Actually, no, this is incorrect.

First, California did NOT "outlaw the clearing of deadfall and underbrush." Quite the opposite, in fact. Clearing large enough amounts of such on public land especially, was and is, however, far too expensive to accomplish.

In addition, it has been well established that the leading cause of LARGE forest fires, is too much suppression of the smaller ones, which ARE the only way that underbrush is kept in relative check. This is why for many decades, not all forest fires are fought to elimination.

It is not yet known what the PRIMARY cause of these large fires are, however, it is more likely that climate change, and a large increase in tree die-off provided more of the fuel for this fire than anything else.

Sorry, I was referring to people who have been challenged about something, readily admitting to reconsidering. Not to people not thinking things through in advance.

I'm just talking about a very common discussion dynamic. About why it's easy to THINK that discussion and debate doesn't "work," even though it actually often does. It APPEARS that no one ever changes their minds, because so many people hide the fact that they are reconsidering, due to the nature of human competition.

Well, I somewhat agree with you, but not entirely.

I also (having been raised by someone who majored in math and English, and became an information analyst) didn't think that "hypocrite" was the most accurate word to use with this list.

However, I also recognize that a surprisingly large number of people DO misuse that word, and this list DOES represent the kinds of things I often see people incorrectly attribute to "hypocrisy," or at least, what triggers them to say someone is a hypocrite.

And by the way, I do not think the original author of the list, intended this to be a list of things to note about a person during a first date. It looks to be more of a list of things to notice as they come to a person's attention, and to point out that these characteristics are not positive.

In other words, this kind of list is to try to help people who are midway through a possible long term relationship, and who are feeling "off" a bit, and trying to figure out why.

The main category of people who I think are most commonly referred to (in error) as being hypocrites, are people who really are trying to be sincere and earnest, but who haven't come to know themselves nearly as well as they think they have.

To me, a hypocrite is closer to being a liar. They KNOW that they are behaving in ways that contradict what they push others to do, but excuse that in themselves with some trick.

Something I've noticed about "Hoomin Beens," as critters in this respect.

They all seem to have an innate urge to hide that they are thinking things through.

That is why it's extremely rare to see someone openly post that someone's reasoning has caused them to change their entire point of view. But since I have occasionally had the opportunity to watch people on a day to day basis, and directly witnessed them talking about things and debating them, and evolving in their thinking, I do know absolutely, that people DO change their minds.

You know what is probably the number ONE reason why so many people refuse to admit to changing their minds? It's the egotism of the people who suggested the change. The people who insist on crowing about every tiny admission that they knew something that the other person didn't; their personal celebratory dancing on the faces and writings of the people who did change; the one-upmanship and insulting disrespect that the changed people have shoved at them for admitting to have thought things through.

This tends to happen more to males than females, but I've seen it with every kind of person I've observed.

This is why I have myself decided to NOT observe and celebrate others' changes. Simply let them come to a new (and hopefully better) conclusion about whatever, and then carry on.

I'm not clear. Is "Poppycock" a new and better brand name of popcorn?

Absolutely. Unless by "these," you mean the exact debates and discussions in this relatively small forum. That, not so much. But overall, I witness individual people being persuaded by rational arguments and newly discovered facts all the time.

From my old-guy also historians point of view, these behaviors are common to many eras, with lots of periodic fads promoting them.

The greatest irony I've seen throughout history, is that every time a selfishness fad holds sway for long enough, a fad of opposition to selfishness tends to spring up...and then lots of people jump to join THAT fad, by turning selflessness into a competitive ego trip of its own.

Biggest lesson: there is no shortcut to escaping human frailty. it takes something more similar to automobile maintenance: regular checkups, replacing "parts" that wear out, and working hard to remember that the goal isn't to make the car really cool in the short term, its to keep it running usefully for the long hauls.

One of the ways I do this, is to say "yep, there sure as heck is a problem here. Let's be careful that the solution we come up with for it, is actually an improvement, and not just an alternative problem."

"Are all 'evil' people suffering from a mental illness? "


I would say definitely not. In fact, the people who I am most disturbed by, are those who consciously and clearly sanely, decide to dedicate themselves to harming others. Physically OR psychologically.

This is why I can so often be seen pounding the table and calling for clean, basic logic, and for recognition of core human equalities. In my experience, the closest thing to evil that I have dealt with, was always from people who decided to calmly craft, usually for some kind of personal gain (that is, not just sex or money), an excuse for why THEY didn't have to obey their own claimed moral principles.

Overall, I think what this describes, is one of many basic sub-stories that I thought everyone's life was supposed to be about, growing up in America.

I thought everyone was supposed to reach a certain age, then cast about for a career (which would be obvious to them); buy a house; and somewhere during all that, meet someone who was, if not a match made in heaven, at least someone who falls for you, and who you fall for.

What I experienced instead, was non-stop cacophony and nonsense. NOTHING in the real world matched any of the "official-issue" American Dreams I was handed as guides.

I did fall in love, a couple of times. But never with someone who also fell in love with me, to an equal degree.

And I did commit myself 100%, twice. Both times, my degree of commitment didn't matter at all; and I learned the hard way that love doesn't conquer a damn thing, unless the people in love are compatible with each other across a LONG vista of concerns.

More than anything else, if one or the other person has significantly different basic expectations for how a mate is supposed to behave, they WILL come to despise the person they are with. Or at least find them unsatisfactory enough to want them gone.

From one real point of view, it would be accurate to say that I never turned away from the people I fell in love with; what happened was, that I learned very painfully, that the people I did fall in love with, never actually existed. I just thought they did, and stayed, and stayed, hoping to figure out what the formula was, to unlock them from the shell of hatred or callousness that I came to see them in.

When I realized that the "shell" was the real person, it was time to give up.

I think this would have to do with the overall way a person thinks about a mate. What I mean is, that some people (I think most go through a phase of this at least) think about a mate as a sort of cross between a customer they have to trick into "buying" them, and then maintain like a a car (changing the oil and so on).

I'm not trying to say anything rude about common dating and mating, I'm just thinking of all the usual "you need to put your best foot forward" advice people give for first dates, and the way many people talk about how we need to "show daily appreciation of our mates, so as to make them feel valuable to us."

I went through experiences when I was young, which convinced me that I at least, should NEVER do anything extra to try to get someone to like me more. Mainly, because I'm bad at it (I seem to come up with things that annoy people rather than make them feel good), and because I feel so anxious when I'm trying that technique.

After all that I saw and suffered in the past, I committed myself to accepting WHATEVER results, from just behaving as I feel best behaving. If someone ends up wanting to be with me because of that, then I'll be able to feel confident that they are with me for the right reasons, and not because I tricked them.

WHich is all a very overlong way of answering "I don't know, actually, I leave that judgment to whoever is making it."

I have been convinced by logic and observation, that neither good, nor evil, exist in the universe as independent forces.

Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that, I am convinced that it is not a successful strategy, to deal with what happens in life, as though those concepts are real entities.

Be sure, I do know very well, what it is like to face someone who is so intensely twisted in their attitude toward me, that I know that they will NOT listen to reason, and WILL do me great harm, if I fail to act against them. I know that that is what most people mean, when they say someone is evil. And I know well what it is like to deal with someone who is officially completely sane, but whose approach to life is so vile, that they are intolerable to exist around.

However, I am opposed to allowing someone to shift their responsibilities to someone else, on the grounds that they were influenced by the forces of "good" or "evil."

In addition, I try to separate out the MECHANICS of dealing with existence, from the JUDGEMENTS made about it. That means that if you are behaving violently and irresponsibly, regardless of why, I will support whatever optimum action is necessary to cause your behavior to become more reasonable.

For example, I might (and have) felt great sympathy and emotional support for someone who is outraged by being poorly treated by someone else. I have agreed completely that they are justified in being furiously angry. But I have still acted VERY forcefully to prevent them from acting violently on their anger. Because of something else I am completely convinced of: that a WRONG action never BECOMES RIGHT, simply because of how righteously upset someone is.

When it comes to what to do about a problem after the dust settles, is based on my informal philosophy of Solutionism. It has two basic parts: one, that I believe in recognizing and addressing all problems; and two, that the solution should be specifically designed to solve the exact problem. That means that mental issues should be treated as mental issues, and criminal acts should be treated as criminal, and mixed situations should be treated as both.

Well, I haven't had anyone bail out of an arranged meetup for a "stupid" reason, since High School, and even that would probably be better characterized as a straight up lie.

I did have someone on a site like this, out of the blue, message me INITIALLY, that if I weren't so far away, they'd want to meet and date.

I ran a calculation using Google maps: she was about NINE miles away.

The problem I have with all this, has to do with the totality of it all.

This is one idea among dozens proposed by this President. There is little or no coordination between the ideas; even the good ones aren't linked by logical reasoning, to anything else.

Working to begin an effort to "terraform" another planet, when we can't even reach a suitable one, and especially while simultaneously pretending that the very real changes going on on THIS planet, are due to a secret Chinese political plot, rather completely deflates anything positive about this.

Normally, I would eagerly support advances and new goals for the American space program, because I know that the previous ones have contributed so much to us all.

Certainly, if we were to fund such an effort instead of paying billions for the Wall, I'd go for it.

A VERY old and common Online Dating complaint/demand.

As always, the OP is 100% in the wrong, as is anyone who supports his demands.

This has nothing to do with "courtesy," it has EVERYTHING to do with manipulation and one-sided plays for control/power.

I don't care who you are, you do NOT have any right EVER, to demand as you have, that YOU are the only one who decides whether or not a conversation takes place.

It is people who make DEMANDS like this, who do the most to DESTROY everyone else's ability to BE courteous. They make it DANGEROUS to be courteous.

I'm a big fan of Westworld, on HBO Now. It's essentially a science-fiction mystery action adventure series. Very well executed, with lots of very good actors.

I'm old.

I've never been OFFENDED by being called old.

Sometimes I've been disappointed to realize that I AM old, but that's for me to deal with.

Not sure what your objection is.

I thought you were going to come on an On Line Dating site, and try to protest On Line Dating, at first. This is even more of a surprise.

I can identify with this too.

Especially the way that advertising designers all seem to live such magical lives, that no one they know is ever poor, ever had to cope with betrayal, and especially, never EVER had to live on an income below six figures.

Being an emotional human is a fascinating experience.

As a child, I thought I was being taught (by movies and cartoons and such mostly) that the way emotion worked was simple: something happens, and you feel sad or happy or frightened or whatever.

But then lots of odd-seeming things would happen. I would feel sad in reaction to something as small as a certain sound, or happy because it was sunny.

I eventually learned that humans (including me, apparently) often experience emotions because of how we ASSOCIATE things. I'm very happy in the autumn, because that's when I had the most fun as a child.

And another very intriguing thing, is how we can have delayed reactions to things. Something very upsetting can occur, and in the moment, we don't really react emotionally at all. Then later, when things calm down, we can experience the emotions at near full force.

Sometimes, I've had experiences which at the time they happened, were merely confusing. Maybe even unnotable altogether. Then years later, when I grow and learn more about life, I remember those occurrences, and react to them emotionally NOW.

Very good answers already, especially ciretom's long one.

I just want to add a shorter specific lesson that I learned the hard way.

That is, that when you enter into a relationship with someone, if you find challenges and difficulties, it is always a horrible mistake to expect them to go away.

I other words, don't try or expect or base your hopes for something with this person, on your ability to change her parents' minds and hearts.

This is really no different than people who start up with someone who has a lifestyle they don't care for, thinking that because they love each other, they will be able to change the parts of the person they DON'T like, and make them what they DO like.

People don't work that way.

As for "love conquers all," as ciretom said, that's always been more of a romantic wishful thought, than anything else. However, if you change it slightly to "I love you AS YOU ARE, AND AS YOUR LIFE IS, AND I AM WILLING TO BE WITH YOU AS YOU ARE," then it can become closer to valid.

I THINK I know what you mean to ask. I THINK you are asking why some men who claim to be looking for serious mates, actually want to "conquer" women, especially sexually, with no intention of staying with them or truly caring for them.

The answers are complicated, and include everything from childishness, to cultural rewards, to mental illness, to deep philosophy.

I would suggest that rather than trying to answer why many males do this, you would benefit more from figuring out why males who are that way, are so successful at fooling you.

The place I suggest you start looking, is in what techniques and hints you use, to decide who to have sex with. For example, when I was much younger, many girls and women chose to measure a males intentions, by how much money he spent on her on a date. They thought that only a serious guy would spend a lot, and that any guy who was trying to find inexpensive ways to entertain each other, were obviously garbage. I periodically see women complaining that a guy used a COUPON to get a discount at the restaurant he met her at on the date, saying that such a guy is obviously a "loser."

Meanwhile, the talk in the guys locker room, was often about how to get laid by wearing expensive clothes, driving a hot car, and spending a lot on the girl, to trick her into thinking he cared.

Perhaps you measure how much a guy really cares in other ways, such as how often he calls you, or some other indirect indication. The thing is, if your results are a repeating sequence of thinking a guy really likes you, then finding out he was just another conquest freak, then something about what you are using to decide a guy is good, is backwards or wrong.

One more thing: selfish jerks (or jerkettes) are the way they are, independently. Good people don't accidentally CAUSE jerks to be jerks. So if a guy lied to you, it's because he's a liar. NOT because you forced him to lie, by having personal standards.