Agreed.

As I said earlier there is enormous competition for women's attention and they are very well served by the plethora of options available via rapidly expanding digital technology.

You are right Big Nana, women choose social interaction, family, local community and the associated sites where the internet is concerned. Men can learn from that because a happy life is the meaningful life, one that is made worthwhile through contribution and and interacting socially is most important. Resilience is defined as our social connectnedness with others and many women are prudently attending to that.

Philips:

If in my opinion you are not open to being enlightened then it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that when you say you want to be enlightened then you are lying. What other conclusion could I reach without changing my opinion that you are not capable of being enlightened? Any other conclusion would be totally illogical.

Dear phanto,

Not quite, as there were other possibilities that you had overlooked in your analysis.

<<If in my opinion you are not open to being enlightened then it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that when you say you want to be enlightened then you are lying.>>

These are as follows:

1. That I am not open to being enlightened, but believe that I am.
2. That your opinion is false, and that I am indeed open to being enlightened.
3. That my intrapersonal skills are sufficient to know that my post was not a cry for help, and that I am now in the process of demonstrating the falsity of your claim by highlighting the fact that you are unable to state how an objective interpretation of the post in question could only lead one to the conclusion that it was a cry for help.

Ignoring for the moment the fact that you had overlooked these other possibilities, though, I would point out that you presented your conclusion as more than merely your conclusion. Indeed, your use of the word ‘must’ suggested that your observation was objective and incontrovertible.

<<What other conclusion could I reach without changing my opinion that you are not capable of being enlightened?>>

I listed at least one above. I trust this will answer your question.

Philips:

“1. That I am not open to being enlightened, but believe that I am.”

But I don’t care what you believe about whether or not you are open. I only need to know what I believe. I act upon my beliefs not yours.

“2. That your opinion is false, and that I am indeed open to being enlightened.”

But I don’t care if you think my opinion is false. I only need to know what I think. I act on my opinions not yours.

“3. That my intrapersonal skills are sufficient to know that my post was not a cry for help”

But I don’t care what you think about your ‘intrapersonal skills’ or whether you agree that your post was a cry for help. I was not interested in your opinions about your behaviour. I was only interested in expressing my own opinions as a contribution to the discussion. Others may agree or disagree as they see fit.

You are the one going to such extraordinary lengths to defend yourself from a simple opinion. In fact you are demonstrating the very thing that I was talking about which is the fragile emotional stability of some people who contribute to the discussions on this forum. The intensity of your defensiveness is in my opinion streets ahead of anyone else here.

Dear phanto,

This may very well be the case.

<<But I don’t care what you believe about whether or not you are open.>>

But you had made a claim that I had told untruths, therefore, what I believe matters as the act of lying requires intent.

<<I only need to know what I believe.>>

Unfortunately this is not the case if we are to make claims about others.

<<I act upon my beliefs not yours.>>

Indeed that is the case. But what you act upon is not at issue here.

<<But I don’t care if you think my opinion is false.>>

I understand that. However, I was merely listing a possibility, not making an argument.

<<But I don’t care what you think about your ‘intrapersonal skills’ or whether you agree that your post was a cry for help.>>

I understand this, too. Again, however, I was merely listing a possibility, not making an argument.

<<You are the one going to such extraordinary lengths to defend yourself from a simple opinion.>>

I would not exactly call it extraordinary. These responses do not take much time or effort. One need only see how quickly I responded to that last post of yours to see this.

It could also be argued, if one was so inclined, that the length at which you will apparently go, in order to avoid explaining how an objective interpretation of my post could only lead one to the conclusion that it was a cry for help, is extraordinary. With all the exchanges we have now engaged in, one would think that your good self could quite easily have explained this by now. You cited time wastage as a motivation for refusing my request, however, this looks less and less to be the case the further we converse.

<<… you are demonstrating the very thing that I was talking about which is the fragile emotional stability of some people ...>>

If I were emotionally fragile, then one would think I would be losing my composure. On the contrary, I think we are having a rather calm and enjoyable discussion.

Philips:

“ the length at which you will apparently go, in order to avoid explaining how an objective interpretation of my post could only lead one to the conclusion that it was a cry for help, is extraordinary”

But I don’t need to explain it. Having no need can hardly be interpreted as avoidance. You are the one who seems to have the need for me to explain it. Rather than just dismiss it as untrue you seem to need to convince yourself that it is untrue by examining my arguments. You are obviously not confident that it is untrue or else you would not be so eager to hear my arguments.

“If I were emotionally fragile, then one would think I would be losing my composure.”

Not necessarily. Your fragility is evidenced by your call for my reasons as to describing your post as a cry for help. An emotionally secure person would simply examine their own conscience and dismiss my opinion as being wrong or else they would conclude that I was right. Their feelings of guilt would be their guide and not the reasons given by their accuser.

“On the contrary, I think we are having a rather calm and enjoyable discussion.”

You should not be so presumptuous as to pretend to know my feelings or are you trying to convince yourself of your own?