I recently joined an online dating site and told an old friend I ran into the other day about it. I couldn’t believe when this high school graduate told me she’s a member as well. She continued to tell me that a man, (no photo) with a PhD asked her out but she didn’t go. She told me she knew what he wanted, which was “to get screwed.” Well, no shit, Freud! According to her, that was the reason she didn’t bite. Woman, you’re fucking nuts, if you want me to believe that a man with a brain and supposedly money would want you for anything but. You aren’t that ugly but how fugly was this PhD to want your crazy ass; when he could buy a better lookin ass for a night or two? —You Need Help, My Friend
This article appears in Oct 18-24, 2012.
Wait… so she’s crazy because she DIDN’T sell out for a bit of the D?
And yes, men with brains and money DO want women for more than just sex, and vice versa. What part is confusing you?
What did he have his Ph.D. in?
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
OB, believe it or not, some people do not live their lives according to ‘class’ or where their education/finances place them on the social scale. You assume that, because she doesn’t have a degree, he only wants to bang her? You think that only ugly people use dating sites? Did it ever occur to you that, maybe, this PhD doesn’t have time to frequent spots to meet people? You are extremely narrow minded. You call this woman a ‘friend’? With friends like you, who needs enemies??
What a bitch. Good luck finding a man.
…or good friends
Well maybe, just maybe, the Op could read between the lines that all this PHD wanted was time between the sheets. She made a choice not to be his temporary garbage can. What’s wrong with that? Hats off to the Op. Wait for a better quality person if that’s the feeling you get from this on liner. Good for you!
troll
MM Check this out.Intresting.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/progra…
if you go fishing o.p., make sure you have a big enough worm. i find these sites are just looking for idiots to join, then when you do find some weirdo to match you, then sparks fly.
but the ones that really get me laughing, are ebaloney, and fuckbook. yep, they are real winners there. i keep getting invites from females that i have no clue, to how they got my email addy. i do not go to these sites, and have never joined them. the only site that i had joined, was the fishy one, and that ended up with a nitemare bitch from hell. my advice, use a mechanical ladies, and guys, you have two hands.
RSVP
: Boru (10/23, 3:58PM)
“My religion recognizes no obligation to resolve doubt other than through rational means; and it commands no mere faith in eternal truths.” Moses Mendelsohn
Thanks for link, Boru. “The Philosopher’s Zone” appears to lean very heavily on a Jewish perspective which, I suppose of all religions with the possible exception of Buddhism, is the most “rational.” But what does it mean to talk about a “rational religion.”
Look at the first part of the quotation. Mendelsohn’s “religion” maintains that only by rational means will doubt be resolved. But isn’t this philosophy, assuming that philosophy can resolve doubt at all which is doubtful (a little pun there)? In other words, Mendelsohn seems to reduce religion to philosophy, but can the reduction be maintained? As far as I am aware, the only way religion can resolve doubt is not by rational means but rather by faith. One thinks, for example, of the Roman Catholic injunction to the effect that it is not by good works that man shall be saved but by faith alone. “Rational means ” doesn’t even enter into the picture.
The obvious question in relation to the second part of the quotation, that of Mendelsohn’s religion commanding no mere faith in eternal truths, appears to be: What, then does Mendelsohn’s religion command instead? The only possible reply, as far as I can see, is the greater exercise of rationality but it is unclear just what this might mean in relation to his “eternal truths.” What are these commands? What would they look like?
In my view Mendelsohn reduces religion to philosophy or, perhaps more properly, conflates the two. But in my view the two are distinct ways of being in the world, the one based on belief and the other on rational reflection.
Do you have any thoughts in this regard?
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
MM It’s a series of shows on different topics.Look again.If you’ve never heard of the “The Philosopher’s Zone” it’s worth taking a better look.
Typical POF trash, OB. It’s where women with no education but a bunch of kids and maybe average looks think they’re too good for someone with a job, education, looks and money. Then these bitches complain about not being able to find anybody! Here’s a hint, cunts: get off the high horse and quit popping kids out. Single males tend not to be attracted to chicks with their own mini-tribes.
….a ahem friend of mine got viewed on pof by a 82 yr old …like really 82? 🙂
“….a ahem friend of mine got viewed on pof by a 82 yr old …like really 82? :)”
That wasn’t you was it Woggie?
RSVP
: Boru (10/28, 5:23PM)
Okay Boru, I will. Any particular topic you would recommend for viewing?
If I choose one, would you be interested in my comments?
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Trondon: you’re attempt at humor goes right over my head. No dear that wasn’t me but again I would not be adverse to viewing an 82 year old, but with certain restrictions like A HEAVY WALLET, ONE FOOT IN THE GRAVE AND THE OTHER ON A BANANA SKIN. Yup he could be my new man!!! lol. But guys like you Trondon who ain’t got a pot to piss in, nn…. NO. Why waste my time. Sorry but if this was your attempt to get me interested you already know my criteria. See above in caps!
Well at least wog is honest, unlike many other female gold diggers.
She’s honest about her intellectual limitations, as well. Not surprising that humour goes right over her head:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_GXXdt-zVOr8/TUNy…
*Disclaimer: Donkeys are useful and endearing creatures and I sincerely apologize for any perceived insult in linking them with our new favorite whipping post – Slaghag.
gold diggers heh http://thegolddiggers.files.wordpress.com/…
Heh heh heh. That Demi-krat fell in a well. How ya like it down there, Timmy O’Toole?!
Your idea of the perfect man is one with wealth and on the verge of death? Your last name wouldn’t be Weeks would it Woggie?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/…
Just joshing, you couldn’t possibly be her. Could you?
MM Yes,I would be intrested in reading your comments.I hope your enjoying past and present episodes.
RSVP
: Boru (10/24, 11:45PM)
“DANIEL DENNETT ON HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS AND FREE WILL” (The Philosopher’s Zone, 26 November, 2011)
For brevity I will deal only with Dennett’s take on consciousness and ,his view of the existence of free will which, to some degree, is a separate issue.
According to some, Daniel Dennett, Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University (Boston) has been called “the great de-mystifier of consciousness.” But does Dennett de-mystify consciousness? On the basis of his interview on The Philosopher’s Zone I would have to say no. The debate over the nature of consciousness falls into two groups. Dennett belongs to the reductionists, those who maintain that human consciousess can be fully explained by brain states, the neurological operations of the brain. For Dennett, in other words, the mind has no separate ontological existence. The difficulty, however, is that Dennett never demonstrates this.
The first point that he makes is that human consciousness is different from that of all other animal species on the basis of its self-consciousness. “It is one thing to talk and it’s another thing to realize what you’re doing when you’re talking, to be sort of self-conscious about talking.” Okay, no problem there, but what exactly is the nature of human consciousness itself?
Well, according to Dennett we’re less conscious than we think we are. Visually there are “saccedes” or eye-jumps which occur four times a second of which we are not conscious. The “blind-spot phenomenon” extends to our other senses as well, so it’s a mistake to talk about the “continuity of consciousness.” Dennett doesn’t explain just how, since he also is subject to the blind-spot phenomenon, that he is conscious of them and can talk about the continuity of his own consciousness. Reductionists like Dennett always award themselves abilities which their principles deny. Anyway, so what is Dennett’s view of the nature of consciousness?
Well, it’s not like the “Cartesian theatre” in which we sit as spectators to our own thinking. For Dennett this is just another illusion of the “dualists,” those (like me) who adhere to a mind-body dualism such that the operations of the mind cannot be reduced, Dennett notwithstanding, to its neurological functioning. So what’s going on? Of what, then does conscious states consist?
Well, according to Dennett, there’s something he calls “retrospective consciousness.” When someone is subject to incoming sensory information “there are lots of things being put together and analysed by what we might as well call ‘subconscious mechanisms'”. All this information is trying to influence the brain and “the stuff that succeeds in holding influence for some time so that you can talk about it later, that what he’s conscious of.” But of what do those “subconscious mechanisms” consist? Dennett doesn’t say. But is Dennett not the intentional agent of his own thoughts? Or is he simply the passive ground over which his sensory information flows?
Dennett doesn’t talk much about intentionality, his own included, since it is not reducible to simple neurological functions. It involves “agency,” the very thing which makes human consciousness comprehensible and for which Dennett has no answers. Indeed, Dennett could not explain the intentional nature of his own theory of consciousness , the one that intends to reduce it to the operation of those brain states, those neurological functions.
Is Dennett “the great de-mystifier of human consciousness”? I don’t think so.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
CORRECTION & A FOOTNOTE
The first sentence should read, “For brevity I will deal only with Dennett’s take on consciousness and NOT his view of the existence of free will which, to some extent, is a separate issue.”
To briefly comment on it here, the “free will-determinism” issue revolves about the question as to whether man is conditioned by his genetic history and cultural conditioning to the extent that his choices are “determined” by those factors such that he has no free will at all. He may think he does, but he doesn’t. A proponent of free will, on the other hand, maintains that man is not so constrained and that, as a result of his possession of free will, he is morally responsible for his actions.
Oddly, in view of the fact that he maintains that man’s mind is wholly explicable in terms of the brain’s biological processes, Dennett nonetheless claims that man has a free will. Indeed, for Dennett it’s one of the principal things which distinguishes him from the other species. “We’re the only minds,” Dennett explains, “that have a free will in a morally significant way.” (You can’t accuse the lion for killing the antelope because the lion does not possess a free will in a morally significant way and so escapes the charge of murder.)
However, and this is the present problem, Dennet does not explain how man, whose mind in his view is completely explicable in terms those biological processes, can simultaneously transcend those processes to exercise his free will. Another contradiction in Dennett.
Any thoughts Boru?
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
I have yet to listen to take episode.I haven’t listened to all episodes yet.
Having said that or after covering by butt if I sound stupid.lol
Doesn’t that bring up the question of “Nature or Nuture”?
Is a child born a psychopath or is he taught to be a psychopath?
The gentleman in the earlier episodes died last year.Shame I liked him.
RSVP
: Boru 1014 (10/25, 5:26PM)
Yes, you’re referring Alan Saunders of the Australian Broadcasting System, the host The Philosopher’s Zone. However, I’ve never heard him since I only read the transcripts of the programs. I find that I can concentrate better and take notes when reading rather than listening which I find distracting.
I chose Daniel Dennett because I am familiar with him from his book “Consciousness Explained” (1991) which, according to my card index file I read in 2002 but on which I took no notes, as well as his “Sweet Dreams: Philosophical Obstacles to a Science of Consciousness” (2005) on which I did. I disagreed with Dennet then as I do now about the
very possibility of such a “science” for reasons I gave in my analysis of Dennett’s views. On the question of the mind-brain relation I find David Chalmers’ “The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory” (1996) to be much more coherent. In fact, Chalmers is a “dualist” like me, i.e., those claiming that the mind cannot be reduced to brain states.
I suppose that Daniel Dennet’s brain-based “neuroscience” would support the view that the psychopath is born rather than taught – his genetic package and immersion in his cultural environment would pre-determine that he would become one. But as I mentioned, Dennett suprisingly and I believe self-contradictingly, supports free will as opposed to determinism which means that he would actually support the view that it is the mind and not the brain which accounts for freely chosen human action. What this might mean in the production of the psychopath is unclear beyond his freely choosing to become one.
But does one freely choose to become a psychopath? This sounds unlikely. What seems more likely is that psychopathology is the result of some sort of neurological dysfunction which I think supports the view that while the brain might account for the failures of the mind, it cannot account for its successes. That is why, for example, examining Einstein’s brain to determine the source of his genius is misconceived. The source of his genius was his mind, not his brain, and the two are ontologically distinct.
Anyway, thanks for putting me onto the site. I’ll be returning for more of The Philosopher’s Zone in future. If you want me to take a run at anybody else, let me know.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
aw no responses for you, i take it.
This clearly isn’t an “old friend” – because you’re a complete bitch about her – no “old friend” would react this strongly when someone they care about gets a break.
You’re a jealous bitch and i’m guessing “old friend” is jealous-bitch-speak for “the chick in high school i always wished i looked like”
Does that about sum it up, you nasty asshole?