are doing is missing the point! Walking around the topic in order to win an arguement that isn't even valid. While you may make valid points, and intellegent assumptions, what information you give, has little to do with the argument at hand and more to do with yourself or to do with others, and about protecting your ego from the forthcoming attack. Quit with the ad hominem arguments, and get to the point!

Did I say you didn't have friends out side of here? No I didn't, I never thought you didn't have real friends. I imagine, (of course I could be wrong), that because of your ego, and being a narcissists, that you would have a nice collection of friends. Friends that like how you dress, walk, talk, think (yet secretly talk about how much of an ass hole you are behind your back). You need them for your narcissistic supply, and you love extracting complements out of them, one by one.

I like how you said you come online to sharpen your mind. You know, there are books to read, and classes to join that should be a lot more helpful at sharpening your mind? I know you probably read a lot, memorize facts, read lists. That isn’t what I mean, you need to sharpen your ability to read between the lines and think out side the box. To recite facts out of encyclopedias and world books doesn’t make you cleaver like you think it does. That has already been done, old news, think of something new. Do something different. I am giving great life advice, and any intelligent individual would want to take my advice. I am not arguing your intelligence either, so, I don’t want you feel as if you are under attack. I am glad to hear that you are working on your humility; that can be a hard thing to master, but you still have a long way to go. Once again, best of luck…

-megan

whero wrote:well I still like my idea of the Flinstones and the quarry work being the first.

I liked it too! Best example yet! heehee (but I was confused by it as well, lol).....amusing.....

Megan>>>

You sound like a Libra, as I am one too, and love a good debate, or discussion.

I wonder who came up with the norm by which we could relate all human thought and behavior as coshure or out of balance? Then we can find out the reason some people are called crazy and others are called normal.

radames wrote:Megan>>>

You sound like a Libra, as I am one too, and love a good debate, or discussion.

I wonder who came up with the norm by which we could relate all human thought and behavior as coshure or out of balance? Then we can find out the reason some people are called crazy and others are called normal.

That is funny you ask if I am a Libra, I once took this Horoscope profile test and it came back that my personality was that of a Libra, but I am actually a Sagittarius.

I believe that the only way we could honestly decide if someone is normal or not would be if we could use more scientific methods to test for mental illness. For example, depression is linked to low serotonin levels and/or too quick reuptake of the serotonin. If we could find a way to accurately measure the amount of serotonin in the synaptic gap, then we would have an accurate test for depression. If we could identify mental disorders by blood tests and MRI’s it would not only make the field of psychology more accurate, it would bring some credibility into the field as well. Psychology needs to be a science. Therapy should be separate, it is often good to talk to someone, but I don’t think that talking to anyone is a good means of figuring out what is wrong with someone on a neurological level. Also, like you said, what determines if you are crazy or normal? In a sense we are probably all ‘normal’, we just all have different sets of genes activated from one another, and the detrimental ones will eventually be weeded out over time….

although nothing ever bad happens from talking.

whero wrote:although nothing ever bad happens from talking.

It can actually. My mother used to be a therapist, and she told me about how they were supposed to fill quotas, diagnose a certain amount of people a month and then say they were healed so that they would keep receiving money from the state. She hated this though. She talked about how they would rip the patient’s wounds open, and they would be a mess, and then they would let them go like that. She knew so many people that left and committed suicide. She eventually couldn't take the lies and deceit anymore, and she left therapy to become just a retail manager. That is why I don’t trust therapists. There are good ones out there, but you have to search for them.

But, if you are talking to a good therapist in a good organization, then no, talking can be only be helpful, and I feel that if you can find someone, somewhere that you can trust to confide in, then that is a great and blessed opportunity.

whero wrote:the dinasoars were put out of extinction by climate change but humans survived, murphy's law humans put the dinasoars into extinction.

Wrong! Humans were not even around for 64 million years AFTER the dinosaurs were extinct! Also, learn to spell, and make sure you know what you are talking about! You're not trying to be a laughingstock, are you?

As for what what Digital Noface said, that's virtually correct, except for one minor factor: dinosaurs died off 65 million years before the present day, but the earliest human-like creatures appeared about a million years ago. 65-1=? This is how I got my answer.

hehe, yeh, there is no evidence at all that humans were around at the time of the dinosaurs. The animals that did survive from the disaster that wiped-out the dinosaurs were small reptiles and, obviously, aquatic animals. We (humans) have only been here for less than one million years. The earliest human bones all originate in Africa and, most likely, the first humans had very dark skin and hunted in packs (like Chimpanzees do).

If the dinosaurs had survived that great disaster all of those years ago, we would probably not be here now talking about all of this. 'That great disaster', by the way, is strongly believed to have been a large chunk of an asteroid that hit Earth in the Yucatan peninsula on the coast of Mexico.

Kevin.

I dont think whero actually believes that dinosaurs and humans lived together, or he wouldnt be referencing the flinstones if he did? Do people actually believe that humans and dinosaurs lived together? i only ask because i hadnt heard that, and you guys are arguing it like it is a thing to be argued? I heard about that panincila thing, there is glass or something that was caused by the heat if i am correct? i cant remember, i learned it a while ago...