<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
		<channel>
			<title>Completely Free Dating Forums</title>
			<link>http://www.completelyfreedating.ie/forums/</link>
			<description>Feed of new forum posts in the Completely Free Dating Forum</description>
			
			<language>en-gb</language>
			<lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 23:56:00 GMT</lastBuildDate>
			<copyright>Copyright (C) Completely Free Dating</copyright>
			
				<item>
					<title>new boy here - hi</title>
					<description><![CDATA[im new on here also seems I feel an outsider Haa]]></description>
					<link>http://www.completelyfreedating.ie/forums/viewtopic.cfm?t=1958</link>
					<guid isPermaLink="false">16692</guid>
					<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 22:09:49 GMT</pubDate>
				</item>
			
				<item>
					<title>In your area... </title>
					<description><![CDATA[Lol I realise that id just like some females, I have no interest in horney guys in my area.]]></description>
					<link>http://www.completelyfreedating.ie/forums/viewtopic.cfm?t=1959</link>
					<guid isPermaLink="false">16691</guid>
					<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:31:25 GMT</pubDate>
				</item>
			
				<item>
					<title>Hobbies, Interests, in more detail? </title>
					<description><![CDATA[Only if you're an immature little boy with his mind in the gutter...]]></description>
					<link>http://www.completelyfreedating.ie/forums/viewtopic.cfm?t=1954</link>
					<guid isPermaLink="false">16690</guid>
					<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 20:59:11 GMT</pubDate>
				</item>
			
				<item>
					<title>In your area... </title>
					<description><![CDATA[Yes, that these people are "in your area".

Kind regards,

Andrew
Site Admin]]></description>
					<link>http://www.completelyfreedating.ie/forums/viewtopic.cfm?t=1959</link>
					<guid isPermaLink="false">16689</guid>
					<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 20:11:20 GMT</pubDate>
				</item>
			
				<item>
					<title>In your area... </title>
					<description><![CDATA[You know that part of the page that shows you people in your area? Mine is a row of 4 blokes - CFD are you trying to tell me someothing?]]></description>
					<link>http://www.completelyfreedating.ie/forums/viewtopic.cfm?t=1959</link>
					<guid isPermaLink="false">16688</guid>
					<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 19:34:43 GMT</pubDate>
				</item>
			
				<item>
					<title>Fascism - Co-ordinates...</title>
					<description><![CDATA[My, my - compared with me, you're a raving left-wing fascist! I get exactly 0 on left-right (and did when taking the test as a repeat a couple of years after finding the site) and you're the first real person I've discovered with a positive score for fascist/anarchist... so much for my theory that everyone would be close to -5 on that scale.
The problem with an 'eye for an eye' is, as Ghandi pointed out, that everyone ends-up blind. I suspect he meant it as a recommendation to pacifism... but there's an alternative and, in my view, more practical approach.
The problem with restrained tit-for-tat is exactly as Ghandi identified - that no-one will know when things are even. This is why the only credible reaction (if there is going to be one at all) must promise to be massive, completely disproportionate - and seemingly irrational and beyond control if ever set in motion. It all boils down to game theory - which intelligent people consider literally but everyone reacts to on a subconscious level. John Nash is *the* man whose work to study - the grandfather of game theory, originator of the Nash Equilibrium to evaluate systems to find stable states - and a key influence in the nuclear arms race during the cold war - which, to his credit, lead to neither the Soviets nor the Americans reigning Armageddon by calling a nuclear strike on the other... though, maybe, American debt will prove to have a worse ultimate effect on society in the long run... and democracy wasn't a walk in the park for the former USSR, either.
I certainly see a correlation between apathy and bloated government... but I think it an error to justify government on the basis of that apathy - without first establishing if government was its cause.
]]></description>
					<link>http://www.completelyfreedating.ie/forums/viewtopic.cfm?t=1679</link>
					<guid isPermaLink="false">16687</guid>
					<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 19:22:39 GMT</pubDate>
				</item>
			
				<item>
					<title>Hobbies, Interests, in more detail? </title>
					<description><![CDATA[lmfao - blowing on a 'horn'-y instrument... just leaves an x-rated imagination with no end of things to make of it...

now thats out of the way.. *ahem cough deep breath*

cross stitching? gawd I could never get the hang of anything like that.. too fiddly for my fingers. Although I can make some of my cover songs sound intriguing from little runs that I can just about manage..

And how long have you been learning the tuba for? any gradings? (most instruments tend to have a grading scale, particularly orchestral instruments like the brass/woodwind/strings sections (and piano obviously)]]></description>
					<link>http://www.completelyfreedating.ie/forums/viewtopic.cfm?t=1954</link>
					<guid isPermaLink="false">16686</guid>
					<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:26:12 GMT</pubDate>
				</item>
			
				<item>
					<title>Hobbies, Interests, in more detail? </title>
					<description><![CDATA[I cross stitch. I have a lot of other hobbies, but cross stitch is the one that seems to glean the most attention.

I mostly work on store bought and magazine charts although I do make my own as do some of my friends and I work on those as well. I mainly do cute and fantasy designs. Not all of them are small and most are amazingly detailed. But I also do "cool" stuff too. My depiction of the stig in cross stitch has aquired me a whole array of fans who ordinarily don't care much for that sort of work, and my next person stitch is the Actor Paul Darrow, as seen in Blakes 7 in the early 80's.

I also embroider handkerchiefs, bookmarks, bags and clothes both in cross stitch and traditional blackwork.

The second hobby people seem intregued by is that I'm learning to play the tuba :P]]></description>
					<link>http://www.completelyfreedating.ie/forums/viewtopic.cfm?t=1954</link>
					<guid isPermaLink="false">16685</guid>
					<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:49:36 GMT</pubDate>
				</item>
			
				<item>
					<title>new boy here </title>
					<description><![CDATA[Hello and welcome]]></description>
					<link>http://www.completelyfreedating.ie/forums/viewtopic.cfm?t=1958</link>
					<guid isPermaLink="false">16684</guid>
					<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:40:55 GMT</pubDate>
				</item>
			
				<item>
					<title>Fascism </title>
					<description><![CDATA[Mine is fairly central

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -3.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.26 

the last time I did it which was about 18 months ago it was 

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.00

And an "eye for an eye" doesnt describe a sociopath, a sociopath would be more inclined to want to rape your wife, sister, dauhter and mother. Kill your kids, burn down your house, kill your cat and steal your car for an eye

THEN they would feel a fair revenge has been exacted

Which is why the examples of amputation for a starving person stealing bread, and a mistreated wife being stoned to death for adultery are good examples. As such behaviour in "our" society would be deemed as excessive and sociopathic/psychopathic behaviour

But in other cultures its "normal", and equally barbaric practices were commonplace in all cultures in bygone days. So the observaion that such barbarism and sociopathic behaviour is part of our "natural" rather than socialised indoctrinated state is pretty much self evident to anyone with any knowledge of history

What "you" might strive for tho isnt any indication of what the majority of people would strive for. A good example of what happens in a decentralised society is south africa at the moment where anarchy is rife and the rule of stregnth and the gun is becoming the norm

Infact I did mention hippies, who also would seek a nirvana society, but they arent a majority either

Infact the majority are sheeples, they follow people who want power and dont seek it themselves. And therein lies the problem in any form of structure. As sheeples will majoratively side with leaders they benefit from even where its as a result of other people suffering as long as they dont have to see too much of it

If people were so majoratively "nice" and socially minded then we wouldnt have allowed governments to have such a stranglehold on the world to begin with. The truth is that for the majority, as long as theyre reasonably comfortable and massively negative changes affect other people more than them the tend to keep their heads down

I forget the exact quote, but the one along the lines of 

"When they came for the gypsies I wasnt a gypsie so I kept quiet,
When they came for the jews I wasnt a jew so I kept quiet,
When they came for the disabled people I wasnt disabled so I kept quiet,
When they came for me nobody was left to make a sound"

The absolute abundance of people who live by that mindset means that any form of rule, however small or large scale only has to work on groups within a society one by one to achieve a long term goal

As long as they can find ways to manoevre around any subset thats majoritive they can nip away at privelidges, rights and freedoms till their hearts content with little to no backlash worthy of stressing about]]></description>
					<link>http://www.completelyfreedating.ie/forums/viewtopic.cfm?t=1679</link>
					<guid isPermaLink="false">16683</guid>
					<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:06:19 GMT</pubDate>
				</item>
			
				<item>
					<title>Pregnant girls? - pregnant</title>
					<description><![CDATA[im a straight single male and ive dated women who have kids i havent got kids but yes sometimes women look sexy when pregnant]]></description>
					<link>http://www.completelyfreedating.ie/forums/viewtopic.cfm?t=1912</link>
					<guid isPermaLink="false">16682</guid>
					<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:51:51 GMT</pubDate>
				</item>
			
				<item>
					<title>Pregnant girls? </title>
					<description><![CDATA[Hmm, ironically, I just noticed the thread on transvestites.

I won't judge, of course other people's interests, but it's a good example of varied interest I think.

Hope the person finds the answers to the questions they ask.


Personally, if the thought of this thread ever actually took place, I for one wouldn't believe it.
]]></description>
					<link>http://www.completelyfreedating.ie/forums/viewtopic.cfm?t=1912</link>
					<guid isPermaLink="false">16681</guid>
					<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:38:39 GMT</pubDate>
				</item>
			
				<item>
					<title>Pregnant girls? </title>
					<description><![CDATA[Lol at washing machine theory!

Good educated comments, nice to see.


I would imagine the occasion does (all be it rarely) come up for someone in that circumstance to be alone, lonely and in consideration of care and attention.

Wether the care and attention would be "temporary" or not is most likely an agreed desicion from both parties, I should think.


My mind personally crossed the thought, hence the thread.

Well, a few times actually, but that's not what the thread of course, was about!



]]></description>
					<link>http://www.completelyfreedating.ie/forums/viewtopic.cfm?t=1912</link>
					<guid isPermaLink="false">16680</guid>
					<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:17:47 GMT</pubDate>
				</item>
			
				<item>
					<title>new boy here </title>
					<description><![CDATA[i am new to this site and was wondering if anyone would like to come and have a chat sometime please get in touch soon thanks chris]]></description>
					<link>http://www.completelyfreedating.ie/forums/viewtopic.cfm?t=1958</link>
					<guid isPermaLink="false">16679</guid>
					<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 04:42:14 GMT</pubDate>
				</item>
			
				<item>
					<title>hi all newbie from sheffield here </title>
					<description><![CDATA[hi i would like to think im a genuine person i am new to this myself s i hope you dont mind me replying to your post thanks chris]]></description>
					<link>http://www.completelyfreedating.ie/forums/viewtopic.cfm?t=1957</link>
					<guid isPermaLink="false">16678</guid>
					<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 04:40:29 GMT</pubDate>
				</item>
			
				<item>
					<title>Fascism - Symmetry</title>
					<description><![CDATA[I think the anarchists think of definitions 1 and 3; while the fascists think of 2 and 4 - there's a compelling symmetry there.

I strongly disagree that people who act in a self-interested way are a threat to an organised, co-operative and voluntary association. To think that shows a very narrow (mis)understanding of motivation. For example, it is entirely in my self interest to be pleasant and helpful to my peers - because that creates the sort of environment I want to live in. My self interests will motivate me to establish alliances and to work hard to maintain good relations. This, of course, all depends upon the relationships I develop and the voluntary agreements I make trumping the arbitrary and unaccountable rule of law. If I am penalised for being productive - and rewarded for failure, then - over time - failure will inevitably prevail.

CL: "We touched on sociopathy earlier, but the true nature of man is a sociopathic outlook. Most of the traits that aid a healthy society are indoctrinated ones, not inbuilt instinctual ones."

Those are bold claims - do you have any evidence for either, or are they your personal prejudices?

CL: "burning someones house down as "fair" recompence for stealing 50 pence off of them"

Ah-ha, the old 'eye-for-an-eye' debate, eye see. (Pardon the pun.) Perhaps this makes me a sociopath, but I'd like to argue that this would be "fair" (assuming, of course, that other attempts to resolve the matter failed.) The thing that matters here is that while I wouldn't condone such an act (and I'd ask the initial victim to think long and hard about the likely consequences) it is only by establishing absolute clarity on acceptable and unacceptable that we can establish communication in difficult, hostile environments. In a moderately rough school experience, I coped adequately by establishing clear boundaries... I'd let others get away with more than I asked to get away with myself - and cultivated the persona of someone who couldn't be predicted if those boundaries were crossed. A great deal of thought and effort went into how exactly to 'go postal' - such that the ultimate outcome would have acceptable costs, but where the 'hard-cases' would be adequately un-nerved. I never repeated anything. If I were Shylock, I'd not want legal intervention to let Antonio get away with defaulting independent of our contract. Personally (unlike how Shylock was portrayed by Shakespere for an anti-Semitic audience) I'd not want the pound of human flesh (what good is that) - but that was my only bargaining position. Intervention in this case, I think, was extremely unjust... though, of course, I'd have been damning of Shylock should he have killed over a mere monetary debt.

CL: "Trying to set rules on smaller scale would I feel be anarchy in the true sense of the word as theres no reason why people in one group would, or should abide by rules another group thinks are needed and vice versa. So what then?"

The way that you set rules on a small scale (i.e without invoking divine authority or appealing to an omnipotent state) is by voluntary contract. Individuals negotiate the terms that they want - contracts, when broken, have agreed consequences. If you don't fancy following a contract, you're free so to do - but don't complain when obligations are not reciprocated.

CL: "I dont think the answer personally is decentralisation, but just less apathy"

The problem is that apathy is the natural consequence of statism. We can all be treated equally - though, some will be more equal than others - and there's not a damn thing you'll be able to do about it. "Four legs good, two legs bad" - etc.

I'm happy to accept that there are different opinions on how best to tackle difficult problems. I suspect, also, that one solution doesn't fit every problem - or even any problem all the time. I'd be happy to chalk you up as currently fascist to my anarchistic tendencies, if you like? If you think you are authoritarian, I'd be curious to know how politicalcompass.org scores you... does it try to tell you that you're an anarchist too?

]]></description>
					<link>http://www.completelyfreedating.ie/forums/viewtopic.cfm?t=1679</link>
					<guid isPermaLink="false">16677</guid>
					<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 02:24:08 GMT</pubDate>
				</item>
			
				<item>
					<title>hi all newbie from sheffield here - genuine</title>
					<description><![CDATA[im genuine how are u xxx]]></description>
					<link>http://www.completelyfreedating.ie/forums/viewtopic.cfm?t=1957</link>
					<guid isPermaLink="false">16676</guid>
					<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 23:53:27 GMT</pubDate>
				</item>
			
				<item>
					<title>Fascism </title>
					<description><![CDATA[Tbh, I think anyone wanting a "better" system of social organisation is shootingt themselves in the foot by any association with the term anarchist really

The main four meanings of the word are

1.a state of society without government or law. 
2.political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy. 
3.a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society. 
4.confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

The third one is probably the one theyre thinking of, but what it describes relies on people as a majority not having any self interest, and wanting to treat all people equally

But at no point in history when localised, group based governance has the power been wielded any more fairly with perhap the exclusion of hippy communes

The flaws in governmental style rule are also present in monarchistic ones, dictoratorial, communist and every other form of government

it has been and is present where religious groups run a society, or fragment of it, fuedal society, tribal society all have their own and shared misuses of power

The problem is they all have people running the show, and if history has shown us one thing, its that the majority of people when finding themselves with any significant amount of power abuse it. And that those most likely to abuse it tend to be the ones who seek, and attain it with the most ruthless vigour


But that definition also wouldnt exclude mob rule, rule by stregnth of numbers, stregnth of arms, rule by intimidation or any other of the darker sides of human nature that come to the surface in attempts to fill a power vaccuum


So I think the other definitions of anarchy would still hold true, the third one would just be a way of describing what might be sought on the way to a more literal and total form of anarchy

As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and in the case of people who like to assume mankind is inherrently "good", naive ones too


We touched on sociopathy earlier, but the true nature of man is a sociopathic outlook

Most of the traits that aid a healthy society are indoctrinated ones, not inbuilt instinctual ones

Mankind left to his own devices tends to opt for swift and literal action. "civilised" societies try to look down on what they percieve as less civilised ones and frown on the kind of actions seen in places like the middle east and tribal africa where adulterers are stoned, where thieves have their hands chopped off or are burried in ant mounds or deserts till they die

To those who like to feel "enlightened" those are when linked to tribal cultures classed as "barbaric", but when people in our own society do equally haenous things with an equal lack of remorse we class it as sociopathic and try to medicalise it

When in reality a sociopath is just in many cases someone where the socially indoctrinated flea training on how they should think, feel, act, react and conform was either refuted or just didnt take hold so they live in a more literal world where the ends justifies the means, and where they might see burning someones house down as "fair" recompence for stealing 50 pence off of them

As much as it does have downsides, largescale government has the advantage of a wider amount of input and influence which, if those in power were to act fairly and with the people in mind would give a more balanced and evenly spread set of "rules"

Trying to set rules on smaller scale would I feel be anarchy in the true sense of the word as theres no reason why people in one group would, or should abide by rules another group thinks are needed and vice versa. So what then?

Basically you have a tribal, or feudal culture emerging which invariably then seeks to enforce its rules on surrounding groups, and eventually you end up back with a governmental style rule from whoever kicked the most heads and had the most and the best armed supporters and who has the best skills for manipulating people into following them

Which is basically what we have dragged ourselves through during the last few thousand years

Anarchistic society takes us right back to the beginning even tho it might be dressed up as "better" because people just dont share as much commonality in reason as hippies and the like tend to think they do and in a world of equals there are ALWAYS droves of people who are, think they are, or whom strive to be the "most equal" of equals, and lead the lesser equals. So youre back to square one with the formation of governing bodies

I dont think the answer personally is decentralisation, but just less apathy

The thing most people who whinge about governments conveniently skirt around is the fact that governments are only taking the piss because the majority of their population are too lazy or too disheartened to make them do anything else

I think france is probably one of the better examples of a country where the population still actively try to enforce a democratic rule, and if they dont like something theyre often out in huge numbers bringing the country to a standstill to effect change

But our media will report it along the lines of "those nutty frogs are at it again" which to the majority of apathetic, conformist, lazy sheeples that makes up our voters is enough to desuade them from wanting to get off their macdonalds padded media brainwashed timid asses and try and make a difference

because nobody wants to be branded as or viewed as a "nutter" do they?

So really the problem with modern government isnt the governments themselves, as human nature does dictate that people will commonly try to get away with what they think they CAN get away with

And in a climate of apathetic media driven fear ridden procrastinators they can pretty much get away with anything. Not because the style of government is idealogically flawed, but because the population allows governments the leeway to do as they please almost]]></description>
					<link>http://www.completelyfreedating.ie/forums/viewtopic.cfm?t=1679</link>
					<guid isPermaLink="false">16675</guid>
					<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 23:17:02 GMT</pubDate>
				</item>
			
				<item>
					<title>Fascism - Sentient beings...</title>
					<description><![CDATA[I feel silly for being suckered into using capital letters, ho-hum... I live and learn.
It certainly doesn't follow from everyone living by "their own rules" that everyone is an anarchist - for any plausible definition of anarchist. There certainly are people who believe that the state should have authority over people - and this is how they live their lives. People who approach problems by seeking strong (large) governments to manage allocation of resources; who look to resolve conflict by the amendment of statute and application of law predicated by the presumed authority of aforementioned government... are not anarchists.
I recognise that, from a philosophic perspective, I've given anarchists an edge - they merely disbelieve in a particular narrow model - but do not need to agree on what replaces it... whereas fascists (I've implied) believe that the well established forms of state and government are the correct solution - the only flaw is that we've been insufficiently bold. If you think that everyone is an anarchist, then maybe I've won the argument?
To argue that anarchists reject any form of constraint - and, hence, will destroy the fabric of society is disingenuous. It's as disingenuous as suggesting that everyone who tolerates government is a closet goose-stepping Nazi liable to commit genocide and enslave humanity. The hyperbole are balanced - equally stupid.
I do care about how society is organised - though observation leaves me in no doubt that most people are blissfully unaware of the majority of the laws that constrain them - rendering modern law a farce - undermined, as it is, by gross ignorance on the part of all parties. I feel that mankind shares an innate sense of justice (whether it chooses to admit so, or not); that common good exists as a concept - but is extraordinarily difficult to achieve by centralised regime; that distributed decision making is intellectually superior to centralised decision making - and that all systems of government are systemically flawed in that they are incapable of promoting the most capable and honest people to positions of responsibility.
Politicalcompass.org says I'm an anarchist; I can find definitions of anarchism with which I identify strongly. Conversely, I think the most pragmatic approach to the short term problems the world faces is a form of fascism - even though I know such a regime is doomed to reign misery in the longer term. In practice, we'll find a balance - I'm sure. Trying to predict what that balance will be is far more interesting to me than trying to impose my own ideas on anyone else.
Do you think those who are eligible to vote in the UK want fascism or anarchy? (I promise to slap anyone who answers "No" to this with a virtual wet kipper - and, to show how rebellious I am, I won't even read the 3000 new statutes passed in the last 10 years to see if it's become illegal while I was busy doing something else.)
]]></description>
					<link>http://www.completelyfreedating.ie/forums/viewtopic.cfm?t=1679</link>
					<guid isPermaLink="false">16674</guid>
					<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:51:41 GMT</pubDate>
				</item>
			
				<item>
					<title>hi all newbie from sheffield here </title>
					<description><![CDATA[just here to say hi to you all and ask where are all the genuine guys lol]]></description>
					<link>http://www.completelyfreedating.ie/forums/viewtopic.cfm?t=1957</link>
					<guid isPermaLink="false">16673</guid>
					<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:14:31 GMT</pubDate>
				</item>
			
				<item>
					<title>Fascism </title>
					<description><![CDATA[That's gibberish. Every sentient being lives by their own rules and NOBODY else's

If thats true then this entire discussion is hypothetical, everyone in the world is an anarchist, and it doesnt matter what form of government you have, or how they try to rule because NOBODY abides by any of it anyway

So why do you care whether we have a facist, dictoratorial, psuedo democratic of communist style of government if as you claim NOBODY listens to anything they say, abides by any of their rules and "lives by their own rules"????

Kind of negates the relevance of anything governmental really]]></description>
					<link>http://www.completelyfreedating.ie/forums/viewtopic.cfm?t=1679</link>
					<guid isPermaLink="false">16672</guid>
					<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:57:39 GMT</pubDate>
				</item>
			
				<item>
					<title>the notebook :) </title>
					<description><![CDATA[so to your surprise im a guy :P and i will openly admit that my fav film has to be the notebook, message me if you wanna chat :)
lee x]]></description>
					<link>http://www.completelyfreedating.ie/forums/viewtopic.cfm?t=1956</link>
					<guid isPermaLink="false">16671</guid>
					<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:29:04 GMT</pubDate>
				</item>
			
				<item>
					<title>pop-punk fans? come chat :) </title>
					<description><![CDATA[want to find someone who is into the same music as me, im a fan of you me at six,new found glory, mayday parade etc, feel free to messsage me
lee x]]></description>
					<link>http://www.completelyfreedating.ie/forums/viewtopic.cfm?t=1955</link>
					<guid isPermaLink="false">16670</guid>
					<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:08:06 GMT</pubDate>
				</item>
			
				<item>
					<title>Dating Sites  - Dominance...</title>
					<description><![CDATA[I'd picked up on your use of the word 'genetic' (which, if it's about physical brain structure, it is) but I'm happy to continue on the less emotive basis of this being an effect of nurture not nature.

I see the bias towards initial impressions universally - in men and women alike. The nature of the assumptions is often different - masculine, objective but narrowly focused assumptions for men; feminine, subjective and broadly focused assumptions for women. The errors of judgement are different in nature - but have one thing in common - a presumption that first impressions are right and that all subsequent discoveries need to be explained in terms of the earlier (not vice versa.) I've noticed a universal tendency to jump to conclusions - wild kangaroo judgements which, incidentally, seem most prevalent when the subject feels they're in a stressful situation.

Perhaps this explains the gender bias you perceive? Perhaps the women you tend to meet are more stressed than the men? Another possibility is that your perception is filtered by your own male perspective - a bias to share the narrow focus of the other men whose judgement is wonky.
]]></description>
					<link>http://www.completelyfreedating.ie/forums/viewtopic.cfm?t=1428</link>
					<guid isPermaLink="false">16669</guid>
					<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:39:12 GMT</pubDate>
				</item>
			
				<item>
					<title>Fascism - Hold some horses...</title>
					<description><![CDATA[CL: "The problem there is that as crappy as a governmental rule might be, its still (if implemented with the people in mind, rather than self reward) the best approach"

That, as they say, is a matter of debate.

CL:"But the definition doesnt say a society without government imposed law for anarchy, it says without governent OR law, meaning no laws irrespective of who imposes them"

The wording is beyond debate - the interpretation of "OR" however is not the clear cut matter you suggest. Irrespective, it rather depends what you define to be a law and what you define to be a government. We clearly have incompatible definitions. ;)

CL: "Basically a society (or would anarchistic living be an antisociety?) without any rules and borderline sociopathic members without any inclination to to conform to anything except what they feel like doing as theres no framework that they "need" to try and blend into"

Personally, I'd prefer sociopaths didn't blend in. I'd definitely prefer that they didn't acquire positions of authority in a bureaucratic state which they will subsequently abuse. Sociopaths, by definition, are not constrained by laws - so such people remain problem for society at large - it seems sensible not to provide opportunities for such people... that way the decent majority will be better able to manage the problematic minority.

I think the idea of those in authority having been 'bloodied' is an interesting one - all be it one I'd like to see proven before I actively believe it. I'm aware of the practice at some 'public schools' and fraternities of related initiations - but I think the idea is sufficiently powerful that its effects are over-emphasised. The problem with the hypothesis is that an elite comprising only compromised individuals is inherently unstable - an easy target for any well intentioned determined individual.

CL: "So as I said, an anarchist lives by their own rules and NOBODY elses"

That's gibberish. Every sentient being lives by their own rules and NOBODY else's.
]]></description>
					<link>http://www.completelyfreedating.ie/forums/viewtopic.cfm?t=1679</link>
					<guid isPermaLink="false">16668</guid>
					<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:25:37 GMT</pubDate>
				</item>
			
		</channel>
	</rss>
