How do you know that they are demands of existence hardwired into your body? Because science told you? I thought science was pulled out of thin air?
So you agree that some facts are necessary to be assumed - yet any facts that you can’t understand or don’t agree with are guilty of being pulled out of thin air?
How do you not see your own contradiction?
You are basically saying that “I only have to believe what I want to believe”. You shouldn’t let the “fact that there are no facts” bother you or negatively affect you, but you are saying that you can let the “fact that there are no facts” positively benefit you. So whenever you come across a “fact” that you don’t want to be true, you can dismiss it by saying “there are no facts” - but you do not apply this to any facts which you want to be true, because applying it to any facts which you want to be true would negatively impact your ego.
You’ve successfully illustrated to us that your very way of thinking is a fallacy; not only this, but you are okay with it being a fallacy.
Well…just that I can’t say I really agree this is most prevalent in western culture by measure of degree.
Social superficiality is not only the norm, but the overt mandate, in cultures like Japan and India.
It’s not like they’re over there free-willy style.
Okay, we agree that those are simply your opinions, which you’re certainly entitled to, but your dearth of support is not at all persuasive. I’m not convinced.
Yes, we have different expectations for children than we do for adults. Are you familiar with the term age-appropriate behavior? Children are not merely small adults. Their thought processes, social skills, their mental capabilities are all developing. The learning style of a child is very different from that of an adult. As I see it, it is entirely necessary to have a different set of guidelines and teaching methods for different age groups. I fail to see how restricting what one’s child is exposed to is equivalent to humiliating that child?
Again, the key here is age-appropriate. A child comes into this world completely self-centered, as well she should. Gradually, she learns that there is a world outside of herself with which she can and must interact. Part of that learning involves being exposed to societal values and behavioral expectations, and that exposure is generally facilitated by the parents. There is no reason that those lessons need to be humiliating for the child. Children deserve to be treated with respect, without question.
There definitely are mothers who belittle and mistreat their children, with that I’d agree. But I haven’t seen any evidence that it’s the majority of mothers – from my experience, most mothers do their utmost to help their children make their way in the world. I truly and honestly do not think the majority of mothers are on a power trip where their kids are concerned, those that I know genuinely have their children’s best interests at heart.
I agree with this, I do think that too often children are underestimated, not only by parents but by many of the adults in their lives.
This is completely circumstantial, so there could be a number of possible responses. If he’s a complete stranger, depending on his body language, tone of voice, etc, she might either be suspicious of his motives or she might be flattered.
In truth I think anyone, of either sex, would find superficiality to be repelling, don’t you?
Actually, I am much more inclined to believe that he’d say “Damn she’s hot” to a friend, regardless of his religious upbringing.
I guess I don’t see anything wrong with this sort of superficiality – although I’d call it good manners.
Unfortunately, I don’t think men are all that complex… if she is a girl, and if she is attractive, men will want to have sex with here and not care if she is superficial or not.
Depending on the person, I’d agree. But every person I’ve ever known who had a very firm belief in Christianity wouldn’t find it acceptable to say such things and would be offended by it - men as well as women.
I’d say that originally, the need for “good manners” and “proper behaviour” is what caused there to be difference between the two ways of saying something in the first place.
A good example of something that isn’t morally enforced to as significant of an extent in other cultures is nudity. Other cultures see nothing wrong with a naked human body - it’s natural, we all are naked underneath our clothes. Yet in far-western cultures, being nude is something to be ashamed of.
A tempting defence? You used it yourself! I was using it to mock you.
How am I overthinking this? I am just pointing out that you aren’t applying your same logic to beliefs that you know are true.
A biologist knows that evolution is true just as well as you know that you will die if you quit eating - just because you aren’t intelligent enough to establish the same level of certainty about evolution that a biologist can, does not mean that the biologists facts are “pulled out of thin air”.
If you are referring to the idea that “no facts at all can be known for certain” then I can see your point; however, you failed to apply that concept to your own facts, ideas, and beliefs.
If “no facts can be known for certain” can be used logically to negate the theory of evolution, then you could also use that logic to negate other “facts” such as that if you were to quit eating, you would die; if you were to make yourself stop breathing, you would pass out; if you were to shoot a bullet into your head, you would die; etc.
Those facts are known to be “true” the same way that evolution is known to be true, and they are all proven by science to be a part of “reality” (given that reality exists and is not some illusion).