Quote:I also think it's wonderful. Judson knows he looks good on a horse; he knows he looks good with a gun, so he needs to be watched, and that need—which makes him an awfully fun companion in the wilderness—separates him from a total meld with nature. Judson could never live like Eustace, and indeed he should not. We need Judson, and he needs us. He represents our desire. People fall in love with Judson, and not just women, either. I've sat around campfires in Wyoming with Judson and his hunters, and I've seen how they gaze at him. They see his horsemanship and his nifty guns and his aw-shucks charm and his Brad Pittian good looks, and they love him for it. People want to trade lives with Judson Conway. But people don't want to trade lives with Eustace Conway.
Eustace is too hard.
Late one afternoon, we were all working on the cabin. Eustace had announced that he wanted the floor finished by dusk, so we were working fast. He was using a chain saw. (Yes, he was using a chain saw. These days he will sometimes use modern devices. Some modern devices he actually loves. "Plastic buckets!" he rhapsodizes, for instance. "I love'em!") So Eustace was sawing through a log when the chain saw hit a knot, kicked back and jumped toward his face. He deflected it with his left hand, sawing into two of his fingers.
He made one quick sound like "Rah!" and pulled back his hand. The blood started pumping out. Christian and I froze, silent. Eustace shook his hand once, sending out a shower of blood, and then recommended sawing. He was back at work. We waited for him to say something or to try to stop the bleeding, which was prolific, but he didn't. So we both went back to work, too. He continued bleeding and sawing and hammering and bleeding more. By the end of the day, Eustace's entire arm, the logs, the tools, both my hands and both Christian's hands were all soaked with blood.
Just bought and started reading Benjamin Franklin's autobiography today. I'm around 20% of the book so far (according to Kindle). Anyone got any comments about this biography? I'm very interested in opinions.
I liked this comment of a women about misognomy in the atheist momement:
Quote:Lindy Clarke Hall · Follow · Top Commenter
Jeez, am I the only woman on here that understands how to handle awkward situations without getting their feathers ruffled? My “old school” father taught me, many years ago, that guys have to approach a dozen women before getting a positive response. And I learned how to gently but firmly reject some guys, so they could move on to greener pastures. I’ve seen some of the girls my son “scored” with, that were way out of his league, but he made the effort, and he was pleasantly surprised. Now-a-days, among singles, of any age-group, sex is MUCH more casual (and available and acceptable) than this prudish article (and responses) seem to understand.
As a relatively attractive woman (when I was younger, tho’ still trim and not too bad), I long ago became skilled at fending off unwanted advances without feeling insulted or diminished. I had a few one-night stands that I’m not real proud of, but it was MY decision.
Shermer is an attractive guy. His batting average is probably pretty good, and with that confidence, why wouldn’t he expect a positive response? … and since many people meet while a bit tipsy, hook-ups are often expedited. And yes, some women do get “tipsy” and “extra-friendly” and “extra-flirtatious”… does this give them the right to disavow their implicit cooperation. I don’t think so.
Shermer may enjoy a “roll in the hay” every now & then, so what? Calling him a womanizer sounds like someone that may be jealous. Hell, I’d do him. Well, back in the day, I would. And I wouldn’t be whining about being “taken advantage of” the next day.
The negatives about the atheist movement (or non-movement.. wtf) abound, and it most certainly has some image problems… but it has NOTHING to do do with misogyny, nor with sexcapades in Vegas.
Reply · Like · 1 · Follow Post · 15 hours ago
He thinks that 3,000 years ago - everyone was Schizophrenic. Which is why the old Norse sagas and epics by Homer sound so odd to us. Since they are so full of visions and the voices of the Gods speaking directly to the main character.
Richard Dawkins said his work was either brilliant or stupid. But he wasn't sure which!
01-10-2015 01:47 PM
Agreddor
Chubby Chaser
Posts: 446
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 18
I want to get more in psychology lately. I liked this article:
Quote:The 12 cognitive biases that prevent you from being rational
Before we start, it's important to distinguish between cognitive biases and logical fallacies. A logical fallacy is an error in logical argumentation (e.g. ad hominem attacks, slippery slopes, circular arguments, appeal to force, etc.). A cognitive bias, on the other hand, is a genuine deficiency or limitation in our thinking — a flaw in judgment that arises from errors of memory, social attribution, and miscalculations (such as statistical errors or a false sense of probability).
Some social psychologists believe our cognitive biases help us process information more efficiently, especially in dangerous situations. Still, they lead us to make grave mistakes. We may be prone to such errors in judgment, but at least we can be aware of them. Here are some important ones to keep in mind.
Home
RooshV.com
Search (Via Forum)
Member List
![[-]](images/collapse.gif)
The following 1 user Likes Agreddor's post:
