mererdog

That you do not know how to do it suggests that you can't know whether others do. Ignorance being a lousy basis for a claim of knowledge, you dig? No. It is analyzing sharing to determine varying levels of fairness. Some share fairly, some do not. That is not all that it is. Fairness is about treating others properly. It is about justice, dignity, human rights, and playing by the rules. Only if you assume both that a single transaction can occur in a vacuum, and that it us possible to measure all the things others give you. This is something you need to understand, on at least a subconscious level, to have a successful marriage. Nah. The authors are saying that treating strangers differently than you do family is unfair. Not wrong, mind you, but just unfair. The sharing experiment measures treatment of strangers, and the reaction to how strangers are treated. That is compared to the baseline hidden assumption that people share fairly freely with their family. As motives, they are. As outcomes, they are not. I'm afraid focusing on any one aspect of fairness can only lead to confusion of what fairness actually is...

A fair deal is impersonal, honest, and open. http://www.wired.com/2010/03/evolution-of-fairness/

Some are, most are not. Whether or not you are "inviting competition" is irrelevant. Once your competition is gone, you have a monopoly. Whether it lasts a day, a year, or a decade. Or it simply doesn't get paid, because people decide to go into less expensive enterprises where profit is more readily available. The thing you seem to miss is that monopoly is not about whether people can compete, but about whether people do compete- and there are lots of reasons why people would decide not to enter into a market. It is common in rural areas for a business to have a monopoly in the local market simply because no one has decided that competing with them is the best profit opportunity.

When only a little over half the voting age public vote, elections can not be indicative of what most people want. In a party system, votes tend not to go for what people want, but for what they are willing to grudgingly settle for... It effectively derails your argumentation. You have to admit its an effective gambit.....

I suggest researching the phrase "barriers to entry" and rethinking that position.

Hubris. But its nothing I can't handle...

Von, not to be picky, but it is a bad idea to think that people who are given charity owe something to those who give the charity. It devalues the willing sacrifice inherent in the act of charity. "I deserve" does not equal "You owe". Make any sense?

I keep expecting free donuts.

The woman I married.

http://kumaremovie.com/

Yes. It is ok. People are entitled to their emotions. Communication is a cooperative process. I cannot force you to understand me. You have to put effort in, too. If understanding me requires more effort than you are willing to put in, I will not be understood. Am I wrong if do not limit my vocabulary and syntax for the sake of being understood by those with less fluency, or are they wrong for failing to learn to read what I right? In my opinion, trying to place blame in a such a circumstance is simply an exercise in ego-tripping. That is simple base prejudice. It is every bit as stupid as assuming that a man is a thief, simply because he is black. Perhaps if you stopped talking about her in that way, you would stop giving her the impression that you are attempting to publicly humiliate her. Because that is exactly how you are coming across to me. Please note that you don't have to read anything anyone writes on this forum. Not only is there an ignore function in the forum settings, but it is fairly easy to simply skip over any text with an offending person's name attached to them. There is no need to announce that you are doing it. In fact, announcing that you are doing it only serves to act as a personal attack. If you didn't mean your words to be an attack, please understand that is exactly how your words will seem to most people.I'm sorry if my assessment of your actions was off-base, or if my wording was rude.

Not really. What creates ease of understanding is familiarity, not adherence to rules. Following set rules makes it easier to create familiar patterns, but those rules are not necessary for it to happen. This is proven by the fact that we are all able to communicate fairly effectively long before we know about things like grammar, simply because of our innate ability to parrot our parents.

Linguistic authoritarianism is an ugly thing. The prejudice it causes brings out ugliness in everyone who embraces it. Fair warning

I agree. Mostly because I don't like putting the government in the position of deciding what does and does not qualify as religious activity.

It takes a fair amount of trying to get banned from this forum, assuming you don't just spam it with pill ads or porn. There are even people who have been banned, given a second chance, and banned again. And those doing the banning have almost always seemed genuinely sorry that they felt it necessary to do so. It is also worth mentioning that being banned from the forum does nothing other than preventing someone from accessing some of the forum's features. It doesn't effect ordainment, or anything like that....

http://i.word.com/idictionary/life

And why not? I know people who seem to make good use of their definitions of God. I always liked that joke.

Are you suggesting that if I can't do something, no one can?

Why can't it be defined?

Good eye. I did not notice that. I just figured the Care Bear footy pajamas ruled out the possibility that it is an adult.

Nonsense. I can easily prove that there is not an adult African elephant in my living room.

While I should not expect my claim to be accepted until proven, challenging pan to disprove my claim was simply a way of challenging him to prove his earlier claim...

You sure about that? It seems to me that, scientifically speaking, not knowing how to test something is not the same as it being untestable, and not having proof is not the same as proof not existing. Or to put it another way... There is a test that proves a certain animal is extinct. Prove me wrong.

As long as that holds true, there can be no reconciliation, and a reunion will only amount to a confrontation. You could work on trying to change the parent's desires on the matter, but for what purpose? Often, a child turned bitter by constant betrayal can be softened by compassion during times of tragedy. Often, it is helpful not to make too many assumptions about who the toxic people are, until and unless you have dealt with them yourself...

There's a lot in your story that is beautiful and a lot that is terrible. It sounds tiring, to say the least. Hope the children are coming through it all well.