Ugh… I never said that. The point has always been about when people assert the cannot possibly be interested in someone of a particular group, not whether the are identifying whether they are interested in people of some group.

I use disgust for a very good reason. That's the feeling people have to the idea of being with someone because they considered them valueless of inferior. Everyone expressing a preference against a specific race (i.e. "I couldn't possible ever be attracted to someone of that race" ) is disgusted by thought of being…

Well… we can… and should… though most people don't like to hear it (in some ways this is bound-up a culture which discriminates against gay people. What could be worse than being involved with someone of the same sex? Nothing (supposedly). It must be rejected as even a possible state ). I don't identify myself with…

Which is the point… someone can't remove the possibility the might have desire for each of the millions of black people they're talking about.

It actually sort of is. If you, as a first principle, proclaim that it is not possible that you will find any black person attractive because there colour of their skin, you are suggesting having black skin is so horrible that you will never find anyone with it attractive.

Not exactly… no-one is obligated to have sex with anyone or to find them attractive.

Despite still liking Megan, I do agree Betty is a more interesting character. The two characters sort of explore similar themes: dreams which are never fulfilled, conflict with social expectations about their role as a wife, a deep concern to be valued by others. The difference is that, in the case of Megan, they are…

I still like her. Much of her anxiety, at it least it seems to me, resulted out of other people behaving terribly towards her. She wanted to be loved, to be valued, to be accepted by her family, but everyone in her life was constantly implying she worthless no matter what (and irrespective of any criticism of what she…

Scientism is actually does the opposite. It demands certainty through science, such that we can be confident are present descriptions of the world always apply. Effectively, it is the repetition of one of the major feature of religious faith: the state of human understanding which will ensure the world will be exactly…

Considering one's personality like bones does doesn't actually suppose are always fixed like a car engine. It is merely to suppose that, like one's bones, one's personality is an existing state of oneself. Sometimes bones are fixed through the body doing something pretty much on its own (e.g. resting to allow strew…

The problem is you were never discussing anything clinical. Or even just honesty about the state of someone relationship and what they seek for the future. You were proposing a marriage counsellors as an influence dedicated to ensuring people do not divorce, as if it was the goal of the marriage counsellor to…

I don't know. To me it seem indicative of Don's problem: always looking for success from the outside, rather than coming to terms with himself, what he is doing and what he is missing in his life.

I think it is both things. Each is part of the same event. Don gets fulfilment from performing a specific way, which obtains a particular reaction and status from others. He can't do that anymore. That world is gone.

I think the issue is how distracting the carrying verb is from the dialogue. Fancy synonyms often introduce a layer of commentary on top what is said, as if the author is a person analysing a character's speech and identifying what there statement is doing (e.g. "he equivocated" ).

Actually… that's exactly what it is. You are attacking the worth of Dunham on the grounds which is not "traditionally attractive." You are using here appearance as an excuse to dismiss whatever she does or says (regardless of its quality). Whether people are judged in the on being traditionally attractive or not, it…

But…. that exactly what you doing. You attacked Tori's work on the grounds it was failed copy Kate's work. You accused her of being a failed version of Kate Bush.

Proving my point: you are judging here music on whether it does the same thing as Kate's. You've seen the superficial similarities in there work and then, by default, assumed that Tori's music if trying to do the same thing as Kate's. You haven't approached her music in terms of itself. You've expected it to be like…

I'm afraid that is an egregious falsehood on your part; you attacked Tori's music on the basis it didn't do the same thing as that of Kate Bush. You did not approach it on its own terms, as a messy, erratic and self-indulgent dance thorough ideas, feelings and sensations. You attacked it for focusing on those…

Ah… but it's not. The natural world does not "support," somehow "ground," this philosophy. That's misunderstanding things to be defined by something outside themselves. The arbitrariness of the world is a point of logic, not some state confirmed or not confirmed by looking at what states of the world exists.

I can tell your philosophy of art from the nature of your responses; instead of treating it as a question of a given object itself , you ware trying to define it by what one particular object does (Kate Bush's music) and then are judging other things as if they are meant to do exactly the same thing.