Now, THAT could be near the ultimate in checking out a prospective mate

Best wishes to the two of you.

Neither. Date on a calendar makes no difference. Being with or without a partner or "a relationship" makes little or no difference. Lonely is a choice and a frame of mind.

When someone focuses attention on beauty and style I wonder if there is substance behind the fluff (but rarely investigate).

I raised the question after reading a UK article discussing US males, and wondering if "Metro-male" attitudes / lifestyles are adopted because they appeal to women. Apparently not. So, why then?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2558269/Rise-American-metrosexual-How-modern-man-feels-empowered-abandon-traditional-masculine-sterotypes.html

The article is not well written but it refer to role changes that may be happening (at least in part).

Ladies, are you attracted to Metro-Males (also termed Metrosexual Males)?

The terms are often interchanged and variously defined.

Merriam Webster Dictionary as: "a usually urban heterosexual male given to enhancing his personal appearance by fastidious grooming, beauty treatments, and fashionable clothes".

Urban Dictionary as: "A good-looking, fashionable young man who pays special attention to style and taste who displays the levels of care and pride in their appearance which is usually associated with women; but who are not deemed to be homo-sexual and are secure in their masculinity."

Mark Simpson (originator of the term) as: "The typical metrosexual is a young man with money to spend, living in or within easy reach of a metropolis — because that’s where all the best shops, clubs, gyms and hairdressers are. He might be officially gay, straight or bisexual, but this is utterly immaterial because he has clearly taken himself as his own love object and pleasure as his sexual preference."

Neither is hard for me. Cooperating / helping in both directions seems natural and mutually beneficial. All of us have energy or items that we can or could share with others and others have things that they can or could share with us -- without disadvantage to either party.

Our cultures tend to promote possessiveness, greed and often "what's in it for me" attitudes that are unnecessarily and unwisely divisive.

Humans are born as atheists (i.e., do not believe in gods); however, many (most?) are taught, typically during childhood, to believe that invisible, undetectable, supernatural entities influence human lives.

Perhaps belief in "divine intervention" (or punishments or rewards) is to be expected in societies that lack information about the causes of disease, hurricanes, droughts, floods, eclipses, etc. Imagining a causative or curative "spirit" then is understandable.

Is there verification that the story is something other than a "parable" or other form of fiction?

When people play the Hitler card they appear to be grabbing at straws trying to salvage their "argument"



This is another attempt to claim knowledge of my position or argument (perhaps by mind reading?).

I make no claim to know what is "morally right" -- but leave such claims to those who fancy themselves to be moralists (and those who attempt to claim natural law stems from religion, in direct contrast to its origin in nature and reasoning -- the antithesis of most religious beliefs).



"Absurd" is demonstrated with "What if every society on earth had agreed with Hitler . . . "



I can understand that you would not want to do so preacher.

Playing the Hitler Card is amateurish (Reductio ad Hitlerum is sometimes called "playing the Nazi card." According to its critics and proponents, it is a tactic often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent.)

Nice try though.

I make no statements regarding what is "morally right"



Perhaps it is "generous" to claim that natural law is religious theory when it is identified as:

Natural law, or the law of nature, is a system of law that is purportedly determined by nature, and thus universal. Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature — both social and personal — and deduce binding rules of moral behavior from it.



If you now acknowledge that you have no special knowledge, I do not disagree.

Complements on the creative dance



Of course it is "not debatable" if one ignores "Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature" and insists that "goddidit"

When one attributes human nature to their favorite "god" that limits considerations to their personal beliefs and opinions.

It appears as though much of what you claim as knowledge is actually "hunch" rather than knowledge.



I do not pretend to know the origin of an ordered universe -- but leave the pretending to others (be they religious or scientific in orientation).

Many DO pretend to know that their favorite "creator god" (among the thousands available) is responsible BECAUSE they have been told that by others, often in ancient texts or in lectures / sermons by people who CLAIM to know.

Some people, self included, do not such accept such claims without verification -- and do not regard folklore, legend, fable, fantasy, ancient "wisdom", or sermons as being evidence of truth and accuracy.

Yes, anonymous people thousands of years ago spoke or wrote about "miraculous" entities and events (as was evidently common in that era). Some of those opinions, theories, claims, and stories were incorporated into currently popular religions.

That is evidence of what people believed / thought / wrote -- but is not evidence that such things existed or occurred (or that the claimants and storytellers knew / know more than anyone else).

I do not accept that "moral laws" are "built into human nature" but suggest instead that what is known as morality is produced by society. If it was "built in" there should be little or no deviation by individuals.



What you identify as "sarcasm quotes" are often "distancing quotes" (a valid use of quotation marks) indicating that my mention of the term does not imply acceptance.



How, exactly, can one determine if this is true?

Believing that something is true is VERY different from actually determining truth. Believing that diseases are caused by demons is very different from learning about microbial causes of disease. Believing that storms are caused by "angry gods" is very different from learning about atmospheric processes.

Proclaiming that "goddidit" to explain gravity is very different from learning about the real world we inhabit.



Remarkable

Or is it? The US, where the Thanksgiving we discuss is celebrated, contains less than five percent of the population of "extant humans." Thus, most citizens of the US could make the same claim. Whether you know more than the average US citizen has not been established beyond self-aggrandizing claims.

I observe that much of what is "known" about Thanksgiving appears to be tradition, folklore, and assumption rather than knowledge of the actual event and related events.



Humans and the societies they develop are part of nature (in spite of what many worshipers of "gods" may proclaim), as are bees or ants and their social structure. We live in the biosphere of the Earth and are one of its components.

The social structures (societies) humans have evolved usually include prohibition of theft, rape and murder because stability of the society is enhanced by such prohibitions (though they may be condoned or accepted under prescribed circumstances).



You are certainly entitled to your opinion -- and me to mine -- which is that your statements remind me of a preacher telling "the faithful" about his vast knowledge of the supernatural -- and being unaccustomed to encountering doubt of his self-proclaimed "superiority" and "authority."



Only 99% certain? That is down one percent from previous claims of total knowledge. The learning process . . .

Notice, however, that you injected "observing nature" in place of my "from nature." Being part of nature is different from mere observation. Humans and their social structures change (evolve) over time as one aspect of what we know as nature (in spite of denial by many who accept the "creator god" theory -- and become convinced that they have the answer to nearly any question with "goddidit").

Referring to "scatological activity" is usually an indication that one has reached or surpassed their intellectual capacity or their arguments are weak or both.



Interesting "fathoming".

Regarding the existence of "gods": I maintain that ANY of the thousands of proposed "gods" worshiped, loved, feared by humans MAY exist, but that evidence is lacking to show which (if any) are more than human imagination.

However, I often challenge statements claiming knowledge of invisible, undetectable supernatural entities -- and claims of knowledge about what any supposedly omniscient entity thinks, or wants (or how it emotes) -- and claims of knowledge about an "afterlife."



I agree regarding the smallpox issue. However, regarding the celebration:



And



Perhaps there is more to the situation than the traditional myth suggests?



How, exactly, does one determine that another's thoughts are misguided and incorrect WITHOUT or before knowing what they are?



Correction: Natural Law is based on NATURE. Observation of nature leads to the concept of "laws" that describe and explain events (by nature, not supernaturalism / mysticism).



So say those who promote one of the proposed "creator gods" -- other opinions differ.



Who is the "lawgiver" in the case of the "Law of Gravity"?



Likewise. Notice the difference between what I said, "others do not know" and what you interpreted "nobody else knows". I am an "other" in this case. Your "As you envision it, maybe. I know the truth of it" IS a claim to know "truth" which indicates that I do not know truth because my view is different from TRUTH (that you think you possess).

Oh, do almost all historians recommend that the work of Lowen and Turner be used as bird cage liner? Citations?

It is fairly common for traditionalists to condemn what they "don't have time" to read.



Thank you for recognizing that I have the ability and inclination to read many sides of issues and do not confine my reading to that which supports only the popular and traditional viewpoints.



Although Christianity may aspire to take credit for "Natural Law" it cannot rationally do so.

The term is defined as: an ethical belief or system of beliefs supposed to be inherent in human nature and discoverable by reason rather than revelation, OR: law of nature, OR: the philosophical doctrine that the authority of the legal system or of certain laws derives from their justifiability by reason, and indeed that a legal system which cannot be so justified has no authority."

In other words -- natural law is the "law" of NATURE -- not religion or society

In fact, Christianity may be based in some part on natural law -- not the other way around. Christianity cannot be shown to be based on reason or on nature (but on "faith" and supernaturalism).



A reference to the calendar qualifies? Perhaps if deemed appropriate or important it would be mentioned in the body of text.



OF COURSE, of course, YOU know "the truth of it" and others do not. Of course --�� because you say so.



It might be prudent to read the references cited that indicate several different "thanksgivings" with different meanings -- and that the celebration was not unified / nationalized until Civil War times (two hundred years after the cited events).

Attempted comedy injected into what aspires to be a serious discussion, regardless the venue, is often inappropriate and/or misunderstood.

Oh? Have you read the work of Lowen and Turner before rendering judgment?



Many dislike reading anything that disagrees with what they want to believe



Oh? Have you discovered the LACK of mention of "god" and Christianity in the Constitution and Bill of Rights?



Thanksgiving, as we envision it, is a MYTH. http://americanhistory.about.com/od/holidays/a/thanksgiving.htm
http://hnn.us/article/406

Try "Lies my Teacher Told Me" by James W. Lowen and "The Significance of the Frontier in American History" by Frederick Jackson Turner for viewpoints that differ from the homogenized / Europeanized views presented in standard / politically correct textbooks.

Lowen does an outstanding job of presenting a realistic view of American history (that is nothing like what we were taught -- and is well documented).

Well, so much for verification.



Correction: If you (generic term) have sexual relations with only your wife (mate), you definitely CAN contract STD.



Humans have been "mixing seeds" for thousands of years in a process known as hybridization. That process has been instrumental in producing plants and animals utilized in agriculture.



Much of what this nation was built on was from Native Americans. The idea of democracy was far more evident in their societies than in European nations of that era.



The bible is an excellent guide for how to treat or beat slaves, how to kill adulterers or disobedient children or people who collect firewood on the sabbath, how and why to kill all humans and other animals on Earth (except a select few), how to cure diseases by casting out demons, etc.

Much of the bible is devoted to the opinion of anonymous people regarding "how to worship" a proposed invisible, undetectable supernatural entity with the objective of gaining "everlasting life" after death.

Perhaps someone can explain why that constitutes an appropriate guide to living in the real world that we currently inhabit?

I do not disagree; however, many believe that their favorite "god" provides a "hell" in an "afterlife" for "souls" of those who refuse to worship "him" and follow rules made by "priests" and "prophets."



Interesting conjecture. Is there any way to verify that it is true (more substantial than ancient folklore and texts promoting religion)?

I agree. However, the appearance of having "hundreds of people" to choose from is much more illusion than reality -- which lends a fantasy land or candy store aspect to this venue.

Distance, geographically or personally, is often a deal-killer no matter how appealing a person might be.

Hang in there Stephen. Good jobs are scarce and many employers use intern and temporary positions in lieu of hiring full-time employees.

Some women seem to have ideas similar to those of employers.