Then you don't remember the changes they made after a couple of lengthy threads discussing their tactics a couple of years ago?
Information was revealed so even the gullible could easily identify them. The changes meant we left the gullible vulnerable again and that is not fair play.
I'm not concerned about you being scammed Riz, nor anyone else who is savvy.
Any chance you lot can stop telling the scammers all you know, only they have been known to change their tactics after they've been thoroughly discussed on the forums.
Well, if you don't know, why did you state it as fact?
I'm not finding your sentence construction clear to comprehend EnglishTeacher55, but I wonder if it is your 'good manners' which some women think is 'weak'.
If you feel a need to be approved of, or liked by everyone it can come across as a lack of confidence. If your 'good manners' cross the line to not treating women as normal human beings equal to yourself, it can feel swamping, oppressive and intrusive. Are you maybe crossing that line at times in your eagerness to gain approval?
Are you expecting something in return from some women which they are not actually obliged to give? Are you disresprcting some women's boundaries under the guise of 'good manners'? In which case, that is not 'good manners' at all.
So, belief is not necessary for perception, but is perception necessary for belief?
Not only was I deeply confused by the apparently contradictory statements about reality, I think I bypassed them in favour of the idea of belief not being a pre-requisit for perception within the confines of spirituality. It seems simpler and less corruptable, to me. It's not something we have to agree on, it just is on a personal perceptual level.
Actually, (again) there is a conceptualisation of 'god' in there:
su·per·sti·tion
*excessively credulous belief in and reverence for supernatural beings.
*a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice based on such a belief.
Does that conceptualisation fit the definition of superstition?
There's no mention of 'god' being a supernatural being; if 'god' is 'everything' wouldn't that imply 'god' is at least inclusive of all things natural?
There is no mention of cause and effect, supernatural, or otherwise.
This is why I find 'perception' more interesting than 'belief'.
I've not done LSD and how the hell did you do CRAP? Smoke it, or snort it?
I did say it made no difference to you premiss that Pedro is not obligated to provide proof whether he was making statements about a belief, or a perception and that I just think using the phrase 'I perceive god' has a different quality to 'I believe in god'.
Spirituality on the basis of perception is a whole different ball game to spirituality based upon belief, as I perceive it.
4)you assuming his perception is based upon silly superstition suggests you have pre-conceptualised Pedro's perception, even though you cannot possibly perceive his perception. You can ask him about his perception, or describe your own, but to conceptualise his suggests you're introducing information that you've brought from your own experience, not his experience. My perception is that you appear to be psychodynamically muddying the water there.
I perceive your premiss to be inaccurate on three counts:
1)The same as with Moosey's post, Pedro didn't say he believed, but that he perceived;
2)It's not necessary to prove one's perception for that perception to be discussed. For example, if I say I can see pink elephants, I don't need to prove I can see them, for others to ask how big they are, how I'm feeling about seeing them, or for others to share that they see green giraffes;&
3)If I see pink elephants and you don't, who is to say that I'm wrong and you're right? I see them and the perception is real to me, you don't see them and that perception is real to you. Asking me to prove I'm seeing pink elephants is no more logical than me asking you to prove that you don't.
Errr...didn't Pedro say it was his perception, not his belief?
Not that it changes your premiss that he has obligation to provide evidence, just that Pedro's statements have a different meaning, or quality with the use of the word 'perceive', rather than 'believe', to my mind.
Am I right in thinking you are saying if someone innocent in this life ends up in prison, or executed it'll be because of something they did in a previous life? Are you saying, somewhere along the line, they will deserve their suffering?
online now!jac_the_gripper Forum Posts (5,363)
RE: god fearing the number 1 most used word in female dating profiles
Then you don't remember the changes they made after a couple of lengthy threads discussing their tactics a couple of years ago?Information was revealed so even the gullible could easily identify them. The changes meant we left the gullible vulnerable again and that is not fair play.
I'm not concerned about you being scammed Riz, nor anyone else who is savvy.