Posts by Christian Wells6

Angela Rogers2 said:I really don't feel like quoting anything right now.
But I guess it’s all just instinctual anyway. Why didn't you pick some guy who was dim-witted, unremarkable, or broke? It’s basically sexual selection—why am I saying that? Because, say, a strong, smart, attractive, funny, or wealthy man is generally seen as having good genes. The assumption is that those traits might pass down to offspring, making them more successful or capable or whatever.
I still maintain that women are more tuned into emotional cues than men are, probably because of the whole child-rearing thing. They tend to have higher social intelligence. Like, if a baby starts crying, a woman can pretty much tell why just by the sound; to a man, that’s just a nervous breakdown.😁

Tanya, you should check out *The Evolution of Man* by Jones; you might actually like it. The book is loaded with arguments from a genetic standpoint about how men are essentially genetically inferior to women, and how everything is just one big evolutionary mistake and so on... 😉 😁

As for why some people marry purely for financial gain, it’s actually pretty straightforward. Think about cavemen: if a hunter managed to bring home 10 pounds of meat after a struggle, he was showing his partner he could provide. She’d choose him to father her kids over some idiot who couldn't catch anything. To her, that meat wasn't just food; it was proof of competence. Nowadays, if a guy showed up at your door with 10 pounds of raw meat, you’d probably just stare at him wondering what his deal is. But society has evolved, and when a guy takes a woman to an expensive restaurant in a luxury car or buys her high-end perfume, it’s the modern version of that same signal. He’s basically shouting, "Look how successful and capable I am; I can afford this, so you're safe with me." If a woman isn't looking for intelligence—maybe because she isn't prioritizing it herself—she won't care if he's slow or whatever.
If she does value intelligence, then yeah, it matters.
Some women will also prioritize physical looks, letting their own specific idea of beauty drive their selection process.
And so on and so forth...
I mean, men make these choices too... I'm not just talking about women.

I find myself in agreement there. However, we are discussing romantic dynamics between partners here, rather than the relationship between a mother and her child. In that specific context, the man essentially steps outside of the primary emotional loop to occupy a different role entirely.🤷

Thanks, I think I’ll go hunting for that book.

mistybison said:That is precisely the point—women decide if they want motherhood, along with the who, when, and how. 😉 Choosing someone to be the father of her child does not mean she has chosen him as a lifelong or even long-term partner. 🙂 She isn't obligated to dedicate her entire life to him. She is free to seek out another man later to have more children or to experience love again. This is the level of autonomy women enjoy today that was unavailable in the past. 🙂 I suspect this newfound freedom is quite unsettling for many men, and frankly, for many women as well. 😁

Oh, you’ve gone and reminded me of something now.
A close friend of mine used to live with an Apollo type—a man who, to make matters more complicated, was quite prosperous. Truly living the High Life. They were together for years.
Then, she decided she wanted a child.

Within a single month, he had been kicked out of her apartment, blah, blah, blah...

So, I asked her: Why?
Her response to me was that he was slow—which is a polite way of saying he was a bit dim, a fact we all shared.
And I told her: Forgive me for asking SUCH A RIDICULOUS QUESTION.

Was she really concerned about her child inheriting his intellect? 😲
She ended up marrying a stout, balding PHYSICS PROFESSOR.

mistybison said:She absolutely could—perhaps not right away, but eventually, without a doubt. 🙂 The real question is whether she would have the courage to let herself feel that way again. It is entirely natural. 🙂 Personally, I believe it is healthy for a woman to experience that sense of being in love frequently, if not constantly. 🙂 However, that doesn't align with the traditionalist ideal—the submissive, quiet woman who stays strictly in her husband's shadow, devoted to him alone while he pursues his ventures 😁 (like business trips, military service, or even affairs), prioritizing stability and raising his children above all else... 😉 A woman who truly nurtures her passion finds it difficult to sustain that exclusively with one person forever. That reality isn't particularly convenient for men. 😁 I suppose that is why this perspective isn't such a popular theory. 🤔 😁 🤣

And yet, you still seem inclined to take a jab at John Toševski, don't you? 😘

Angela Rogers2 said:Heh, so you haven't read anything at all? 😁
It’s kind of a gray area, honestly. It all depends on where they're headed, I guess.😁 😁 😁

@neznam Enchi, if I ever actually fell out of love with my husband, I honestly don't think I'd ever find it in me to fall for another guy again. 🤷

And you won't. You simply have far too many years and too much life experience under your belt to succumb once more to the whims of a fallible emotional creature like a woman—at least when one compares us to men.

That is precisely the thing they fail to grasp. It is quite why they go about doing all sorts of nonsense.

Angela Rogers2 As stated by:
😍
As far as faulty genetics are concerned, if you ask me, those who live life with such reckless promiscuity ought to simply cease existing.😉 😁

It isn’t quite that simple, is it? 🤷
There was a period in my life, back during my college years, when I maintained a rather casual approach to my romantic entanglements, simply because that particular lifestyle suited my circumstances perfectly at the time. It was a matter of practical necessity, really; between the rigors of my studies and the general exhaustion of academic life, I found myself needing a certain physical outlet on the weekends to decompress. I had absolutely no desire, nor any capacity, to deal with someone pestering me throughout the work week with their constant emotional demands and incessant needs.

Theresa, as you can clearly see—women are far less emotional creatures than people tend to believe. ☕ They tend to be quite rational, which is precisely why we see them opting for "stable opportunities" more frequently than not—though I try not to dwell on such generalizations too often. In essence, they aren't making these life choices based on fleeting emotions, but rather through a very calculated application of reason.

Well, I suppose one must acknowledge that men engage in such behavior as well, though it certainly seems to be a less frequent occurrence on their part.

If I might circle back to the matter of the weekends—it reminds me of a rather peculiar situation involving a close friend of mine. She somehow managed to bumble her way through the enrollment process, partially registering for a year-long program by mistake, which somehow granted her more than just a few days off. Instead of the usual brief weekend reprieve, she suddenly found herself with over a week of unexpected freedom. ☕ It didn't take us very long to realize exactly what was happening, so we naturally moved straight into the coordination phase. We actually went ahead and brought a third person on board as well—strictly a matter of timing, mind you, nothing personal at all. ☕

Then he approached me—after two full years had passed, during which time we had both moved on to much better, far more substantial things—and in one of those completely unplanned, awkward encounters, he posed a question: I find myself occasionally drifting into these rather melancholy contemplations, wondering why, in all my various entanglements, not a single woman has ever made a genuine, concerted effort to hold onto me. It is a curious thing, really, to reflect upon one's own history and realize that the departures were always so remarkably unencumbered.

What exactly should one say to him? Well, I suspect we all already know the answer, though expressing it rarely feels quite that simple. 🤷

There was this one particular guy who used to walk us all home together—about ten of us in total. We’d actually organized ourselves by birth month, which felt quite methodical at the time. I remember walking with him on one specific afternoon that stands out vividly; I had just received a failing grade on my American History exam, and since the parent-teacher conference was scheduled for the very next day, I found myself needing to switch walking groups entirely to avoid any awkward encounters. 😍
He truly seemed to have no inkling that he’d already moved on to someone new by the first of the month, only to find himself being dumped on the thirtieth or thirty-first. It was all quite oblivious, really. 🤷

You know, Ceneric, I’ve often observed that women don't actually engage in much verbal exchange, at least not in the way one might expect. They certainly engage in plenty of idle chatter amongst themselves, of course, but they rarely make an appearance at the bar to actually articulate their thoughts to the room.

Angela Rogers2 said:you can see that for yourself😁 when you mentioned changing your avatar, I honestly thought 🙂color would go all out—like, the thickness of the brushstrokes Van Gogh used back in the day, or maybe subtle watercolor shifts.
just kidding, your avatar is an absolute ten, a delicate little flower and all that.🙂
I am subtle, perhaps too much so.😲 who wouldn't agree, right?😁

@Chloe Barnes8, sweetie. Please don't read that populist, cookie-cutter junk like those books *Man from Mars, Woman from Venus*—when in reality, we all basically fell from Jupiter and just happened to land on this planet.
Actually, we are all from the country, and we share so much with every living thing on this planet. For instance, most plants need sunlight to grow properly, and similarly, we need sunlight at a certain optimal warmth to function productively. We share way more traits with animals because, well, we are just an animal species that evolved enough brainpower to rise above the others, and here we are, a whole group sitting in front of computers.
As for men and women, I guess you could call all of that a byproduct of human evolution over time.
Like, the idea that women are more emotional—well, the reason is offspring. It's pretty simple; chemically speaking, you could call it oxytocin. Again, it's a mix of inherited instincts and social conditioning. It's all so intertwined that you can't just look at it from one angle and conclude, "this is why."
Men being more rational is just the same evolutionary thing.
I don't really know why it necessarily has to be about opposites and extremes. It could actually complement things quite nicely if you don't view it through a negative lens—not as "heaven vs. earth," but as something that can complete and even better build a relationship.
To be honest, my husband is incredibly sensitive and emotional, and my teasing often gets him so worked up that even I'm surprised.😉 😁
Who would have guessed? And if you actually saw what he looks like physically, he's like a rock. But even then—he isn't.
I wanted to write something else, but I've lost my train of thought in all these letters.
I'll be back later😁:

It seems, then, that the book is fundamentally flawed, penned with those pervasive biases common in Western society—biases that seem desperate to justify the dying gasps of a patriarchy that is clearly mourning its lost influence. And frankly, that era is gone for good, as the structure is no longer acting as a collective mother to grown men.

WOMEN ARE NOT EMOTIONAL BEINGS, and certainly not because of offspring (at least, not to the degree men are).
Women struggle with art, they struggle with literature—disciplines that supposedly require highly developed emotions. A woman doesn't sit in a car with a gun, tracking a man's every move; typically, a woman's pain regarding a man is tied specifically to the context of having offspring. She will always prioritize her own genes.

Theresa As stated by:
There exists a certain fundamental discrepancy in how we operate, both on a psychological level and within our broader social fabric, that I find myself contemplating quite frequently. It is as if there is an inherent divergence in our very wiring, a subtle yet profound distinction in how we process the world around us compared to others, which ultimately shapes the way our society functions as a whole.

I recently happened upon a rather fascinating volume—essentially an expanded supplement to that classic, well-known treatise, *Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus*—in which the author delves into a much more nuanced elaboration regarding the fundamental disparities in how men and women approach communication. It struck me as such a compelling read, particularly when one considers its practical utility within the realm of marriage or relationship counseling; having a more precise framework for these interpersonal dynamics seems like it could be immensely beneficial for anyone attempting to navigate the complexities of partnership.

I find myself in complete disagreement with that sentiment. It strikes me as nothing more than breezy, mass-market fiction—the kind of thing one breezes through only to forget the moment the cover is closed, offering absolutely no lasting substance. Furthermore, I have never considered myself a particularly nurturing soul, and I would argue that such traits are born of one's personal convictions and education rather than being an inherent byproduct of being a woman. If anything, I might be described as somewhat radical or even unfair in my judgments. For instance, during my years in academia, if I identified a student with a genuine, raw talent for physics, I was remarkably lenient; however, if they lacked that spark, I was quite unforgiving indeed.

It strikes me, upon further reflection, that the disparities between the sexes are quite profound. I find myself increasingly inclined toward the argument that men are essentially exhausted organisms—biological entities that seem inherently more fragile than their female counterparts.
When one truly sits down to contemplate the underlying mechanics of our species, it becomes rather clear that the slight numerical advantage held by women globally is not merely a statistical fluke, but a consequence of biological attrition. On average, men tend to see their lifespans cut short by about a decade compared to women, which serves as the primary driver behind the current gender ratio on our planet. Even at the very beginning of life, nature seems to engage in its own subtle form of calibration; the birth ratio typically stands at approximately 105 males for every 100 females, suggesting that the natural world has already factored in a certain level of male vulnerability from the very start.

I find myself quite certain that I grasp the underlying mechanics of how they operate, though I remain perpetually stuck in a state of contemplation regarding whether such patterns are merely the byproduct of our social conditioning and environmental influences, or if they are, in fact, something more deeply ingrained within our very biology.

It seems they lack the capacity to process multiple streams of thought simultaneously, whereas we manage to juggle several things at once without much of a struggle, really. Their entire methodology is built upon this rigid, one-thing-at-a-time approach, which is quite limiting, if you ask me. Absolutely infuriating. 😲 One simply cannot interrupt him mid-stream to mention something you neglected to say yesterday; he won't grasp the context, and instead, he’ll descend straight into this tedious interrogation—who, when, why, and all that nonsense. Furthermore, there is no capacity to juggle multiple topics at once, nor is there any discernible ability on his part to connect one thought to the next.

They operate on a rigid, one-by-one system, moving through life with such painstaking, singular increments. We, however, are built to MULTIPLY.
And that, quite simply, is the bedrock upon which all conflict is built.

I maintain, and I am quite prepared to defend this position, that the natural sciences were essentially spinning their wheels in neutral until the moment the MULTIPLY systems were finally integrated into the fold. This is our home turf.

Angela Rogers2 said:Yeah, true, but I was quoting mistyharbor15. Just imagine following someone online like that, maybe for five years straight, and then you finally meet them for coffee in person and they have Touretov syndrome 😁 I think I'd actually die laughing 😁😁😁
Enchi hit the nail on the head. For example, in my circle of friends, we rarely ever bring up religion, yet religion is basically the second most important thing in my life that I check in on regularly. Hehe.

As for avatars and stuff, hmm... well, as far as I know😂 Sandra Parker3 dyed her hair again. Did something big happen? I don't know, maybe not😁

I'm curious why almost everyone with a science background uses a cat for their avatar? Have you guys noticed that?

Are you referring to the swearing? 🤣

My goodness, look at that... I never discuss religion either, despite it being the very first sub-forum I frequent. 🤔

But Enchi, it is precisely because of things like that—say, a rafting trip—that I want to engage with you all and talk about the subjects that truly interest me. Naturally, I shall provide notice (and rest assured, the river will be warm).

Angela Rogers2, I haven't noticed that everyone in the sciences owns a cat simply because I happen to be a scientist myself. 🤔
However, if I were to choose, a cat is indeed my absolute favorite animal. 🤔
Mainly because such a creature refuses to be owned by anyone.

I would personally give it a ten, especially as someone who deeply values carving out dedicated time just for myself. 🙂

The usernames here are quite interesting as well.

It isn't quite that straightforward. 🙂

Ten, the moment you started bringing up gestures, body language, and all that... you really dove straight into physical appearance. When I talk about looks, I don't mean whether someone is overweight or thin or anything of that nature. I was referring specifically to their mannerisms. I find it hard to believe there are many people out there imagining anything else entirely.

The reality is that one can certainly pull a thread from all of this that is worth considering. And that thread is that everything is actually the exact opposite. In that regard, Taylor Swift is absolutely correct. You end up questioning yourself.

Enchi, I can tell. I can sense it simply by the way they write, even if they happen to be lying. I highly doubt anyone would go through the trouble of writing long, dramatic laments about things they don't truly feel. For instance, nobody who is being ignored would suddenly find themselves banned...

The question I find myself pondering is whether one can truly craft a virtual persona on a forum—the kind of digital identity one frequents—and sustain that facade over a significant stretch of time. Now, if I were merely lurking on a site dedicated to finding a romantic partner, where most interactions fizzle out in less than a month, then yes, I suppose such a charade is entirely feasible.

However, if I am situated in a community where I intend to remain for a year or more... and my goal is to engage in meaningful conversation (and let’s be perfectly honest, I seek an immense amount of interaction), then I simply cannot, nor will I, pretend to be someone I am not. It would be utterly futile, as I would never actually achieve the connection I am searching for.

Besides, I once spent an entire night trying to fix the pages on Spark for Friends because they wouldn't load properly, and it gave me a glimpse into how some of these dialogues unfold. Honestly, I think I would have lost my mind at the very first exchange!

Hey, what's up?
Hey, nothing much, you?
Nothing, what are you doing?
Nothing, what are you doing?
Nothing.
................and then, after a long silence....

Anyone else around?
Dunno.
Anything happening?
Dunno.
What's going on?
Nothing.

And so it continues, hour after hour. 😲

No, we don't share even a shred of commonality with those types of sites. 👎
Suppose, for instance, I were to find a partner through a simple "hey" on one of those platforms, which effectively constitutes their entire conversational repertoire. On Dateline, the headline would read that she beat him to death with her bare hands after he asked her "what's up" for the 2,356th time.

Oh, heavens no, it certainly wasn't all sunshine and rainbows. Ultimately, one cannot truly engage in a meaningful dialogue with a person unless you have peered into their very soul. With the first individual, I engaged in rather intense—well, let's call them daily—verbal sparring via email. Who is to say we weren't maintaining the exact same tone? 🤷 (Indeed, we don't exactly quarrel, though we certainly tell one another exactly what we think when the mood strikes.)

As for the second, I simply informed her she was being a complete brat.

Under such circumstances, one finds it quite impossible to make a mistake.

Of course, I have known this first person for ten years now. What I was attempting to convey is that the secret lies in the honesty of one's writing; there is no discernible difference when you finally meet someone in the flesh. There is no need to pretend everything is perfect when one already knows all their flaws. To try otherwise feels... well, rather silly.
There is no other logical conclusion than to realize he also needs things to talk about. In fact, we often share friends because I know what interests him, and if a topic falls outside my expertise but belongs to someone else, I have absolutely no qualms about introducing him to a friend of mine who is well-versed in that particular field.

I am seriously contemplating organizing a day trip for some rafting on the Mississippi River and inviting you all along, so that we might converse without the mediation of a keyboard; conversation flows much faster in person.

But I must reiterate: I am not searching for a husband—I have no need for one. Those who go looking are precisely the type who would ruin my rafting trip by disrupting the flow of conversation.
__________________________________________________ __________

Those who prioritize finding a spouse will inevitably suffer from what one might call phrenological shock. Phrenology was once a favorite pastime of Hitler's, and we saw its echoes not so long ago in the form of Joe Biden and those other "geniuses" who claim certain groups have distinct physical traits to identify them, or even that total idiot who insisted a brain was worth next to nothing.

However, a very serious branch of psychology is now emerging regarding encounters on the internet.

Ash, have you considered studying this matter a bit more deeply? Do not be so DOGMATIC. 😂

Goodness, that was a bit stronger than I intended. 😉

What it means is that we subconsciously expect certain physical attributes to correspond with the digital persona appearing behind the screen.

Good grief, psychologists COULD ACTUALLY BE HELPFUL! 🤔

And that implies that this assumption is not entirely correct in every single instance. For example, Mad Scientist might be covered in ash and carrying fifteen extra pounds, or perhaps he is quite lean and lanky... (my apologies, but the moderators ought to serve as an example here 😍 ).

Now, if I were searching for a husband, someone like him might drive me to distraction. But if my interest lies solely and exclusively in his knowledge of my own passions, then he could show up for coffee wearing a Scottish kilt with no underwear, one leg shaved and the other hairy—it wouldn't matter to me at all. There would be no phrenological shock.

That is precisely why people from forums like ours are a poor example for other websites. They experience these devastating phrenological shocks, whereas I personally find their true essence quite fascinating once that initial shock has passed. Honestly, I think I would remain frigid forever if it were otherwise. 🤷

Theresa, they aren't the ones browsing through people. WE ARE.

Chloe Barnes8, Chloe Barnes8, Chloe Barnes8, what on earth are you up to now?

The Internet has room for everyone, and frankly, it significantly reduces the whole trial-and-error mess of human interaction.

I actually know two men from the online world, and I felt compelled to answer your question. As for the first, it’s been ten years and we still haven't managed to truly connect through conversation. To be fair, there was never an opportunity for me to make a mistake because I stick to this forum and only engage with people I know intimately. This corner of the web is my sanctuary, perfectly suited to my temperament.
Why haven't we managed to talk properly in ten years? Because I am the only person who truly knows him. For a very long time, he didn't have a physical presence for me; everything I could possibly know about him was simply his essence.

Online communication provides you with vastly more information about the actual individual hiding behind a screen name. Direct, face-to-face contact is always socially performative—if not outright hypocritical. You often begin by lying.

As for the second, we don't speak anymore. We reached a point of mutual frustration. Specifically, I grew resentful because he refuses to listen to a word I say, while he is incensed because I refuse to hear his.

Are you also curious about the women I've met?
Based on my assessment via the Internet, they were exactly what they appeared to be. There was zero margin for error.

But I inhabit this forum; I don't frequent sites like Sparky or Figgy or anything of that sort. From the very beginning, I know exactly what kind of crowd I am dealing with. I have no business on those other types of websites.

I can only imagine the sheer volume of lies being peddled on those sites out of pure necessity. For instance, if I were searching for an honest Catholic woman.
It sounds almost as absurd as someone ordering takeout.

In truth, if you've grasped the core of it, one simply cannot hold a meaningful conversation with them. My penchant for long-winded discussion is obvious to anyone watching from a distance. I simply obtained exactly what I was looking for.

My apologies, I am sitting here in the dark and can barely see my keyboard.

Christian Wells6 said:There are also those individuals who have navigated their emotional dilemmas and ultimately decided to live together. Honestly, it tends to be a far more sensible decision if there are children involved. It spares you the grueling, twenty-four-seven mental exhaustion that usually precedes a divorce. They remain excellent friends, though I highly doubt they are sharing a bed; I truly don't believe it reaches that level of intimacy.

I swear on my life, Chloe Barnes8, let me get back to the heart of the matter—I actually know a thing or two about this, but I require a moment to gather my thoughts. 🙂

Angela Rogers2 said:I mean, sure. But in my world, 😉 I can't really find any kind of mutual balance if there isn't trust involved—and honestly, I struggle to trust people as it is—and you just don't get trust without loyalty.
I just don't get these relationships where you go out, hook up with someone else, and then just crawl back into bed with your husband or boyfriend, whatever... and he asks what’s wrong, you tell him you just had a thing with some guy, and he's just like, "Alright, five bucks," and you both just go to sleep. And it's all fine, nobody even gets mad.

There are also those individuals who have navigated their emotional dilemmas and ultimately decided to live together. Honestly, it tends to be a far more sensible decision if there are children involved. It spares you the grueling, twenty-four-seven mental exhaustion that usually precedes a divorce. They remain excellent friends, though I highly doubt they are sharing a bed; I truly don't believe it reaches that level of intimacy.

Angela Rogers2 said:I’m actually reading this book right now about how monogamy is basically just a moral myth and that humans aren't naturally wired to be monogamous.
Though, personally, I don't think I could ever handle polygamy. The whole idea feels pretty gross to me—like, the thought of sharing my husband with someone else, or him sharing me with some random guy, is just... no.

I am entirely convinced that humans are not biologically wired for monogamy; I'd say that's a hundred percent certain. However, we are also cultural beings—and when I say that, I don't mean monogamy as a set of rigid, imposed societal rules, which I tend to ignore entirely🙄 but rather in the sense of emotional exclusivity.

In that regard, I have never caused any friction or issues because, frankly, it seems pointless. Once the energy for a connection dissipates, you're both just exhausted; there isn't some external force that can reignite that spark. It has to be a mutual experience.

To be perfectly honest, I am so hyperactive—not even in a sexual sense, mind you—that the idea of seeking anything on the side has never once crossed my mind. My relationships often fall apart simply because a partner can't manage to wake up at 5:00 AM to be in San Diego by 10:00, or they lack the stamina to head down to the beach at Kačjak—or Crikva, during the summer months—on a Sunday because they just can't be bothered. Men seem to be such weary organisms, whereas I find that lack of drive quite grating.🤷

Chloe Barnes8 said:It feels like more and more people are living alone these days... just single-person households everywhere. Marriages seem to be falling apart way easier than they used to for all sorts of reasons, too. Plus, with dating apps constantly blowing up, everyone seems to be desperately searching for "the one" for years on end...

How much do you guys think psychologists or actual therapy can actually help with practical stuff? Like, giving real advice to singles or people trying to navigate the whole online dating scene?

And I'm curious, what have your own experiences been like with all this?

To begin with, why on earth would they even want "help" in the first place? Has anyone actually requested it????????????

One rather significant point to consider is that these individuals aren't truly single; many of those on Match.com or Smokvica are, if we are being perfectly honest, very much married. What they are actually seeking is just some good old-fashioned fuck.

Now, a casual hookup is a perfectly natural human state, a fact I am certain any psychologist would confirm. Essentially, the internet has simply provided an easy exit strategy from the monotony and boredom of marriage.

A far more pressing question, which falls squarely within the domain of psychologists, is how they perceive the link between the lingering patriarchal structures still governing these social spheres and the newfound freedom afforded by anonymous online hookups.

The statistics suggest—or at least, that is the prevailing narrative—that these users typically belong to the middle class, possess college degrees, and earn decent salaries. They aren't looking for a partner under any circumstances; in fact, they are often looking for LIFE itself. They are in their prime, enjoying stable marriages and lovely children.

Ashley Perez62 said:Is ignorance actually a blessing?

Let's weigh the PROS and CONS—lay out your best arguments🙂

The more perspectives, the better—don't hold back.😉

If I truly believed that ignorance was a gift, I likely wouldn't even be participating in this discussion. To my mind, ignorance is nothing short of a tragedy.

bluebison70 said:
I suppose you might be the dangerous one here. I'm certainly not a child, though maybe I am getting a bit senile. I can't always remember where everything was, so I guess I get a little carried away sometimes. Now I'm feeling uncertain again: what actually counts as an appropriate comment? It's been weighing on me.

Anyway, it’s probably better if I just stay out of your way. I mean, what would my grandson say if I let you delete me right now? Everything belongs to him, really, and I just tend to sneak in and use his things when he isn't home.

I honestly thought this place was pleasant, but I guess life is difficult everywhere. It seems nobody understands anyone else anymore, and there's just no patience left.

I'll keep that in mind—"moderator" (that word makes me think of a liquidator; I think I've started rambling again).

Oh, don't fret, bluebison70, I know someone else around eighty who went through this. One by one, they insulted him, harassed him, and stripped him of everything on their list, yet the man simply happened to be at Dachau when he was fifteen years old. Back then, he signed everything with his full legal name because the very concept of a "handle" hadn't even crossed his mind.
They branded him a radical, a nuisance, a provocateur... and all those labels were tossed at him by people who don't even realize that Dachau is in Germany, let alone understand the reality of what actually occurred there. 🤷

Just weather this storm until people grow accustomed to your presence, and for heaven's sake, stop hitting on young women. Once you manage that, you'll be fine. 👍

bluebison70 said:I feel the exact same way. It’s honestly such a struggle. I find myself just waiting for my family to head out so I can finally get some time on my computer, but then I get a little too carried away... and then that moderator—or dictator, whatever you want to call them—starts threatening to ban me. I mean, I'm ninety years old; I can't be expected to have everything perfectly figured out all the time. Sometimes I just get lost in these discussions that I don't quite grasp, you know? It feels like there's no middle ground lately. You aren't allowed to make a mistake without being threatened immediately. I actually felt quite depressed when that person threatened to delete my account. It makes me wonder how I'm supposed to not feel so discarded, like I'm just some unsightly blotch they want to wipe away. I feel so hopeless, like nobody even wants me here, not even on this forum... and I really thought this would be a nice place where a person could just open up. Other people chat away and nothing happens. But if I write something that seems a bit foolish, suddenly it's a whole crisis. I thought democracy was supposed to be for everyone, not just a select few. They get to talk, yet I'm restricted from discussing certain topics. I feel so lost... and I guess if things ever got truly dark, that moderator who keeps trying to erase me would be the one to blame.

Please, don't let them get to you, bluebison70. You are certainly not an unsightly blot. I hold you in high regard.
Do not contemplate such drastic measures; it simply isn't worth it. Your presence will be deeply missed by me. 🙂