Realities of FSUW

[Blues Fairy]

Maybe you should re-evaluate what you think of as open and close mindedness;    

 

Sculpto is a textbook case...

[WmGO]

Interesting how this thread devolved into an immature discussion
of sex, drugs and shaman remedies. 

At any rate, at least it has been established that many, if not most, FSUW looking
for WM place a high priority on material things and social status to the point that
such things are more important than such trivial matters as true love and commitment
much less qualities pertaining to virtue......As Groov interjected at some point, WM
have to take great care......Gator also pointed out some common sense strategies
to expose the Material Girl......

And here we have another reality of FSUW:

That is the easily observable tendency for FSUWs to be so absolutely sure in every single thing to the point of arrogance and narrow minded perspectives.... 

...Actually, I am not sure it is limited to the ladies..

Why is that?  Why is there such a narrow minded practically close minded attitude?  Anyone interested in commenting on that?

Yes, the above describes FSUW quite accurately, maybe like 98% of them. Perhaps it has something to do with the history and culture of conformity, communalism, etc. One thing though, most FSUMen do not share this characteristic of FSUW. Not sure why, but FSUM on the whole are much more open minded and less arrogant. Nor do you see FSUM constantly correcting each other in a debating almost argumentative way toward each other the way FSUW do to each other.......it is interesting. The first time a WM
witnesses this he will think the two ladies are fussing at each other but they are not -
they are just making sure everything is said/done/thought/believed/pronounced  "correctly".... 

[WmGO]

It is a joke among the expats that everything is either impossible or must be a certain way to the Ukrainians.

Things are stated as absolutes from within that narrow world they live in.

I see/saw this all around me at every level.

While the individual anecdotes can be said to be heard around the world, the sheer prevalence of them (and their lack of factual accuracy) is incredible.

True.

But have you noticed this to be more prevalent with women than men? That has
been my experience, or maybe the men just have more political (diplomatic) sense?

[Sculpto]

In the context of the current argument I would like to hear BF or Wienerin tell us about LOVE.

Love is a scientific concept isn't it?   

[Blues Fairy]

Love is a scientific concept isn't it?   

The chemistry of it is scientific enough. Other aspects may be less so but still there is nothing supernatural about it.

[ECOCKS]

True.

But have you noticed this to be more prevalent with women than men? That has
been my experience, or maybe the men just have more political (diplomatic) sense?

I couldn't say one way or another. We probably encounter it more in women since the people, administrative staff, students and service personnel are more likely to be women. I hear it from men but could only guess that the businessmen I meet have seen more, done more and maybe had their horizons widened a bit more than the women.

[ECOCKS]

The chemistry of it is scientific enough. Other aspects may be less so but still there is nothing supernatural about it.

Methinks, you need to read the Twilight series!     

[Blues Fairy]

Methinks, you need to read the Twilight series!     

And you might want to check out the Russian movie Формула Любви ("The Formula of Love") 

[ECOCKS]

They translate it to English?

[OlgaH]

And you might want to check out the Russian movie Формула Любви ("The Formula of Love") 

Formula of Love is one of my favorites  I love the Russian humor 

When a doctor is full up a patient feels better.

Do you want a big but pure love? Come to the hayloft at night.

[youtube=425,350]1DrdZvqu1ro&feature=related[/youtube]

That is a masterpiece 

[youtube=425,350]SzJA2mF14fA[/youtube]

[ECOCKS]

If you say so, but i have to ask what is the joke with the hair? I mean it has to be a joke right?

[OlgaH]

If you say so, but i have to ask what is the joke with the hair? I mean it has to be a joke right?

– Stepan, the visitor's carriage  is broken …

– I See, Barin (master). The spindle is broken and spokes should be changed .

– can you repair?

– I will do it in a day.

– can you do it in two days?

- It is possible in two days.

– and in five days?.
 
– With some difficulty,  Barin,  but if to try it is possible in five days …

– And in ten days?

– Well, Barin, you give a task! I can not do it alone in ten days. I need an assistant - Homo sapiens!

– Take the assistants, but do it not earlier!

Fimka (girl)  – Odd gentlemen... How long they will stay?

Stepan – It depends on me.  (Stepan is breaking the carriage) -  Here everything depends on me!

[ScottinCrimea]

Hash is not an opiate Doctor.  It is the resinous secretion of the cannabis plant that is gathered but rubbing the plants with silk.. the resin is scraped off the silk and packed into cakes.  I have seen the statistics on heroin junkies and remain surprised by the prevalance because I didn't see them on the street.  Heroin junkies unless they are functional junkies are usually very obvious. 

Thanks for the lecture, your pride in knowing the drug culture is somewhat misplaced, though.  Put perhaps you should have focused on the punctuation instead.  Does this look better for you?   "opiates such as heroin, and hashish."?

[remiel6]

be leery in your attempt at searching for whatever qualifies as a "scientific" explanation of things that you do not start missing the logic of the argument being made. I have met a lot of people who were very bright "Science" people who when it came to the subject of as an example, life after death, suddenly put all their so called analytical skills out the window and refused to see an argument supported by evidence. The problem science runs into is that it struggles to define things that can not easily be tested in an "empirical" study. Some things can't be replicated easily to be tested, therefore, the science community, either ignores it or denounces it. Science is good at ignoring things. In Einsteins theory of relativity it is said that time is nothing but the distance between two objects. If the theory is true, which most science purports it to be, then by rule of logic if time does not really exist I cannot die in it. You will not find this argument anywhere. There is a wonderful book on Einstein and princeton logician which discusses this problem, Einstein was aware of this. The point was not a lecture on Einstein, but a lecture on chemical explanations for everything. to quote from socrates, via Plato, "I only know that I know nothing."

[mies]

And here we have another reality of FSUW:

"Только страстный человек неравнодушен к окружающей его действительности. Именно страсть делает нас живыми людьми. Она не только сокровищница эмоций, - этих приправ жизни, - но и способ защиты, способ не уснуть, не стать уязвимым; способ производства и не инертного существования." from here http://dadakinder.livejournal.com/767440.html#cutid1

In my tentative translation "Only passionate human being is not indifferent about the reality which surrounds him. This is the passion which makes us live humans. Passion is not only the treasury of emotions, - those spices of life, - but also a way of protection, a way of not falling asleep, not becoming vulnerable; a way of production/creation and of the non-inert existence."

and
 at 0:50-52[youtube=425,350]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2yODtsOk9dc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2yODtsOk9dc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

[Sculpto]

I have a question for the anti "voodoo" pro science crowd...

Do you believe in God?  Religion?

[mies]

[youtube=425,350]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TEDfTUccGWg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TEDfTUccGWg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

at 0:24-0:40

"- I am in the army because my wife and MIL wanted to send me to asylum. Because of my beliefs. Do you see a groundhog?
 - ... No.
 - And I don't see it either. But it is there. "


observations of WMs about differences between FSUW and FSUM were quite accurate ))))

[Ade]

I have a question for the anti "voodoo" pro science crowd...

Do you believe in God? 

No. Science and God are mutually exclusive as far as I'm concerned, just as science and the tooth fairy is and the magical herbal panacea is too.

Do you believe in Religion?

Well, I know that religion exists.

[remiel6]

are voodoo and science my only options Do I have nowhere in-between I can rest my weary head. Here is what I will say. We all know the pitfalls of organized religion. Still in our attempt to rush away from the "creation of the rich to keep the poor in line" sometimes disguised as science, a person should remember this. Religions, are not based by men in rooms inventing stories and making up claims. They are based on people trying to interpret and understand something odd that happened "didn't we just put that body behind that giant rock and now its not there" "Isn't that man who wrote that book illiterate" In our lives we all do this. This is how religion is founded. If one is going to attack the mystical experience one has to  attack that. To attack the church is worthless. As it is worthless to ask the dead man not in his tomb and the people who did not find him there to prove he wasn't there. They were witnesses and the science is calling them liars. So science has the burden of proving its point, not the other way around. A point I might add it can't not disprove because there is no external data. That is why I mentioned here is where science gets in trouble. A) it calls them liars, it has the burden of proof. B) it can't collect independent data to discredit the story and c) to say that because something never happened in any other circumstance is not evidence that it did not happen in this circumstance. You have to disprove this moment in time, not some vague innuendo. To disprove any religion as false you must disprove the element that gave rise to it in the first place.

[remiel6]

argh... that was suppose to be can't disprove (someday I will learn how to type) 

[Ade]

are voodoo and science my only options Do I have nowhere in-between I can rest my weary head. Here is what I will say. We all know the pitfalls of organized religion. Still in our attempt to rush away from the "creation of the rich to keep the poor in line" sometimes disguised as science, a person should remember this. Religions, are not based by men in rooms inventing stories and making up claims. They are based on people trying to interpret and understand something odd that happened "didn't we just put that body behind that giant rock and now its not there" "Isn't that man who wrote that book illiterate" In our lives we all do this. This is how religion is founded. If one is going to attack the mystical experience one has to  attack that. To attack the church is worthless. As it is worthless to ask the dead man not in his tomb and the people who did not find him there to prove he wasn't there. They were witnesses and the science is calling them liars. So science has the burden of proving its point, not the other way around. A point I might add it can't not disprove because there is no external data. That is why I mentioned here is where science gets in trouble. A) it calls them liars, it has the burden of proof. B) it can't collect independent data to discredit the story and c) to say that because something never happened in any other circumstance is not evidence that it did not happen in this circumstance. You have to disprove this moment in time, not some vague innuendo. To disprove any religion as false you must disprove the element that gave rise to it in the first place.

Actually, science doesn't claim anything; science says that there's no supporting evidence. It's the theists that claim that something exists without evidence.

[Wienerin]

No. Science and God are mutually exclusive as far as I'm concerned, just as science and the tooth fairy is and the magical herbal panacea is too.

I do not think that science and G-d are mutually exclusive. They simply have different, iof I may say so, applications. Thus the socalled "phenomena", which couldn't in any way be measured, cannot be replicated, and there's no documented occurence which cannot be explained otherwise, or are not observed under controlled circumstances - have nothing to do either with science or G-d, religion, etc. Just with credulity and ignorance

G-d is about a life philosophy, not about material facts. As to creation - do you see much difference between "And G-d created..." - and the Big Bang theory (which also cannot be proven in any way)?

Well, I know that religion exists.

and there's some difference between G-d and religion. One can believe in G-d but not conform to any established religion or even religious group. Religion is more about tradition and ritual.

To Sculpto, - I DO believe in G-d. And I KNOW about science. You see the difference between belief and knowledge? I don't think so - not as far as could be observed in your posts.

BTW, all these remarks about narrow-mindedness, and RW being narrow-minded and stubborn in their inadequate and narrow views, are extremely rude. It makes me wonder as to exactly WHY should an enlightened AM seek such a poor creature in marriage. This is a very strange site for propagation of such beliefs. Also name calling isn't a proof of anything, but that the name caller is an uncouth lout

[Shadow]

BTW, all these remarks about narrow-mindedness, and RW being narrow-minded and stubborn in their inadequate and narrow views, are extremely rude. It makes me wonder as to exactly WHY should an enlightened AM seek such a poor creature in marriage. This is a very strange site for propagation of such beliefs. Also name calling isn't a proof of anything, but that the name caller is an uncouth lout

Because RW have limited knowledge of English and there for put up with the BS ? 

[Ade]

I do not think that science and G-d are mutually exclusive.

Of course they are. However, there are scientists that believe in one god or another and have to perform some pretty amazing intellectual gymnastics in order to come to terms with the contradictions.

Science is about fact, and about probabilities not wishful thinking; Occam's razor and all that.

They simply have different, iof I may say so, applications. Thus the socalled "phenomena", which couldn't in any way be measured, cannot be replicated, and there's no documented occurence which cannot be explained otherwise, or are not observed under controlled circumstances - have nothing to do either with science or G-d, religion, etc. Just with credulity and ignorance

I'm think I have a good grasp on why people want to believe and I understand the benefits to some people.

G-d is about a life philosophy, not about material facts. As to creation - do you see much difference between "And G-d created..." - and the Big Bang theory (which also cannot be proven in any way)?

Yes, I do see a big difference; one requires a intelligent, omnipotent magical agent the other is just a natural event that conforms to what we know of the universe.
 
And yes, few things can be proven absolutely but that doesn't invalidate unproven theories that adhere to facts and behaviour that we do know.

and there's some difference between G-d and religion. One can believe in G-d but not conform to any established religion or even religious group. Religion is more about tradition and ritual.

Yes, I realize that there's a big difference.

[brucen36]

It makes me wonder as to exactly WHY should an enlightened AM seek such a poor creature in marriage. This is a very strange site for propagation of such beliefs. Also name calling isn't a proof of anything, but that the name caller is an uncouth lout

Because RW are hotter than anything they can get in america and they have the leverage to obtain one of them.