The point is your response was completely out of step with the responses- for example,one of the responders wasnt favoring one gender over the other, but you stated your case as if both were guilty of doing that, which was not the case; then you resorted to name calling, which further cements the argument above that you need to learn reading comprehension.
cheers (the other kind)- see some people actually read responses before making asses of themselves.
No other nation has been forged in this manner, where people of diverse backgrounds, ethnicities and faiths became a nation based on brotherly love, transcending different origins, beliefs, or any other dissimilarity. They did this because they sensed that this was, as Maimonides put it, “the path of truth.” They felt that alienation and animosity do not lead anywhere good and therefore sought to unite.
Just sitting and talking is not anessential part of friendship.
The Essay on Human Understanding, that most distinguished of all his works, is to be considered as a system, at its first appearance absolutely new, and directly opposite to the notions and persuasions then established in the world. Now as it seldom happens that the person who first suggests a discovery in any science is at the same time solicitous, or perhaps qualified to lay open all the consequences that follow from it; in such a work much of course is left to the reader, who must carefully apply the leading principles to many cases and conclusions not there specified. To what else but a neglect of this application shall we impute it that there are still numbers amongst us who profess to pay the greatest deference to Mr. Locke, and to be well acquainted with his writings, and would perhaps take it ill to have this pretension questioned; yet appear either wholly unable, or unaccustomed, to draw the natural consequence from any one of his principal positions? Why, for instance, do we still continue so unsettled in the first principles and foundation of morals? How came we not to perceive that by the very same arguments which that great author used with so much success in extirpating innate ideas, he most effectually eradicated all innate or connate senses, instincts, &c. by not only leading us to conclude that every such sense must, in the very nature of it, imply an object correspondent to and of the same standing with itself, to which it refers [as each relative implies its correlate], the real existence of which object he has confuted in every shape; but also by showing that for each moral proposition men actually want and may demand a reason or proof deduced from another science, and founded on natural good and evil: and consequently where no such reason can be assigned, these same senses or instincts, with whatever titles decorated, whether styled sympathetic or sentimental, common or intuitive,—ought to be looked upon as no more than mere habits; under which familiar name their authority is soon discovered, and their effects accounted for.
She thinks that that's love and he should feel the sameway about her.
And furthermore, plenty of engineers and accountants have adorable wives and girlfriends. Hell, some adorable women ARE engineers and accountants.
"I'm sorry" = You'll be sorry
Jack Black? As if that guy has even made an effort to be attractive to women with his professional persona. And yet, have you seen his wife? Next thing you’ll tell me is it’s because he’s famous. Yeah well, she’s famous also.
"Do what you want" = You'll pay for this later
§ 11. So that all our complex ideas of substances are imperfect and inadequate. Which would be so also in mathematical figures, if we were to have our complex ideas of them, only by collecting their properties in reference to other figures. How uncertain and imperfect would our ideas be of an ellipsis, if we had no other idea of it, but some few of its properties? Whereas having in our plain idea the whole essence of that figure, we from thence discover those properties, and demonstratively see how they flow, and are inseparable from it.