Is it possible to get people banned for beeing a Nazi?

[_venox_]

Belief is only one aspect of religion, yet I don''t think that religion had that huge of a lasting impact as let''s say the Enlightenment. Me giving shit about religion has nothing to do with whether I belief in at least one god or whether I claim to know whether gods can exist. I am for sure agnostic, not necessarily atheistic. I dislike the concept of believing' only if you can get any kind of value out of your belief it is worth considering.

[arkz]

Dont tell me that women arent attracted to men who are either strong and handsome or rich and powerful. They may not know why this is so, just calling it "chemistry," but its due to genetics and evolution.

There goes that misogyny again. Ofc, only the naive females dont understand why they are attracted to those "strong, handsome, rich and powerful" men you speak of.
Seriously, whats the matter with you? Did your father rape you while Casablanca was on?
Maybe its news to you, however, there are also men that call "it" (ofc, conveniently you didnt really define it) "chemistry".

And about the other stuff:
It really is nothing but an extremely selective perception of human behaviour, ignoring tons of facts and creating your own convenient reality. Basically you just act like those "religions" (self-understandingly you never get specific as you should because - surprise- religions do have differences) which always tried to make people think that the values they promote arent a matter of opinion but a matter of facts. Instead of just accepting that a every BELIEF needs you to BELIEVE certain people are trying to convince others for example that it would be scientifically proven that God created the world. You are doing the same. Instead of accepting that you indidvidually have chosen to be a cynic with no heart you try to convince people that it actually is a matter of knowing biology wether or not one believes (there is that word again) in "chemistry" between two human beings, let alone love.

I can understand why many think that we have little or nothing in common with other animals because the man versus nature dichotomy has long been ingrained into Western thinking by religion.

Its funny you would write that since the existence of religion itself (wether you believe in any them or not) basically is all the proof you need to understand that there is a categorical difference between the normal human being (with "normal" I only want to exlude extreme cases of mental handicaps) and the rest of nature.

[color=e61919]User was warned for this post.[/color]

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[jacksonpollock]

Hey man that was a bit out of line. Consider this a warning, be civil or don''t post.

I agree 100%

[arkz]

Hey man that was a bit out of line. Consider this a warning, be civil or dont post.

You mean this?

Did your father rape you while Casablanca was on?

Since that statement clearly had context and a connection to the discussion I actually consider it to be an obvious metaphor.
I mean, theres a substantial difference between my line and any arbitrary insults but ok...

[Dolan]

Hardly any theory needed when saying that male animals want to have sex most of the time. If you have ever been a teenage male you will know what I mean.
Don''t tell me that women aren''t attracted to men who are either strong and handsome or rich and powerful. They may not know why this is so, just calling it "chemistry," but it''s due to genetics and evolution.
Any prospective parents that accept random sperm without checking into the donor''s background are fools. However technology doesn''t negate the fact that 99% of humans still propagate like their ancestors did.

You know, what is funny is that you come here spouting the latest bio-psychological hardline theses, but you are yourself unaware how completely shaped your mindset is by your culture.

For example, this assumption that women choose mates based on what they desire and that this makes them control the rate of reproduction. It''s well known that for centuries women had absolutely no say in whom they (were) mated with. Their father or local leader decided whom a woman should be given to marry/have kids with. This happened from prehistoric times until recently. In fact, in one of the first written codes of laws (Hammurabi''s code) there are rules which mention that the father decided whom his daughter should marry, after a man paid "purchase-money" for his future wife. How was that "evolution doing its job", Metis? How was the alpha male with the best genes getting the best chances at reproduction if her father could decide whatever he wanted. He could give her to a guy who just happened to inherit a fortune, but he was otherwise a total beta male. If her father''s interest was to get money from that guy, the deal was sealed.
In Ancient Rome, women''s husbands were decided by their family, and their decisions involved family politics, alliances for particular gains.
During the Middle ages, the same pattern continued to apply, except that the church had more influence on regulating behaviours. Marriage was still largely a patrimonial affair, although marriage based on attraction was also possible, usually among the lower classes, because they had no incentive to marry for property or status.
Another example that comes to mind is India, where marriage (and reproduction) has been decided by families for centuries.

Which of these patterns can be found in animal behaviour research? In which other species an animal''s "family" decides whom they should mate with based on patrimonial, political or caste interests?

[_venox_]

One might argue that for evolution to do it's job it's not always needed to be physically strong. It used to be the person who is able to look after his family, and who could better look after his family at a time where we weren't hunters and gatherers any longer than somebody with a lot of wealth?

[Dolan]

Yes, but I was addressing Metis' point that women controlled reproduction, when historically that hasn't been the case for ages.
Whether the suitor was wealthy or not, it was still the family and not the woman who decided. So, attraction surely had no influence whatsoever in whom she would marry. The fact that women can have a lot of choice today is a very recent phenomenon.

[evilcheadar]

Hey man that was a bit out of line. Consider this a warning, be civil or dont post.

You mean this?

Did your father rape you while Casablanca was on?

Since that statement clearly had context and a connection to the discussion I actually consider it to be an obvious metaphor.
I mean, theres a substantial difference between my line and any arbitrary insults but ok...

Sick of the arbitrary insults on these forums.

[Metis]

It's sometimes difficult to make a layperson understand a population biology concept, just as it would be hard to explain to me the intricacies of quantum mechanics because I just don't have the necessary background or math.

A father in a patriarchal Hellenistic or Medieval society deciding who his daughter will be betrothed to has little to do with the biological rate of reproduction. When I said that females in a polygamous species control the rate of reproduction I made it clear that this was because they are biologically limited to producing only a certain number of offspring per year, whereas the males could potentially mate with hundreds of females in that same time period. This is not misogyny, it's biology. Biology further controls reproduction in humans by making it less likely to conceive while nursing.

In general, it would appear that the more frequent and the longer the episodes of breastfeeding, the longer will be the period of anovulation, and the longer the period of infertility. -- The effect of lactation on ovulation and fertility. Clinics in Perinatology. 1987 Mar 14 (1):39-50.

However, even in ancient times humans knew birth control methods. The Ebers Papyrus, written about 1500 BCE, gives one method.

To prevent conception, smear a paste of dates, acacia, and honey to wool and apply as a pessary (i.e., a medical device inserted into the vagina).

Such methods gave women even more control over the rate of reproduction, just as modern methods of birth control do today. Although no method of birth control, apart from sterilization, is 100% effective this doesn't mean that a modern woman can't for the most part control whether or not she is going to get pregnant if she wants to. That woman in the video who had 15 kids just wasn't bothering to use any birth control, yet she expected the welfare system to pay for her (and, yes her baby daddies') laziness.

[evilcheadar]

It''s sometimes difficult to make a layperson understand a population biology concept, just as it would be hard to explain to me the intricacies of quantum mechanics because I just don''t have the necessary background or math.

A father in a patriarchal Hellenistic or Medieval society deciding who his daughter will be betrothed to has little to do with the biological rate of reproduction. When I said that females in a polygamous species control the rate of reproduction I made it clear that this was because they are biologically limited to producing only a certain number of offspring per year, whereas the males could potentially mate with hundreds of females in that same time period. This is not misogyny, it''s biology. Biology further controls reproduction in humans by making it less likely to conceive while nursing.

In general, it would appear that the more frequent and the longer the episodes of breastfeeding, the longer will be the period of anovulation, and the longer the period of infertility. -- The effect of lactation on ovulation and fertility. Clinics in Perinatology. 1987 Mar 14 (1):39-50.

However, even in ancient times humans knew birth control methods. The Ebers Papyrus, written about 1500 BCE, gives one method.

To prevent conception, smear a paste of dates, acacia, and honey to wool and apply as a pessary (i.e., a medical device inserted into the vagina).

Such methods gave women even more control over the rate of reproduction, just as modern methods of birth control do today. Although no method of birth control, apart from sterilization, is 100% effective this doesn''t mean that a modern woman can''t for the most part control whether or not she is going to get pregnant if she wants to. That woman in the video who had 15 kids just wasn''t bothering to use any birth control, yet she expected the welfare system to pay for her (and, yes her baby daddies'') laziness.

Forming a plaster wall between male and female is 100% effective birf controw metod

[arriah]

It''s sometimes difficult to make a layperson understand a population biology concept, just as it would be hard to explain to me the intricacies of quantum mechanics because I just don''t have the necessary background or math.

A father in a patriarchal Hellenistic or Medieval society deciding who his daughter will be betrothed to has little to do with the biological rate of reproduction. When I said that females in a polygamous species control the rate of reproduction I made it clear that this was because they are biologically limited to producing only a certain number of offspring per year, whereas the males could potentially mate with hundreds of females in that same time period. This is not misogyny, it''s biology. Biology further controls reproduction in humans by making it less likely to conceive while nursing.

In general, it would appear that the more frequent and the longer the episodes of breastfeeding, the longer will be the period of anovulation, and the longer the period of infertility. -- The effect of lactation on ovulation and fertility. Clinics in Perinatology.?1987 Mar 14 (1):39-50.

However, even in ancient times humans knew birth control methods. The Ebers Papyrus, written about 1500 BCE, gives one method.

To prevent conception, smear a paste of dates, acacia, and honey to wool and apply as a pessary (i.e., a medical device inserted into the vagina).

Such methods gave women even more control over the rate of reproduction, just as modern methods of birth control do today. Although no method of birth control, apart from sterilization, is 100% effective this doesn''t mean that a modern woman can''t for the most part control whether or not she is going to get pregnant if she wants to. That woman in the video who had?15 kids just wasn''t?bothering to use any birth control, yet she expected the welfare system to pay for her (and, yes her baby daddies'') laziness.??

You keep changing the goal posts.

[Dolan]

You keep changing the goal posts.

Exactly my thought.

@metis

Again, you are treating humans as if we still lived in packs and beat our chests when we wanted to make a point. I get the idea that ultimately women control the rate of reproduction in the sense that men, if given the occasion, will be promiscuous and mate with as many as possible, whereas women will typicaly be more careful. It''s not much of an idea, if you think about it, it''s a truism, since it''s the woman who gets pregnant and has to carry the baby, not the man. So, obviously by nature women are forced to be careful, because men typically will not.

But how does this make women carry the blame about how many kids get born in a family, since you mentioned the video with the black woman? Why would you blame mostly the woman, just because typically they are more careful, that doesn''t mean they are expected to be more careful. You are conflating here an empirical statement with a normative statement. Just because women have typically been more careful with whom they mate doesn''t mean they should be expected to be more careful and bear most of the responsibility. This is the interesting thing in your attitude, the fact that for you moral judgement is based on biological facts. It''s quite a passive and alienated outlook, if you ask me. What is factually proven is also what it ought to be, that''s what your attitude implies. If (empirically) women control reproduction more then men, then responsibility must be mainly theirs, right?

This is not a question of scientific technicalities ("It''s sometimes difficult to make a layperson understand..."), there''s no need to make an appeal to authority here, since the issue was about responsibility not about which sex factually has the final say in whether a baby is born or not. You also forget that for many centuries women were expected to have kids, after their marriage was arranged. So, your argument that birth control is not something new doesn''t hold water here either, since it just wasn''t their call if they were to have kids or not. If they didn''t and they were expected to, they could get into trouble.

The problem with your position is biology doesn''t take into account the fact that we live in societies with laws and there are laws against men who leave women pregnant and try to escape responsibility. The fact that we live in lawful societies also made people careful about the possible consequences of them having unwanted kids with other people.

Your example with the black woman shows what happens when you have a welfare system which allows some people to breed like rabbits. But even with the welfare system incentive in place, that still doesn''t mean those kids will have a good chance in life. It''s very likely their parents won''t afford much education for them and they will fill the ranks of the poor.

On the other hand, if you like to base your moral judgment on empirical facts, this is simply an example of the [lower living standards - higher fertility rates] correlation which is well-documented in research. So, you''re basically reacting against a well-established empirical fact, claiming that these people should be more responsible, when it''s just nature doing its work, right? Why would you revolt against nature, if one shouldn''t impart responsibility based on any other principle except for empirical facts, as you argued?

[Metis]

If you don't base your judgments on fact then what do you base them on? Even if the vast majority of human males are responsible where it comes to birth control, the few that aren't can and do father numerous children. It's up to the female to chose whether or not she wants to have a child.

[video src="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_vcsJ5KNQQ"][/video]

[Dolan]

What are the facts? You've shown two vids with two black people who had lots of kids and live on welfare. How is that relevant for the whole species?

I mean, where is the connection between all that general stuff about evolution you were writing earlier on and 2 extreme cases from a certain "race" group? Are these two cases supposed to confirm those general points about evolution?

[goldenicon]

really hope it's not possible

[Metis]

What are the facts? You''ve shown two vids with two black people who had lots of kids and live on welfare. How is that relevant for the whole species?

You are correct that the videos show how people can reproduce without much consequence to themselves by taking advantage of the legal and welfare systems. However, this is not why I presented them per se. Recall that I was arguing the point that no matter if the vast majority of males were responsible where birth control was concerned that it only takes a few non-responsible ones to impregnate as many females as they would have anyway. This is the exact same point I was making when I mentioned why pheasant populations can be maintained even when 75% of the roosters are harvested each hunting season. My conclusion is that it''s ultimately up to a female to practice birth control if she doesn''t want a pregnancy. Also, with our looming overpopulation, if a female doesn''t want to practice birth control then it may become incumbent on society to do it for her.

You can make the same point from the standpoint of sexually transmitted diseases. That there even are sexually transmitted diseases shows that, the modern purported stance on monogamy aside, humans are a promiscuous species. That such diseases are still rampant today when nearly all can be easily prevented shows that the ape mind takes over from the human mind where sex is concerned.

"You can''t be wise and in love at the same time." -- Bob Dylan

??If they substituted the word ''Lust'' for ''Love'' in the popular songs it would come nearer the truth.? -- Sylvia Plath

[Dolan]

Wrote this reply on the Hitler and the revisionist history topic right when it got locked. So, here it is, if anyone's interested:

History is never settled, it's normal to be constantly researched and revised.

Now things were more nuanced with Hitler. He seemed to have some personal issue with Jews, because when he was young he tried to make it in the artistic world (he wanted to be a painter). He noticed that most of the arts institutions were controlled by Jews (theater directors, newspaper reviewers, art gallery owners and art critics). He was actually right about this from a sociological point of view, though this phenomenon might have been due to other causes than what he believed. It is known that on average Jews (at least Ashkenazi Jews) score higher in intelligence tests, so it's likely that they simply occupied those positions because they tended to look for jobs/occupations which required high intellect and which had a lot of impact on public opinion.

Hitler saw these things differently. He thought that Jews occupied those influential positions in society because they wanted to control them. He also thought the decadence of his age was caused by this Jewish influence on the arts. The historical period he lived in was marked by decadence in terms of public and private morale: just look at what people were creating during that time to get an idea what was the zeitgeist (surrealism, dadaism, theater of the absurd, atonal music). Hitler thought that arts should have headed in a different direction, one which should have boosted people's morale. If you remember how the Nazis banned all modernist art when they gained power and labelled it as "degenerate", blaming the Jews for that, you understand how this mentality actually appeared in Germany. He was also probably influenced by Nietzsche's writings, which he understood in a voluntarist, nationalist key, which Nietzsche probably never intended.

It's a long story, but the outbreak of the World War I was also related to this spirit of decadence in Europe. During that time, the youth were criticised for being passive and for wasting themselves in trifle pursuits. So when WW I started lots of young people saw it as an opportunity to prove themselves, like a new adventure which could help you create a name for yourself by fighting on the front. In that spirit of the age, Hitler fought in World War I and was even decorated for acts of bravery (he was injured when he tried to save some comrades). After the war ended and the Treaty of Versailles punished Germany, Hitler felt outraged by the outcome of a war in which he thought Germany was not defeated, but was unjustly treated as a defeated nation.

OK, I don't have time to write about everything, the political scene in Germany after WW I was more complicated, so it would take a lot of time to explain how Hitler came to power in a forum reply. I'll just jump to the point when he was in power and the Nazis built concentration camps for Jews. This issue has actually been thouroughly researched and historians have found out that Hitler was actually not so happy with making his decisions on concentration camps public. In fact, you probably noticed this was never shown in Nazi propaganda. The Nazis usually talked about Jews being "evacuated" and "resettled" in other areas, they never admitted publicly what was the purpose of these deportations. Not even international public opinion knew much about what was happening in those camps, there were rumours that prisoners were badly mistreated. The German public was even more manipulated by Nazi propaganda, most of them probably had no idea what was happening with deported Jews.

You have to delve into the spirit of the time to understand these actions. You can imagine that during wartime, thinking about what happens with some deported people is probably not a priority point on your everyday list of concerns. You probably are more worried about your family members on the warzone and what will happen with your country if it gets attacked by the enemy. You also have to get to your own opinions in an environment in which all the public media channels are controlled by Nazi propaganda.

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[hitlerdidnothinwrong]

I hope so, nazis suck.

[Dolan]

That was a relatively informative post, thanks for it.

Yeah, well, there actually are more theories on why Hitler had issues with Jews. Some of them are sort of far-fetched.
He had been a schoolmate with Wittgenstein, who was coming from a rich Jewish family, so everyone in his class was bending backwards to please the rich guy. Hitler couldn''t stand that, especially since Wittgenstein was at the same time smart, arrogant and rich. It was too much for little Hitler.

[Goodspeed]

Decent thread but I didn't like the way people attacked Metis for his "misogyny" when all he did was raise a legit problem: People taking advantage of the system without taking any resonsibility for their shitty choices. How the hell does it happen that a person on welfare has 15 children?
He also makes a perfectly valid point about women carrying most of the responsibility when it comes to birth control, which no one really seems to be addressing.
I'll admit his tone throughout the thread feels a bit off, but then again looking at it objectively I find nothing wrong with his posts. I guess that these days, with all this male guilt floating around, it's easy to seem misogynistic when you're being objective.

[arkz]

[quote author="@calmyourtits" timestamp="1446110119" source="/post/72124/thread"]
I'll admit his tone throughout the thread feels a bit off, but then again looking at it objectively I find nothing wrong with his posts. I guess that these days, with all this male guilt floating around, it's easy to seem misogynistic when you're being objective.[/quote]

All his text in regard to women is infilitrated by subtle misogyny. You can do nitpicking and hairsplitting all day long but all in all I (and seemingly many others too) got a really clear impression that there is something unhealthy behind his preposterous attitude of being "objective". ( Arriahs statement about metis "changing the goal posts" is so on point. He doesn't seem to be able or willing to get into a real discussion where one actually needs to be concrete by refering to specific points made by others.)

I'm sure that in your country (whereever you come from) there is for example some extreme right-wing political party (basically they're everywhere just in different sizes). My general experience is that these parties are mostly very careful to shout out their racist, homophobic (etc.) views in a pretty subtle way. It's very hard to nail it down. In western societies open discrimination mostly is in a very difficult situation. There is just not much room for it. There is, however, sadly still very much room for discrimination of all kinds in a subtle way, just as I have explained. That is the exact reason why like 90% of racist/anti-immigrant statements start with "I don't have anything against immigrants/black people/latinos etc. BUT...." And then one should prepare for some nasty shit...

[quote author="@calmyourtits" timestamp="1446110119" source="/post/72124/thread"]
He also makes a perfectly valid point about women carrying most of the responsibility when it comes to birth control, which no one really seems to be addressing.
[/quote]
No, he doesn't. As I already posted, much of his ludicrous "biological" explanations are naturalistic fallacies.
What you're saying here, however, actually isn't even a naturalistic fallacy, it is just nonsense. I really don't understand it.
Just because women in the western world (ofc for every part of the world where women are still being suppressed what metis said is nonsense anyway) nowadays have like the "final word" concerning pregnancy it doesn't mean that they have more "responsibility".

In literally EVERY case where a pregnancy wasn't an accident (mainly: pregnant even though a condom was used) the men and the women have the exact same responsibility concerning birth control.

[quote source="/post/72124/thread" author="@calmyourtits" timestamp="1446110119"] How the hell does it happen that a person on welfare has 15 children?
[/quote]

See, this is just what I meant with what I stated above. Your question respectively the question Metis raised isn't openly misogynistic. However, it feels like there is a misogynistic agenda behind it (even if it is just subconciously).

I'll answer your question with a question: How the hell would your question help anyone? Where's the value?
(Edit: And if anything you and Metis should be questioning the society that woman grew up in. People don't just get 15 kids by accident and then go screaming into tv cameras about it. Yes, that woman has responsibility for her children - just like the father(s) (pure coincidence metis just fails to mention that? LOL) of those children, just like parents in general. Still, people are shaped by their surroundings and obviously the way that woman is behaving is a fault of her society too.)

What do you want to do? Make it like China and not just take personal rights away (one-child policy) in general/randomly but based on a person's income? (I am getting scared more and more of what people around here seem to think.)
Or do you just want to let those children starve? Because that is the only alternative to solve the problem you put in your question and it also is what Metis was originally addressing:
[quote source="/post/70213/thread" timestamp="1445748522" author="@metis"]Don't you know that every female has a "right" to have as many offspring as she desires and it's society's responsibility to pay for them?
[/quote]
Mainly he indeed is insinuating that it wasn't "society's responsibility to pay" for the "offspring". Srsly, wtf? I'm not making this up. What he is suggesting there is just scary. And I stick to my claim: Judging by what he is writing here, I'm happy that he's doing so, because I think him running around acting on his views is pretty damn scary.
(And to get back to my first point: If he would actually respond to this, he'd probably would create another wall of words, claim that he didn't specificely said that those childcren should starve and people like you would be like: "Oh, he's right, looking at it objectively there is nothing wrong with his posts." Well, let me tell you, you simply have a wrong definition of "objectively" then.)


Edit:


[quote author="@calmyourtits" timestamp="1446110119" source="/post/72124/thread"]People taking advantage of the system without taking any resonsibility for their shitty choices.[/quote]
Omg, that is just too much. How cynical can a person be to watch the video of that woman and then start talking about "people taking advantage of the system"? Are you being serious, dude?
Wow, I'm simply getting the creeps here.

[arkz]

Wrote this reply on the Hitler and the revisionist history topic right when it got locked. So, here it is, if anyone''s interested:

History is never settled, it''s normal to be constantly researched and revised.

Now things were more nuanced with Hitler. He seemed to have some personal issue with Jews, because when he was young he tried to make it in the artistic world (he wanted to be a painter). He noticed that most of the arts institutions were controlled by Jews (theater directors, newspaper reviewers, art gallery owners and art critics). He was actually right about this from a sociological point of view, though this phenomenon might have been due to other causes than what he believed. It is known that on average Jews (at least Ashkenazi Jews) score higher in intelligence tests, so it''s likely that they simply occupied those positions because they tended to look for jobs/occupations which required high intellect and which had a lot of impact on public opinion.

Statement about history never being settled is right ofc, the general point of your post anyway.

However, the rest of that part I quoted is a bit wrong. Edit: Maybe not wrong but at least it is misleading.

You make it sound as if jews just were genetically more intelligent and therefore got jobs that required "high intellect". (Actually intelligence and intellect are different things but ok your point is clear.)

During the middle ages jews were severly discriminated. (Discrimination against jews had a long tradition in europe and ofc Hitler was also influenced by that, not just personal issues.) Therefore jews had to live in ghettos and were basically forbidden to do all kinds of "normal" work at that time. And this is where it gets relevant for the situation before WW2: Christians were forbidden by their religion to charge ANY interest. Jews on the other hand weren''t. Logically most of the jews became merchants, money lenders etc. This development led to jews being much wealthier than any other social group/the "standard" population. Being wealthier than the standard population led to jews being more educated. Gradually they started obtaining rights to do normal jobs and subsequently jews were largely overrepresented in the most reputable vocational classes.

[Metis]

To many, scientists may seem "a bit off" because most people immediately take sides and speak from emotion, whereas a scientist has been trained to examine the data dispassionately and come to an objective conclusion.

If you have read my posts in the two threads where we are discussion abortion you will see that I've been approaching the issue of abortion from two different sides, one for and one against. Ethically it's hard to condone abortion' however, environmentally it's difficult not to encourage it. Thus we have a paradox. If this were a philosophy forum we could examine this in some detail but it's difficult to do when people "discuss" only by restating their agenda and tossing around ad hominems,

It's nearly impossible to have a logical dialog with someone who has an agenda because they will never change their mind no matter what data are presented. Most will not even look at the data. Some of the posts here remind me of the TV nun who preached long and hard against the movie "The Last Temptation of Christ." A reporter asked her what she had found so wrong about it. She replied by saying that she hadn't and wouldn't see such an "evil" movie but she knew it was wrong because her church leaders told her so.

Don't just accept what others may have put into your heads -- think for yourselves. Also, question your emotions too. If you are extremely passionate about something it's sometimes best to back off a bit and ask yourself why this is so. As I pointed out in my optical illusion thread, our senses oftentimes deceive us. This also is true of our emotions.