The Everyman argument thread

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:fpig: :hankey: :burn: :cdc: :twatson: :bjarte: :rimshot: :popcorn: :D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek: :clap: :dance: :doh: :drool: :hand: :liar: :naughty: :pray: :shhh: :shifty: :snooty: :think: :violin: :whistle: :nin:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: The Everyman argument thread

Re: The Everyman argument thread

#28

by Steersman » Sat Aug 11, 2012 4:05 pm

tachikoma wrote:Steersman, you're going to have to make more explicit how you made the logical leap between locust swarming and Amy Roth. *confused*
Group-think, basically. Not that Amy herself was a locust or that Skepchicks is the swarm, only that there are analogous processes that are taking place in any group:
Wikipedia wrote:Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within groups of people. It is the mode of thinking that happens when the desire for harmony in a decision-making group overrides a realistic appraisal of alternatives. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints. Antecedent factors such as group cohesiveness, structural faults, and situational context play into the likelihood of whether or not groupthink will impact the decision-making process.
There’s a rather interesting case or exposition of that in an old Star Trek segment:
Wikipedia wrote:Kirk's landing party beams down just before the festival, and they seek shelter from the mobs at a nearby boarding house. Landru seems to be "all-seeing" and "all-knowing" with spies everywhere, one of whom turns in the party when he does not recognize them as members of "The Body:" the telepathic collective being, symbiotic with Landru, that most of the inhabitants belong to.

Re: The Everyman argument thread

#27

by rayshul » Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:54 pm

tachikoma wrote:
EveryMan wrote:Anyways, what really seemed to set people off was my criticism of Dawkins/Hitchens "Religion poisons everything" position. Despite the fact that I'm a big fan of both and have read a good portion of their stuff. And I'm sorry I just don't see that as controversial in the least.
A number of people are here because they agree with Myers et al about religion, but disagree about their approach to "sexism", myself included. Others, like you, are here because they are also critical of other aspects of their worldview. The only thing uniting Slymepitters is hatred/contempt/disagreement with FTB, so it's not that surprising that disagreements occur.
Yeah we are all individuals :) But I like the discussions that go on and the fights over other issues which is part of why I read...

Re: The Everyman argument thread

#26

by tachikoma » Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:53 pm

Steersman, you're going to have to make more explicit how you made the logical leap between locust swarming and Amy Roth. *confused*

Re: The Everyman argument thread

#25

by rayshul » Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:51 pm

EveryMan wrote:
rayshul wrote: Also, are we using baboon as an in-insult now? LOL
It's been franc's go-to insult for awhile now. Which I personally find pretty baboon-like myself. :mrgreen:
I DO NOT LIKE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rather be a misogynist to be honest ahahhaha

Re: The Everyman argument thread

#24

by tachikoma » Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:45 pm

EveryMan wrote:Anyways, what really seemed to set people off was my criticism of Dawkins/Hitchens "Religion poisons everything" position. Despite the fact that I'm a big fan of both and have read a good portion of their stuff. And I'm sorry I just don't see that as controversial in the least.
A number of people are here because they agree with Myers et al about religion, but disagree about their approach to "sexism", myself included. Others, like you, are here because they are also critical of other aspects of their worldview. The only thing uniting Slymepitters is hatred/contempt/disagreement with FTB, so it's not that surprising that disagreements occur.

Re: The Everyman argument thread

#23

by EveryMan » Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:39 pm

rayshul wrote: Also, are we using baboon as an in-insult now? LOL
It's been franc's go-to insult for awhile now. Which I personally find pretty baboon-like myself. :mrgreen:

Re: The Everyman argument thread

#22

by Steersman » Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:38 pm

rayshul wrote: Sat Aug 11, 2012 4:03 pm
I kind of think it quite crucial to be clear on which groups or segments of the class “women” you are referring to. That SOME women are overly emotional you have already conceded, in effect, with your “wailywailers like Amy”.
That's also from steersman but thinking that over, I may be being unfair to Amy...

That chick was hyped up like motherfuck from all her Skepchick friends telling her to watch out for harrassment and basically ramped up into hysteria probably before she even got there. Maybe she just had a wee breakdown as the result of all the shit that was going on.
More than a little justification for that argument I think. Part of the problem with group-think and the hive mind – the Pharyngulites really should give some serious thought to the concept rather than just lip service. And probably part of the reason I had a couple of posts deleted in response to Amy’s series at Skepchick on harassment and for some, I would argue, “overly emotional” “reasons”: anything that is outside the dogma is anathematized; I’m surprised she didn’t send the Grand Inquisitor Herself after me.

But I seriously think there are some actual physiological processes that underlie that as well as the experience of “Gawd” by the religious. Very similar to locusts coalescing into a swarm:
Wikipedia wrote:Research at Oxford University has identified that swarming behaviour is a response to overcrowding. Increased tactile stimulation of the hind legs causes an increase in levels of serotonin. This causes the locust to change colour, eat much more, and breed much more easily. The transformation of the locust to the swarming variety is induced by several contacts per minute over a four-hour period.

Re: The Everyman argument thread

#21

by rayshul » Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:28 pm

EveryMan wrote:
rayshul wrote: That's also from steersman but thinking that over, I may be being unfair to Amy...

That chick was hyped up like motherfuck from all her Skepchick friends telling her to watch out for harrassment and basically ramped up into hysteria probably before she even got there. Maybe she just had a wee breakdown as the result of all the shit that was going on.
I'll disagree emphatically with you there.

I think like any True Believer, she went to the conference looking for harassment and found it.

Note that this "harassment" included the practice of "othering". I.e. avoiding her. Nice tautology eh? Both interacting and not interacting with Amy are now "harassment".
That's almost kinda my point. She was told there'd be harrassment and people hated her and was already vulnerable as fuck after weeks of being beat down by her skepchicky friends into believing herself a victim. So when she sees anything happening she pretty much fucking imagines herself in a horrifying situation and is like... AHHHHHHHHHH SOB CRIES. No matter how dumbass it looks to everyone else.

I think if you're told you're going to be harrassed repeatedly by your "FRIENDS" you'd start seeing harrassment in everything and that's probably why she broke down. Maybe normally she's not that vulnerable but that situation had extinuating circumstances.

Re: The Everyman argument thread

#20

by EveryMan » Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:23 pm

rayshul wrote: That's also from steersman but thinking that over, I may be being unfair to Amy...

That chick was hyped up like motherfuck from all her Skepchick friends telling her to watch out for harrassment and basically ramped up into hysteria probably before she even got there. Maybe she just had a wee breakdown as the result of all the shit that was going on.
I'll disagree emphatically with you there.

I think like any True Believer, she went to the conference looking for harassment and found it.

Note that this "harassment" included the practice of "othering". I.e. avoiding her. Nice tautology eh? Both interacting and not interacting with Amy are now "harassment".

Re: The Everyman argument thread

#19

by rayshul » Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:23 pm

EveryMan wrote:
rayshul wrote:Ohhh my last post reading over was somewhat harsher than i intended it to be.... hope the drift was clear anyway... but these are issues where it's actulaly like important if you want to make your point to explain what you're talking about in the first place
Well, here's the thing. I can't read minds and I have no way of knowing ahead of time what sort of biases or preconceptions you or anyone else has about a topic. The correct response if I or anyone else posts something that strikes you as ludicrous is to ask for a clarification before bringing out the flamethrowers. Not that I personally care either way, but it strikes me as somewhat disingenuous to blame me for not having special knowledge of your personal sacred cows.

In fact, it strikes me as downright baboon-like.
Naw here's the problem. You used words which could easily mean other things and regularly DO within the context of skeptic shit. So you say alternative medicine but don't qualify it and are surprised then when people assume you mean vitamin-c cures cancer shite. It wouldn't take you more than a minute to explain what you mean and it would actually help a discussion. NORMALLY these things do not need a clarification as we know what we're fucking talking about but if you're discussing a particular aspect you should talk about that.

Otherwise I wind up scrolling through wank on the board where people are arguing about shit that they aren't actually arguing about because you didn't explain things at the start so the rest of the fucking thread is just ... well... wank.

Also, are we using baboon as an in-insult now? LOL

Re: The Everyman argument thread

#18

by EveryMan » Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:10 pm

tachikoma wrote:
Steersman wrote:But I would argue that there’s probably just as large of percentage of men as of women who are “overly emotional”, largely on the basis that commitment to various dogmas, mostly religious but not exclusively, is, I think, mostly a question of egregiously “overly” emotional responses ...
This has been my experience as well. Most people, male and female, are emotional, especially when you poke at their sacred cows.
Exactly. How was I supposed to know Franc/Sacha were Hitchens groupies?

And even if I did, how was I supposed to know its not allowed to criticize his alcohol abuse? I'm a huge Nirvana fan, doesn't stop me from being pissed at Kurt for being a suicidal junkie emo butthole.

Re: The Everyman argument thread

#17

by EveryMan » Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:06 pm

rayshul wrote:Ohhh my last post reading over was somewhat harsher than i intended it to be.... hope the drift was clear anyway... but these are issues where it's actulaly like important if you want to make your point to explain what you're talking about in the first place
Well, here's the thing. I can't read minds and I have no way of knowing ahead of time what sort of biases or preconceptions you or anyone else has about a topic. The correct response if I or anyone else posts something that strikes you as ludicrous is to ask for a clarification before bringing out the flamethrowers. Not that I personally care either way, but it strikes me as somewhat disingenuous to blame me for not having special knowledge of your personal sacred cows.

In fact, it strikes me as downright baboon-like.

Anyways, what really seemed to set people off was my criticism of Dawkins/Hitchens "Religion poisons everything" position. Despite the fact that I'm a big fan of both and have read a good portion of their stuff. And I'm sorry I just don't see that as controversial in the least.

Another problem is I don't ever get emotionally involved in these discussion so I have no empathy for those that do. I just don't get it. It's a Clockwork Orange to me.

Re: The Everyman argument thread

#16

by rayshul » Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:03 pm

I kind of think it quite crucial to be clear on which groups or segments of the class “women” you are referring to. That SOME women are overly emotional you have already conceded, in effect, with your “wailywailers like Amy”.
That's also from steersman but thinking that over, I may be being unfair to Amy...

That chick was hyped up like motherfuck from all her Skepchick friends telling her to watch out for harrassment and basically ramped up into hysteria probably before she even got there. Maybe she just had a wee breakdown as the result of all the shit that was going on.

Re: The Everyman argument thread

#15

by rayshul » Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:01 pm

tachikoma wrote:
Steersman wrote:But I would argue that there’s probably just as large of percentage of men as of women who are “overly emotional”, largely on the basis that commitment to various dogmas, mostly religious but not exclusively, is, I think, mostly a question of egregiously “overly” emotional responses ...
This has been my experience as well. Most people, male and female, are emotional, especially when you poke at their sacred cows.
Which has always made me think that any research into emotional intelligence/emotions is going to be fucked by the fact it's impossible to fully understand the history of all the people who are being researched about to know what's going to set their asses off.

Re: The Everyman argument thread

#14

by tachikoma » Sat Aug 11, 2012 2:59 pm

Steersman wrote:But I would argue that there’s probably just as large of percentage of men as of women who are “overly emotional”, largely on the basis that commitment to various dogmas, mostly religious but not exclusively, is, I think, mostly a question of egregiously “overly” emotional responses ...
This has been my experience as well. Most people, male and female, are emotional, especially when you poke at their sacred cows.

Re: The Everyman argument thread

#13

by rayshul » Sat Aug 11, 2012 2:45 pm

Ohhh my last post reading over was somewhat harsher than i intended it to be.... hope the drift was clear anyway... but these are issues where it's actulaly like important if you want to make your point to explain what you're talking about in the first place

Also thought roadrage stats would probably give the best example of what emotional intelligence is... Most of the research I have wandered into on shitty probably unpeer reviewed sites says that while women and men both get road rage equally (women often more than men), it's men who are more likely to go all fucking NUTSO and unable to control their emotions or have an emotion that's a measured response. To me that's probably a pretty fair example of what's meant by that and I'm sure it's borne out in research in many life situations but ALSO not in others.

Re: The Everyman argument thread

#12

by EveryMan » Sat Aug 11, 2012 2:39 pm

tachikoma wrote: 1. Managers and MBAs may believe things that are not true. For example, AIUI the Myers Brigg personality test is still popular among business managers despite being debunked by actual psychologists.


I'm well aware of this. I was just asking for evidence in this specific case. I also haven't studied the subject much.
You blamed Watson et al's overreaction to "harassment" and skepticism on their "emotion first" nature, but that's opposite of what would happen if they actually had high emotional intelligence. If they had better social skills and managed their emotions better, they would have presented more believable and sympathethic accounts of harassment instead of elevatorgate and tshirtgate, and they wouldn't have overreacted badly to skepticism. If the FTB/Skepchick commentariat actually had empathy, they would realize that their behavior isn't winning them allies.
I don't think the SkepChicks have a high emotional intelligence. They remind of the girls I went to high-school with, actually. Which isn't surprising given that the FC5 and D.J. treat them like spoiled children.

Hence my theory that emotional intelligence is a potentially dangerous force unless tempered via education and hard work. Neither of which are SkepChick traits.
3. I suspect some women are pushing the "women have more emotional intelligence" line because it makes them feel superior.
Well, they are probably right. The few times Abbie bothered to hit back at the baboons she's dropped A-bombs. She is way more effective and insidious than someone like franc or myself.
I was talking about your arguments with Scented Nectar and sacha. Are you trying to troll *them*? On the other hand, if Steersman is correct about what you meant by "trolling" and "immature" then I take your/his point and ask you to disregard this line.
Absolutely not, or at least, not intentionally. I just find it hilarious when people do shit like Orwellia's "How many times do I have to tell you fucking pricks not to use gendered insults?"

It's just lulz worthy. Maybe that makes me a bad person, which I will accept.

Re: The Everyman argument thread

#11

by rayshul » Sat Aug 11, 2012 2:22 pm

Actually Everyman I think your issue in communicating your points with people is that you aren't... super good at explaining what the fuck you're saying at all.

If you explained things better - for example, explain "emotional intelligence" and the components that it makes up, rather than just saying womenz is emotional (which is not the same thing) you'd sound like less of a stupid twat.

Or if you explained as you did then what you meant by integrated medicine and gave examples of how this was in practice, people would be less likely to point at you and go YOU ARE FULL OF WOO.

SRSLY.

Don't expect that everyone has the same understanding of the shit you're saying that you do because it's super fucking easy to go back and redefine what you've said later to be like, OOOHHHH well you're not understanding this shit right. If you were clearer up front WE WOULD NOT HAVE THIS PROBLEM.

Rahahhahahahhafukckkkkkkk my heeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaddddddddddddddddd.

Re: The Everyman argument thread

#10

by EveryMan » Sat Aug 11, 2012 2:13 pm

To avoid any more starwmen I'll try and enunciate my positions more clearly here. I've noticed lots of people seem to think because I criticize atheism I must be a theist or if I mock BigPharma I'm an alt-med guy. It's perfectly reasonable to criticize both sides of a position (which is what I usually do).
tachikoma wrote: Alternative medicine: harmless complementary medicine or fatal woo?
Both. Make sure you read up on integrative medicine so you understand exactly what it is first. It's much like harm-reduction strategies for hardcore drug users. The idea is to help as many sick people as possible, even ones that believe in weird things.
Women: overly emotional and prone to histrionics?
Probably and its not a bad thing. ScentedNectar's hostility towards being labeled "emotional' strikes me as patriarchal in origin.
Alcoholism: fatal flaw or the spice of life?
I'm of the opinion that alcohol ABUSE (all caps and read that twice) is an unambiguously bad thing. I also think it tends to color your thinking in a negative way.

But I still drink and I'm not a prohibitionist.
Atheists, agnostics, "social darwinism"
I'm opposed to any sort of atheist evangelism or organization. The idea should be to abandon dogmatic thinking; not re-purpose it.
Is Everyman a doodoohead?
IRL no, online apparently so. I'll point out that the way I learn new things is via these sorts of long and fractured discussions. For example, I found the discussion of "apathiesm" very compelling and the binge drinking stuff was in particular a revelation to me.

Re: The Everyman argument thread

#9

by rayshul » Sat Aug 11, 2012 1:26 pm

Alternative medicine: harmless complementary medicine or fatal woo?
I vote for woo. But am interested in how much of this complementary + normal medicine shit combination stuff that is being done is going to include an honest speech about the effectiveness of the complementary therapies. I mean, yeah, a nice wee massage makes you feel a lot better. Jolly good. Can't argue with that. Yay complementary therapy.
Women: overly emotional and prone to histrionics?
Well we've been shown a pile of research that suggests both sides are balls. I don't think it's thaaaat worthwhile to have a big wank over to be honest. To me it sounds like recruitment wank (I used to work in that kind of area so I used to see every latest bit of "women work like this, men work like this" fuck that came out. AND EVERY BIT WAS FASCINATING no wait the other thing).

I'm amused by the fact that emotional intelligence seems to include ability to manage your emotions/think logically, as I'm a bit like Andrew in the GET OUT OF MY TERRITORY emotional way.
Alcoholism: fatal flaw or the spice of life?
Fuck yeah alcohol!!! Love it. I'm hungover as I type. :) UGHGHGHGHHHHHHhhhhhwait...

Re: The Everyman argument thread

#8

by tachikoma » Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:42 pm

EveryMan wrote:
tachikoma wrote: I find Everyman to be overgeneralizing from his own experiences (and "people often think women have more emotional intelligence" doesn't prove that women actually do; it could be one of those "everybody knows" bits of common folk wisdom that actually turns out to be false). That said, he kinda has a point here.
But I'm not! I'm repeating, verbatim, things that I've been told by female managers and MBAs (regardless of gender).

As horrorshow mentioned, this is taught in management training. There are articles in the media, all the time, about women being better managers and leaders because they are more empathetic. With "empathy" being a synonym for "emotional intelligence".

If this all pseudo-scientific bullshit, please let me know. I'm curious and unlike MKG don't claim to know everything.
To be honest, I don't know enough about this to have information at hand either way. If I do go google it I might be biased into only picking out the results that I agree with. I do have the following points:

1. Managers and MBAs may believe things that are not true. For example, AIUI the Myers Brigg personality test is still popular among business managers despite being debunked by actual psychologists.

2. I'm somewhat leery of this conflation between "empathy" and "emotional intelligence" and "emotion first, thinking later (if at all)" you seem to be pushing. Empathy I've seen defined as the ability to know what another person is feeling. A sociopath can have high empathy; indeed, to create maximal damage a sociopath needs high levels of empathy to know exactly how to hurt another person. "Emotional intelligence" seems like one of those terms that have fluctuating definitions, but let's go with what your Psychology Today article defines it as: "Emotional intelligence has four parts: self-awareness, managing our emotions, empathy, and social skill.". You blamed Watson et al's overreaction to "harassment" and skepticism on their "emotion first" nature, but that's opposite of what would happen if they actually had high emotional intelligence. If they had better social skills and managed their emotions better, they would have presented more believable and sympathethic accounts of harassment instead of elevatorgate and tshirtgate, and they wouldn't have overreacted badly to skepticism. If the FTB/Skepchick commentariat actually had empathy, they would realize that their behavior isn't winning them allies.

3. I suspect some women are pushing the "women have more emotional intelligence" line because it makes them feel superior.
If you're trying to change people's minds, admitting that you're immature and trolling isn't going to help. Just saying. :)
(OTOH, should you get points for honesty? :think: )
A real question I have is whether the right way of dealing with the baboons/skepchicks is to either try reaching out to them or simply relentlessly mock/troll them into irrelevance; ala franc hoggle. At the moment I'm firmly in the hoggle camp. My rationale being that we have no common ground at this point. YMMV.
I was talking about your arguments with Scented Nectar and sacha. Are you trying to troll *them*? On the other hand, if Steersman is correct about what you meant by "trolling" and "immature" then I take your/his point and ask you to disregard this line.

Re: The Everyman argument thread

#7

by Steersman » Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:15 pm

tachikoma wrote: Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:53 pm
Steersman wrote:Seems to me that you’re missing the point of his anecdote. Which looked like a very clear case in point wrapped up in some self-deprecating humour.

Although whether or to what degree it is justified to generalize from that particular to the general is, of course, moot.
... I'm making the point that trolling doesn't make the trollee change their opinions. ...
I think the import of his self-deprecating comment about “trolling behaviour by immature males” is to take a shot at the definition of both “trolling” and “immature”, as if to say that he was not at all trolling or acting in an immature manner.

That really highlights my objections to “Baboonitis”, the rather disconcerting tendency by them to respond with charges of trolling whenever some argument is advanced for which they don’t have a counter. And likewise with the “immature”.
I don't understand why it is moot to consider to what degree it is justified to generalize.
It was a somewhat oblique reference to the fairly knotty philosophical problem of induction:
Wikipedia wrote:The problem of induction is the philosophical question of whether inductive reasoning leads to knowledge. That is, what is the justification for either:

1.Generalizing about the properties of a class of objects based on some number of observations of particular instances of that class (for example, the inference that "all swans we have seen are white, and therefore all swans are white," before the discovery of black swans) or
2.Presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past (for example, that the laws of physics will hold as they have always been observed to hold). Hume called this the Principle of Uniformity of Nature.

Re: The Everyman argument thread

#6

by tachikoma » Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:13 pm

John Greg: I'm not sure if you're talking to me specifically, but I bring up trolling only because of the following line from this post of Everyman's:
Maybe the female brain lacks a receptor for detecting trolling behavior by immature males?
I don't consider Everyman to be a troll*, though I do think his anecdote in that post starts to edge into the grey area between trolling and teasing and making a point. (I don't know the details of his personal life, so I can't tell.)

*At least, not in the classical sense, which IMO should be the definition people should stick to :evil:

Re: The Everyman argument thread

#5

by EveryMan » Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:09 pm

John Greg wrote:While I agree that Everyman can be a major ain in the behind, I do not think we should call him a troll. After all, thanks to the fanatical fundamentalists of FfTB, Skepchick, and other places, troll has become synonymous with "somoe who disagrees with me". And we do not want to fall into that hysterical camp/trap.
The problem you are going to have with me is that I'm apolitical and argue with everybody. Which why I'll sound like both a femmie and an MRA at times (and find both equally irritating).

I consider myself a postmodern troll in that while I am disruptive, I do mean everything I say.

Re: The Everyman argument thread

#4

by EveryMan » Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:04 pm

tachikoma wrote: Is Everyman a doodoohead?
+1

Re: The Everyman argument thread

#3

by John Greg » Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:01 pm

While I agree that Everyman can be a major ain in the behind, I do not think we should call him a troll. After all, thanks to the fanatical fundamentalists of FfTB, Skepchick, and other places, troll has become synonymous with "somoe who disagrees with me". And we do not want to fall into that hysterical camp/trap.

Re: The Everyman argument thread

#2

by tachikoma » Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:53 am

Steersman wrote:Seems to me that you’re missing the point of his anecdote. Which looked like a very clear case in point wrapped up in some self-deprecating humour.

Although whether or to what degree it is justified to generalize from that particular to the general is, of course, moot.
I understand his point to be "you're proving me correct when I say 'you have a shrill voice/women are hysterical' and you go ahead and become shrill/hysterical". I'm making the point that trolling doesn't make the trollee change their opinions.

I don't understand why it is moot to consider to what degree it is justified to generalize.

The Everyman argument thread

#1

by tachikoma » Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:45 am

People arguing with Everyman seem to be taking over the Undead Thread, so I've taken the liberty to create a separate thread for the following topics:

Alternative medicine: harmless complementary medicine or fatal woo?

Women: overly emotional and prone to histrionics?

Alcoholism: fatal flaw or the spice of life?

Atheists, agnostics, "social darwinism"

Is Everyman a doodoohead?

Hopefully this will divert some of the posts from the main thread.

Top