Aside from the fact that any blanket statement will be wrong, why do you want to know? and would it do any good?

If I said men want instant chemistry, would that help?

If I said that men want a woman to take care of them or a woman to support them or a woman who is a challenge... would you change yourself to be that?

For what it is worth, I always wanted a woman who could see the best of me. A woman who would remind me of it when I lost sight of it.

themselves

W-o-w








just




wow.

I am not so sure that people "have" to get paid less than what they are worth.

We live in a society where labor is divided to make each life easier. As a simple example:

Assume that a person living on their own will need 20 out of every 24 hours to get what they need to survive. It is quite possible that by teaming up with another person they will each only have to work 18 hours out of every 24 to survive.
I might become very good at hunting and be able to get more game in a shorter period of time than you. Alternately, you might have carpentry skills and be able to build and repair a dwelling faster and better than me.
Villages, hamlets, towns and cities are all based on the principle that many hands make light work; and today in America we are reaping the benefits of this arrangement. Honestly, you no longer have to work more than a couple hours a day to provide for your basic necessities (arguments about welfare meaning you don't have to work any hours aside).

The problem comes in when the give and take relationship are mis-matched. How much of one commodity/service is it worth to you to receive a particular commodity/service from me? We use currency to equate mis-matched services. In short, one dollar's worth of goods or services is determined by how difficult it is to perform or create it. How many people pay someone else to do their gardening? Most people decide that it isn't that difficult or important to pay someone else to do it.

Without truly developing the entire argument here, currency is basically a physical representation of time and skill. People who have difficult to acquire skills generally demand more money for their services since there is less competition among providers. that means that it is relatively easy to find someone able to perform unskilled labor. In a capitalistic society the market determines a fair value for all goods and services.

Believe it or not, it is difficult enough to find someone who is reliable, honest and responsible enough to work unsupervised in even a menial capacity. Therefore, small business owners tend to pay hirer wages to those who prove themselves capable since they want to retain good workers.

Is this not the reason that every parent tells their children to get a good education (e.g., learn a valuable skill set)? So they can get a good job and demand a higher wage.

When you say that people must work for less than they are worth, it is because you believe that there is (a) an established objective value of worth outside the market or (b) the market has been manipulated in such a way as to inflate the actual market value of an individuals production. I am not sure I would like to argue against the second point (minimum wage is one example).

In context of the conversation, let us look at doctors. Doctors invest many years and a great deal of money and effort to attain their skills. They would like to be paid accordingly. However, instead of allowing the market to balance the worth of their service against the money (remember, money = time) they are to be paid; some would suggest that health care costs are too high and doctors fees need to be capped. Usually these people are the ones who are judging the value of the doctor's work through a lens of their own skill sets... it is the argument: They make more money than anyone has a right to make.

Anytime the government interferes with the free market's determination of worth, it skews things. Fewer people will choose to enter medicine if the payment they receive for their work is below what they feel it should be (leading to a shortage of doctors which would normally drive up costs; but if the costs are capped it will lead to a loss of services), or they will find a way to circumvent the governments control (there is a movement among Canadian doctors who practice in the states -- since they cannot make enough money in Canada -- to circumvent the new health care plan. They are considering setting up hospital ships that will allow them to practice free of government restrictions in international waters).

So when you say that a person must be paid less than they are worth, I am not so sure that I would agree with that. If worth is determined by the value of their service and not an arbitrary chart, I think there is more than enough room to pay individuals what they are worth.

PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, but I am trying to sum up the arguments presented in my head...

====
Andrew: We do not need Obama's healthcare package. Yes, some things are broken but this radical intervention is unwarranted. Additionally, he asked a very basic question:

Why should I have to pay for other people's healthcare when I have to pay for my own? (Answer not offered)

====
Adventure: Whether we need the package or not is irrelevant, we cannot afford it. It doesn't matter how horrible it is watching someone drown, if you cannot save them then you are powerless to help. Pretending that you can swim and diving in to save them will only result in both of your deaths. You may have had the best intentions in the world, but the outcome is worse than if you had done nothing.

====
Dragoness: When the original post professed that the vast majority of income tax collected was from the top earners and that the lowest earners actually paid very little income tax, she argued that there is more than just income tax to consider. Other than that, most posts have been a simple: you are wrong or you have misunderstood.

====
Boo: It is good that some people have feelings of responsibility in the government and if you would just listen to Obama speak you would realize that this is package a good thing. Regardless, since the bill is not set in stone yet we should wait for Congress to hash out the details before we discuss it.

====

Honestly, please correct me if I have mischaracterized what I have read.

It isn't that you recognize that there is no romantic attraction that makes you shallow.... Romantic attraction is as varied as the individuals on the planet.

What makes you shallow is that you are judging someone else only for what they will give to you. You make no mention of what kind of person they are, only that you do not find them attractive... therefore they have nothing to offer you and would they please just go away so that someone prettier can take their place.

Your life is yours, your time is yours, your emotions are yours. You may do with them what you will and no one can say boo about it. But you have asked me (via the OP) if I think you are shallow because you do not want to "seem shallow" to someone you are brushing off because of the way they look.

Man up. If you don't want to "seem shallow" for being shallow, then don't be shallow. Or, do what everyone else does and don't worry about what the ugly people think.

Sounds to me like they already know the "falseness of the information".

But if you re-check my previous posts, I agree that there is nothing wrong with people sending the White house e-mails.

Wow. Not everyone who disagrees with Obama is a Republican or has a shrine to Bush.

Am I the only one who believes that it is not the governments job to give me what I want??? It isn't a magic lamp to rub; it is there to protect me, not to provide for me.

So, it seems that you do not trust the "average" citizen to be able to make decisions based on enlightened self-interest. You can relax. We are protected by a representative government. Those we have elected care not for their own power nor hunger for prestige. They all have our best interest at heart and will stop at nothing short of creating a paradise on Earth.*OW!*

Sorry, bit my tongue... that is the danger of speaking with tongue-in-cheek.


"It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not." --Thomas Jefferson to N. G. Dufief, 1814.

"Every man has a commission to admonish, exhort, convince another
of error." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776.

"I am... against all violations of the Constitution to silence by
force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or
unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents."
--Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799.

=== And perhaps the one that speaks the most to this particular discussion ===

"If [a] book be false in its facts, disprove them; if false in its
reasoning, refute it. But for God's sake, let us freely hear both
sides if we choose." --Thomas Jefferson to N. G. Dufief, 1814.

Well, a virus is not exactly the same as an opinion.

A virus will cause destruction of personal property, hinder services or allow theft. These emails are doing none of that. They are people's opinions and ideas. They should be disseminated to be judged on their own merits. I feel a creepy tingle along my spine whenever someone suggests that the government should protect me from thinking.

Had the government declared that all internet service providers deliver "questionable" e-mails that contain specific phrases to the whitehouse, then I think there might be a problem. But when you send an e-mail, you power to control where that information goes ends when you hit "send".

No, it is not illegal.

You are more than welcome to write any e-mail you would like, send it to whomever you wish and they in turn are welcome to send it to whomever THEY wish.

If they wish to send it to the Whitehouse, then so be it. I would think it would be nice to be able to send your ideas to the president's staff and have them addressed (not that I think that will happen).

It isn't the "reporting" that is a problem. What would be a problem is what the government will do with the information. Will they flag all the e-mail addresses in the chain of recipients to be monitored? Doubt it. It is what the government does with the information that would make it illegal/unconstitutional or not. And neither you nor I will ever know what they will do, so it is a moot point.

It is a confidence thing. When you stop carrying all the pressure of "I have to MEET someone" or "I NEVER have any luck" or "There is some mystical quality that everyone has BUT ME"; then you can relax and develop some confidence.

If you like the way a girl looks, look her in the eye for Christsake and smile. Be genuine and sincere; and DON'T MAKE IT INTO SOMETHING IT ISN'T.

You aren't looking to be a player, so don't try to do what they do. Drop your expectations and accept whatever bounties are bestowed upon you. If it is only a 15 minute conversation... then that is what it is. If it is an invitation to spend more time together... then that is what it is.

Love turning to hate is not as bad as it sounds. When it sours to indifference, there is no hope.

Why does being overly nice mean that you are a push over or a "yes-man"?

I try to be overly nice in my day to day life. It doesn't mean that I don't have my own opinions or that I am spineless. I just find that being nice is a really good way to get what I want. Maybe I learned this from my job where I have to motivate people to do things that they don't want to do. I can use logic all day long, but more often it is an appeal to personality that works best.

When it comes to discussions or debates, I can disagree with someone while still attempting to see their point and trying to understand how they came to their conclusions.

I just don't see any problem with having a "public persona" and a private face.

V for Vendetta
Boondock Saints
Braveheart (required viewing for anyone equipped with testicles)
13th Warrior
Alien II
The Exorcist
Ferris Bueller's Day Off
Frailty
Seven
Lady in the Water
Highlander (ONLY THE FIRST ONE)
Excalibur
The Last Castle
The Matrix/Revolution/Reloaded (all 3 movies are really just 1 long movie)
Monty Python's Holy Grail (required viewing for anyone with more than just a brain stem)
Saw I (I liked them all, but the 1st was the ground breaker)
The Usual Suspects
========

interesting side note... I love the epic block buster stories (Star Wars, LOTR, Chronicles of Narnia etc...) but when it comes to the best of the best I think I remember those films that surprised my with compelling stories or profound complexities (Holy Grail is the exception which proves the rule).

What type of person do you attract?
Your Result: You attract dead people!

damn

I do not believe my life has a purpose. I do not believe that I am destined to do anything in particular. Some may find comfort in believing that they exist for a particular reason; I find it liberating to believe that my life is my own, my choices are unfettered and my ability to change is in my own hands.

high

The online nice girls would rally around the online nice guy and overwhelm the online tough guy with criticism and invitations to leave... Online tough guy would in turn step up his attacks to the entire site, insulting all of the users (without ever recognizing that he was, in fact, included in that group). He would start a series of new flame threads, followed by loudly announcing that he gets his kicks from talking smack and then quietly disappear.

That is just a guess though.

That is kind of the point I am trying to get at. I do not believe that she is doing it just to have sex. If she loves him as much as you say (and I have no reason to doubt you) then she probably would not find much (if any) enjoyment in it and would probably suffer a great deal of guilt after the fact.

However, it is likely that before the accident she defined herself through her husbands eyes. She liked the person he saw when he looked at her and she wanted to be that person. After the accident she may have found herself feeling disconnected from that self-image. Her "just getting laid" might be a way for her to try and cope/escape from the stress of the situation and try to remember what it was like before.

If that is true, I think I would have more sympathy for her than if she just wants sex 3 times a year. I don't think it will work because she is engaging in behaviors that are counter to the self-image that she is trying to recapture.

That is about as far as I would be willing to go with my argument. It is so full of assumptions and conjectures that it is bordering on worthless... but it is possible to see this issue in more than just black and white.