And they all stink.

Well duh. Even if you ignore the inherent pleasure that a guy gets out of it... A woman has to take a month's worth of hormone shots that make you varying degrees of nuts, then have an invasive procedure to physically harvest all the extra eggs, of which a certain percentage still may not be viable.

A man simply has to touch himself for a minute or two, gets a million or so viable li'l swimmers, and then he can do it again 20 minutes later.

And may I ask. just how old are you?:lol:

Point taken--but by the time a man is too old to maintain the one-minute-every-twenty-minutes ratio, a woman that same age likely isn't making eggs at all anymore. :)

I so totally hate every mother-fucking one of these dudes.

Unfortunately Bri, you've now just guaranteed that someone will pipe back in with why you're being judgmental, and the meaningless arguments will continue, despite our best efforts to allow thread drift to take its natural course...

WTF does this even mean? These are meaningless phrases strung together because they sound pretty, and require no heavy lifting.

Every person has value? Ok, I can give you that one. The intrinsic value of life is maybe the only truly universal moral axiom. Granted.

Every point of view has validity? What the hell does "validity" mean? does it mean "correctness"? "truth"? does it mean "relays the perspective of the person speaking"? You see how different each of these things is. So, give me something other than validity. Give me a word that means something. Not some mushy feel-good world consciousness

There is no one you can't learn something from. Something substantive? Something transferable? Something actionable? Something functional or principular? Something worth learning? Nah. Not from most people. Most people are idiots.

But they're VALUABLE idiots! :lol:

I guess what I'm saying is one subjectivity is not inherently superior to another, they are all just subjectivities, neither right nor wrong. The trick is to step outside of your own perspective and see yourself from another's point of view, or see that person in the light in which he sees himself, both hard states of mind to sustain long enough to get much result from. If you listen to what someone has to say about you, and consider the source, you may well learn something about yourself, but it is not guaranteed. Often people insulate themselves from learning unpleasant truths by discarding the source as unworthy or inferior. I am saying it is not neccessarily so.

What if you step outside your own perspective, and see the world through someone else's eyes, and you realize that they're a complete f**king idiot?

Just because I think you're wrong doesn't mean I don't understand your perspective. It means I understand your perspective, and I think it's poorly considered, frought with error, and will inevitably lead to personal disaster.

Then you haven't stepped outside your own persepctive. Try again.

A statement that has as its sole virue that it serves as its own counterexample.

Well, I've lost interest in my own thread. That is a first.

Ummm, I actually tend to agree with Flint on this one. People do what they do and think what they think because of any number of life experiences which are in sum total unique to them alone. They are most likely doing the best they can with what they've got (granted there are exceptions, but these are usually a small percentage).

Making the statement that you would be able to step into someone else's shoes and still view them as a complete idiot indicates a certain lack of imagination if not also empathy on your part.

empathy is an overvalued character trait. It's also not mutually exclusive to thinking someone is an idiot.