Anonymouse

Public education by default fails because it is public. I recommend you read criticisms of public choice and public theory. Comparative advantage has everything to do with why Japanese make better cars and Americans don't. Why Indians are all in IT and Americans aren't. Why China saves and invests and American borrows and spends, spends, spends into its recession and demise. Criticisms are all well taken and apt, however, you blame the free market for what is initially a government created mess. People traded long before governments came to exist, and people will do so in the future, when governments dissolve.

Ugh, my little child, where were you when I was sifting through conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory, from The Power Elite, to Behold a Pale Horse, to Rule by Secrecy, hell, even as looney as David Icke. The Power Elite is a classic no doubt, and here are some nice websites to boot. www.rense.com www.infowars.com www.theforbiddenknowledge.com You know, you act like you know all these esoteric things that no one else does and only you "see the truth" like Neo in Matrix, but you're way too into yourself, darling.

Jesus H. Christ on a crutch you are looney. Do you think I or any rational or sane individual believes the mainstream media? Why is it that all of a sudden everyone thinks they are oh so smart and cunning to have figured out that the media is nothing more than a propaganda tool? Jeee, I did not know you were privy to such esoteric knowledge Shahanik! Ever heard of the theory of comparative advantage? If someone from India or China or Japan can make better cars at cheaper costs, then the market will readjust to reflect that. Silicon Valley is no exception.

Before you make stupid claims and assumptions it would be wise to ask me on my positions before you attribute things to me. I am a supporter of global capitalism, free markets and free trade. I am not a supporter of the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, and NAFTA, or any other government induced "free trade". You must understand, I like governments about as much as you like rationality and common sense, which isn't much.

Ever heard of the social contract? Now, realize that the social contract is actually a myth. People are never asked what the laws and institutions should be. They are decided in advance, exclusively by powerful people. Government is an organized monopoly of violence in a given territory and it is the same wherever you go. Thus you have no choice in the matter of paying taxes. Taxation is by default part of the government make up. So stop making stupid analogies. Government laws are based on coercion, being in a relationship is a voluntary matter. Stop being obtuse and making stupid analogies.

Are you talking to me, short stuff?

I've already addressed the idea of "price" or better known as what Sip called trade-offs. That has nothing to do with compromise. You seem to confuse the two and keep appealing to your ignorance of what you believe ought to be the case. Living in society and accepting the laws and dictates of the State is not the same as compromising. You have no choice in accepting government fiat, whereas you do have choice and control over who you are in a relationship with. So this analogy automatically fails on relevance as an association fallacy. And this is not about giving up a part of your liberty when you are in a relationship. This is a red herring. I never even raised this issue. Do you see me supporting the idea that when one is in a relationship that one can just go and hang out with any chick, kiss any girl? The freedoms you give up for fidelity in a relationship come with the territory. Do you see this thread title? Does it say anything about freedom and fidelity? Sadly, from your post I gather you will be the "palas" in any relationship.

Ask the millions of men who want to get laid with their significant others and their women are either always "too tired", or "not in the mood" or whatever. And the rare few chicks that do have the sex drive of a man are either in porn or prostitutes, in which case, they should be avoided anyway.

It also matters what one reads. One can read stacks and volumes of stupid novels and not gain insight into life and being. Reading the right books also matters.

This is a good post, however, it does not relate to what I am saying. Our change overtime as individuals has about as much to do with relationships and compromise as Popeye has to do with Turkish and Israeli denial of the Armenian genocide. Nor am I denying that kids change the relationship, period. In fact, almost everyone I talk to says that after children, their relations change, especially sexually. However, this to me would indicate a certain asterisk in life. What you do for your kids, whose lives depend on you since you brought them into this world, would be a bit of different compromise, than your cliche husband/wife yells and demands. And please don't misunderstand my position. I know full well that most relationships overtime do have arguments and many of them petty that revolve around stupid things. For example, Husband Bob does not like the fact that his wife does not stay home all the time to cook and clean. She does as much as she can, but she prefers the career as well. Husband Bob should not be angry at Wife Betty for who she is. Husband Bob should have known this from the beginning and realized what he is getting himself into and if he didn't like that he should have avoided Wife Betty. After 4 years of marriage, it would be stupid, childish, selfish and uncalled for for Husband Bob to sit there, complain to his wife about her lifestyle that you cannot have a career and a family at the same time, and make arguments over this. At this point, he shouldn't try to change her, so much as accept her for who she is. Otherwise, why be with that person at all? He should just get a divorce.

That's one way of defining compromise. It's such a definition that no matter what we do, we are invariably compromising even when we least imagine. However, I'm not concerned with that definition, or perspective. I understand reasonably well what you are saying and where you are coming from. I understand that when one really likes or loves someone, one will be tempted to do whatever it takes to satisfy thy lovers heart. When you say "chooses" to adapt to the said relationship, what do you mean? Do you mean now that one is forced to watch romantic comedies, not because one likes to, but because their partner likes to? And because their partner is watching, out of "respect" and "to spend time together", you will sit there wasting two hours of your life watching something you do not enjoy simply to satisfy your partner? And a woman never allows a man to behave in any way. A man's choice of behavior is not dependent on a woman's allowance, nor vice versa. Behavior comes from within and how people act is a reflection of who they are and how they think. If she does not like it, she can pack her bags and leave. That's my point. People get into relationships and try to change each other. Why? We don't demand such silly things in friendship and put ridiculous expectations on friends to conform to our little whims and fancies, yet why do we demand the same in relationships and love? This makes no god damned sense.

Oh noes! Someone doesn't like to read things he complains about but reads them anyway.

So you're admitting that women always want to change a man and force him to compromise? You're doing the men a favor.

Then this means you cannot engage in a valid discussion without substantiating your claims, as they are full of hot air. You cannot cherry pick which you will substantiate and which you will not. When called upon, a wise debater will engage to validate his propositions. So what you are basically saying is you have no basis for the claim you made. This shows your total ahistorical approach to things. First off, Israel was found for many reasons. Trying to marginalize it and say Israel was founded on this and only this reason is ahistorical and ignores everything else that occurs in history. Second, Israel does have a market economy that operates on the profit motive and capital accumulation, and Israel to whatever extent, like most governments, recognizes private property. Therefore, it is a capitalist based system. This is stupid and shows your total ignorance of economic theory and history. First of all, there is no such thing as a pure free market or a pure socialist bliss. All governments to the degree that they confiscate wealth in the form of taxation and redistribute it, are socialistic. That does not mean that they have socialism. Just like the Soviet Union under Stalin, and China under Mao recognized some degree, no matter how little, of private property. That did not make them a free market or capitalist economy. And therefore, your point here is pointless and moot. However, the only difference is that under these capitalist or quasi-capitalist systems like Israel, Canada, America, etc., you are able to not only have your private property, but you may also run your own business and engage in your own capital accumulation. You are also free to own cooperatives, or make a socialist living in the woods or in a commune. The government will not try to stop you. However, if you dared to try and own a private business in the Soviet Union under Stalin, or China under Mao, and you tried to engage in capital accumulation, you would be banished. Therein lies the paradox, which you have completely ignored and tried to obfuscate by pointless diversions and ignorance. This is baseless. How do you know what people will like or dislike? Do you speak for everybody? And yes, I have worked under a corporation and I have liked it and got compensated well for my services. And I hear you live in the U.S. Why? If you hate it so much, I would think you would leave. I'm not telling you to leave, I'm just mind boggled at the hypocrisy and paradox.

It's interesting that the females thought this way. However, I never said anything about finding anyone with the exact same values or someone who is in tune with you on everything. Are you folks reading the same thread? It's about finding someone who will accept you for you are and not make you compromise and try to change you (both your core values of who you are, as well as little shit like what kind of movies you want to watch, because as anyone in relationships know, arguments revolve around the little things, habits, choices, etc.). It has nothing to do with finding someone who has the same and identical values as you. However, it is everything about how women have this innate drive and nature to try to 'change a man'. It's sort of hardwired in their 'makeover' gene, like when they get a room, they want to decorate and do a makeover. They try the same thing with their men. And if this stance is going to curse me to a life of solitude, then so be it.

I see what you're trying to say. However, what I am trying to say is different. In that sense, I disagree that a compromise and a trade off is the same thing. We always have trade-offs, you are correct. If I am with Marry Ann who doesn't mind me walking around the house and belching and farting, I am still making a trade off. However, if Marry Ann did not like that and wanted me to stop, I would then be making a compromise. Entirely two different beats.

Compromise one way or both ways, should not be there to begin with. Once you have that, then you are truly in the wrong relationship. Everything comes with the territory and that is why 90% of relationships fail. By relationships I mean both marriage or serious long-term relationships. By fail I mean they become boring chores, they end in divorce, or lack of interest, or people just stay for whatever, children and circumstance. But that's the point. Every time I raise this question, females say, "Well, you shouldn't compromise core values of who you are, but when we say compromise we mean it about little things, like who will do the laundry, or take out the trash, or what movie we will watch." This misses the point. The core values of who we are and what makes us who we are, are inextricably tied to, when we take out the trash, how we set up our room, whether he like it messy during the week and clean it up in the weekend, whether we leave the toilet seat up, or whether we choose to watch a particular movie or genre. Therein lies the secret and which women almost always fail at making this distinction.

Did you know that you cannot fart and sneeze at the same time?

I also recommend you use soy sauce for aftershave and garlic for deodorant.

Actually, what I use for my hair instead of gel and mayo is wasabi. I use wasabi so that I may attract Asian women and live the stereotype dream of being a caucasian male with an asian female and together we can make an asian caucasian baby.

I see Ara Baliozian is still kicking and posting more than ever! Good indeed. Shahan Araradian posting in this thread is not much of an improvement considering he is a neo-Marxist.

Thanks, but I keep a chicken breast in my pocket all day so when I'm done with work it's basically ready to eat!

For a delicious on the go meal in the morning, try marinating chicken breasts in your hair overnight.

Time to vindicate this thread for the third time. I wash my hair with mayonnaise and then wink at myself in the mirror and lick the extra mayo from my hand kind of sucking my fingers seductively and hoping that this is not offensive content for peeping toms who may be looking at me through the window and who happen to be underaged in a family friendly neighborhood. Say...what would pacman do if he used mayo on his head? He has no hands, much less fingers, so it's interesting. Why isn't pacman handicapped?

What are you trying to say? If that's your subtle way of saying compromise without saying the word compromise, then you're wrong. Respect and understanding are mutually exclusive from compromise.