Anonymouse

Desiderata by Max Ehrmann Go placidly amid the noise and the haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence. As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story. Avoid loud and aggressive persons; they are vexatious to the spirit. If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain or bitter, for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself. Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans. Keep interested in your own career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time. Exercise caution in your business affairs, for the world is full of trickery. But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals, and everywhere life is full of heroism. Be yourself. Especially do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love, for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment, it is as perennial as the grass. Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth. Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness. Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the universe no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be. And whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life, keep peace in your soul. With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful. Strive to be happy.

The simple truth is - and I have come to this conclusion based on the putrid personal experience of mine from the measly time I have spent on this earth, but also mostly from the experience of others - that a healthy relationship is not based on the idea of compromise. If at any point in any person's relationship, you feel you have come to that dreaded door of compromise, then you may not want to admit to yourself, but you are in the wrong relationship. That means, that either you or the other person, does not accept you or the other person for who they are. So far the only people that I have mostly heard this from are women. Women always like to claim that "love is all about compromise" or "relationships are all about compromise". I used to accept this as an unquestioned part of all relationships. The more I reflected, the more it made no sense to me, and eventually I had a moment of clarity. This is far beyond the time of when men would play the god damned lute under their maiden's windows. This notion of compromise is a modern invention along with "sciences" that women love, such as psychology and sociology. It's amazing how many women believe this and how many men do not question this. If anyone must compromise, then the other person gains. So when a person compromises, the odds are that he/she does not know himself/herself, nor what he/she wants, which is why he/she will settle for a compromise. Think about it folks. How many of you right now sport this idea yourselves in your relationships or marriages? Take a cold heart look into your structural relations with your significant other and see if this is not the case, and if arguments do not result from this issue.

Be careful now, you have insulted the the resident feminazi of the forum simply by disagreeing. If you are not careful, she might smite you with her broomstick.

So when called upon to substantiate your unsubstantiated assertions, you just run away. Good to know that socialists are still the same. Yes, and what is your point? You save, invest, purchase. I know plenty of people who have purchased land because of savings over the years, and some who have even purchased farms. No, but that is what it indirectly leads to. Possible, should not be confused with probable. You really have no idea about economic history do you? No one stated this. You are implying this into my own post to have something to argue. However, it does take capitalism to have specialization. Under capitalist social property relations, people are still able to go and live in their communes and have a socialistic lifestyle (take a look at the Israeli kibbutz). Under a socialist system, you are not able to have a free market lifestyle. Therein is the paradox of all things socialism. Takes one to know one.

Assumptions are the mother of all phuck ups, as someone once said. My point was only what I stated, you made a feminist interjection with the feminist lingo and male oppression and other modifier words that are usually prevalent in feminist posts. I never said anything about female sexuality or of its existence or non-existence.

I do not support you nor identify with you, partly because I do not believe you just "fall in love". Love, like anything else with ourselves, is a choice. It is a choice to allow yourself to fall, not the other way around. That is why I cannot support you in what you have done.

No thread is complete without a feminist interjection.

Looks like we got a Karl Polanyi protege here! The typical baseless and unsubstantiated accusations against the free market system. People are free to go set up a farm, live there, and make a subsistence living, 'living off the earth'. The problem with subsistence farming, as anyone who studied pre-Industrial societies knows, there are famines, low or no harvests, no rains, etc. The capitalist revolution permitted man to break away from subsistence farming and allowed others to engage in specialization. Less time can now be spent on subsistence living and more time on other utility maximizing activities. How else do you expect you have this very internet and cell phone that you are using? Thanks to capitalism! You don't have to tell me how wages are set or determined. I know economics reasonably well to know that the ideas you are trumpeting here are baseless and the same regurgitated neo-Marxist, Luddite tripe.

If I could, I'd choose the mystic moon. But since I can't, I choose this earthly commune.

This is one of the unique moments in message boards across the internet when the thread title is in sync with the thread starter's content. Very aptly chosen title, sir.

Okay, from what I gather in your assertions here, this is nothing more than a regurgitated version of Marxism, replete with its references of "well, they aren't paying people the actual value of what they are worth" and unsubstantiated assertions such as "humans are rented to work", as if you have proven it. People choose to engage in work voluntarily and agree to the wages earned. No one is forcing them to work. If people don't like it they can climb up the heads of corporate ladders and be the next financial advisers, CEOs, and CFOs, etc. I guess Kirk Kerkorian must have been one lousy slave to carve out his financial empire, the son of immigrants.

What I highlighted in bold are the exceptions. In no way should this article try to pass this off as the rule. Surely a woman must have written this article because only a woman would ever make such a silly statement. A guy can never give a damn about how these differences might impede in a "romantic relationship". If he just wants to pork, he won't care about these differences. He just wants one thing.

In response to what Em124 posted: it amazes how deep women want to believe that men and women can be friends. It defies logic and rationality as to what lengths women will go to make themselves believe that men and women can be friends. They will type out thousands of words in hundreds of sentences in nice neat packed articles to make themselves convinced that they can be friends with men. Despite all the valiant efforts, it is a chimera. All things considered, men and women cannot be friends minus a few exceptions. Exceptions do not disprove the rule, because the rule still stands. Make no mistake about it. Any heterosexual alpha male has one thing in mind, and that is to pump as many females as he possibly can (or date or be with, etc.). I know this is discomforting for most women, but that is the truth and that is how men think. Those guy friends that you do have, are the nice guys, or either gay. Being nice, they usually lack the alpha male status, are probably not very attractive, maybe on the effeminate side, to put it short, they just don't know how to close the deal. Believe me, if they could, they would jump on the opportunity. Women do not kid yourselves. You give any of these guys a chance in a longshot and watch most of them take it.

No you may not my furball friend. Wax early and wax often. I have given up waxing my back but to no avail. Take it from me, it has gotten me no where. Why do you think I'm still single?

I have to respectfully disagree my lady. The idea of "platonic love" is about as real as Chretien de Troyes' Arthurian romances of "romantic love".

So you make one claim and you jump to a conclusion based on that one claim? Have you ever heard of the fallacy of non sequitur? You state proposition A: "The average credit card debt in the U.S. is $9,000." Then you make proposition B: "And 70% of Americans live pay-check to pay-check." And from these two things you conclude C: "Slavery still exists". Do you seriously want me to point out what's wrong with the picture here?

Oh noes! Not Henry Makow! He married a Filipino lady and he loves it. Self-hating Jew.

Do you realize that you just confused everything in this one paragraph? Some questions for you: What the hell is true, caring friendship? As opposed to false, uncaring friendship? What the hell are soulmates? And how do you reconcile the very idea of a soulmate with the idea of platonic which is the inverse of exactly that. Platonic love

Please read my reply above. Thanks. Madeleine.

My guess is that Delalalalalala has gotten her face smeared by some Armenian man's manseed and she was not too fond of that and ever since then she equates Armenian men with brute Cro-Magnon barbarism....until recently, she found her young Armenian puppy, but she will grow old of that as despite her express dislike of that brutish Yeti-ness that is the Armo Male, she is drawn to that brutishness, in its older and more hard variants, as opposed to the young pups. This young puppy love she found is about as failed as when we brokered the "peace talks" at Camp David with my Jewish liaison, Dennis Ross.

He is never too old for me. Neither are you, suga.

Yes. My last boyfriend dumped me because he said I looked like an owl. Observe. http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/img_png/OwlAlpha-0.5.png

Stop laffing! I am very serious! As you can see I am dancing in my avatar! If you piss me off, I will be mad like this! http://www.tonyrogers.com/humor/images/madeleine_albright_1.jpg Now ask me a damn question about your relationship, you Armenian.

Do you want know if an older women can be with a younger man in the Armenian community? Do you want to know if age matters? Do you want to know if it is okay to date an odar? Do you think your newfound love interest will be accepted into the family? What about the Armenian community? Do you think men and women can be friends like Plato? Well, do not go further, for Madaleine Albright has taken the time away from her busy schedule stuffing herself with little children, to come talk to us here at HyeForum! Here she is giving Henry Kissinger some advice on a broken heart. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v96/Anonymouse/HenryKissinger_MadeleineAlbright.jpg And here she is smiling. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v96/Anonymouse/mka.jpg She will now be taking your questions ladies and gentlemen, so if you have them, please post them, as she will respond. However, due to the fact that this may arouse confusion and suspicion, I am relinquishing my account entirely, to Madeline Albright now.

Listen, sir, I know that when you discover the powerful tool that is the internet, you are suddenly exposed to a whole new plethora of information and "stuff" and you might be tempted to believe that you have the answers to everything as long as you pay your ISP monthly, but be weary of traversing down that road to ruin. It's a deceptive path. This deception is indicative in your post regarding America being a "democracy". You are pointing this little factoid out to potential readers as if this is any secret. Of course there is no such thing as a democracy here. Why would there be? Others argue there is. Why wouldn't there be? The point is, this country was never designed to be a "democracy" and you will never find such a word in any of the founding documents, whether the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence, or the Federalist papers. Eat yer heart out, son, for the framers despised the idea of democracy and instead erected what is believed to have been a "representative republic". Right now, what you have is more like a mega-corporate-empire. And by the way, no one is a debt/wage slave. People choose to work voluntarily and the only debt one accumulates is a result of ones actions and lifestyles. Get over it.