A lot of people seem to be behaving like Librans just lately, especially when they respond to my posts. Why do you think that is?
Perhaps they would break out some technical jargon, and give some kind of explanation like "well, you see here in your chart, the position of Mercury and Jupiter show that your argumentative side is mitigated by... etc, etc"
That's not simply an answer to excuse apparent contradictions, it's an explanation of the way it really is. Technical jargon, as you call it, is there for a valid reason. The astrologers I've always consulted (Linda Goodman, Suzanne White, Liz Greene, Teri King) are not fakes or charlatans, they know exactly what they are talking about. If you actually read some of the books by those astrologers, maybe you will realise that they are right. I say "maybe" because I don't know how open your mind really is, although you haven't given much impression so far that it is very open.
To answer that, first consider why people are born with any particular traits, period. This can be expressed as a combination of just two groups of factors: genetic, and environmental. Genetic factors are straightforward enough, it's the random combination of genes inherited from your parents. Environmental factors are anything in the environment that can affect the development of a person, such as nutrition, socialization, education, air quality, water quality, etc.
So, genetic factors plus environmental factors results in a person with their own unique combination of personality traits. Exactly how these factors all combine to produce each human being is not completely clear, and it's a subject of intense study by biologists. However, it doesn't seem that there's any room for anything outside of genetics, and environment.
Now, you claim that everyone born under a particular sign shares certain traits. All I have heard from you is your own anecdotal experiences about this. That's fine, you have certain experiences, but clearly you are biased towards a belief in astrology, so that needs to be taken into account. What I'd need to see, before accepting this premise, is some kind of data showing a correlation between zodiac sign and personality traits.
What I'm left to conclude is simply that different people have different personality traits through some combination of genetics and environment. I haven't seen anything other than some sparse, biased anecdotal evidence correlating personality and zodiac sign, so I see no reason to give it any special consideration, just as you would probably eschew factors like skull shape, blood type, etc.
Sorry, Rpf, but I cannot accept that as a valid answer, because you used the R-word (pronounced to rhyme with "tandem"). Anything with that word in it is automatically dismissed from the list of acceptable possibilities. Please try again.
It would be more personally satisfying to me if people didn't respond like Librans because it's an argumentative sign. I would prefer it if they responded like the more personal-oriented, partisan signs like Scorpio or Cancer.
The fact is, people will answer how they see fit, and sometimes you will like it, and sometimes you won't. I don't see what signs have to do with it. Saying a person is argumentative makes perfect sense to me. Adding that Librans are argumentative adds nothing to my understanding, so why even mention it?
Me...argumentative? Pshaw! ;)
Librans have this habit of taking the opposite stance on just about every issue. They don't really mind which side they take as long as it's the other side. They think it keeps things balanced, I suppose. Nevertheless, it's not the kind of response I expect when I post something. Why can't you see what that has to do with it?
All this is saying is that certain people like to take the opposite stance on things. Some people are contrarians by nature or by mental habit. Adding "Libran" to that tells me nothing. Christopher Hitchens was a great contrarian, whose sun sign happened to be Aries, and moon sign happened to be Libra: http://www.astrotheme.com/astrology/Christopher_Hitchens
For a snippet of his opinion on astrology, try this:
The fact that you don't expect contrary responses is really your problem; considering that you get so many of them, you should have learned to expect them by now.
I'm not going to watch that video, I am treating it as spam. Apart from that, why do Librans have a reputation for being argumentative? It must be something to do with their tendency to take the opposite stance on things. I've spoken to enough of them to know that they are like that, in varying degrees.
LOL, how is it spam? It's merely an opinionated man, giving his opinion in his usual deft and charming manner.
As for "why do Librans...." you may as well ask "why are Harry Potter's turds green?". Because J.K. Rowling said they were.
Your last sentence really tells it all: "...they are like that, in varying degrees". Name any human attribute, and most people will possess that attribute, to some degree. That's why people fall for astrology in the first place man: People naturally pick up on what applies to them, and things like "you can sometimes be argumentative, to some degree" is sure to encompass nearly everyone. And if you feel it doesn't apply to you at all, you will naturally pick up on other, equally vague aspects of your "sign". Complete bollocks.
ROFLMAO xD
Lol:)
All right then, Rpf, if it's nothing to do with astrological signs and whatnot, why else are people born on certain dates born with certain traits? Don't try to tell me they are not, because I've seen too many similarities between people who share the same birthday to believe otherwise.
Any videos (not just ones with Christopher Hitchens in them) which attempt to discredit astrology in the vain hope of converting people who believe in it is a form of spam. I've said that before and I'll say it again if I see any more videos like that (it doesn't have to be posted by you, it matters not a fig who the poster is).
Have you read any of Linda Goodman's books? I think you'll find from those books that Librans are described as argumentative.
First off, as I just pointed out, when you qualify an already general attribute (which is itself subjective, since what you consider argumentative may not be considered as such by everyone) with terms like "to varying degrees", it's hardly a unifying trait.
Second, when you base it on your own subjective judgement, you will naturally be inclined to notice what fits with your preconceived ideas about people of a particular sign, and eschew what does not fit.
The Hitchens clip was really more a bit of amusement, as you can see the delight that people take in his eloquence, and the delight he himself evidently takes in blasting apart what he considers foolishness.
I would suggest that your disdain for this "spam" is really just fear on your part, of having to critically examine your own beliefs, and finding the actual evidence wanting.
Just more proof that even astrologers can't agree on the interpretation of the signs.
Not necessarily, Rpf. I have noticed in the last few years that many of these online astrologers tend to focus on the nicer side of each sign while saying very little (if anything) about the negative characteristics. On the other hand, Linda Goodman went into laborious detail about everything, not just the nicer traits. Linda's books alone are sufficient proof that astrology is true, although I had already discovered that for myself about a year before I first read one of her books.
I already discovered lots and lots of evidence - great lumbering truckloads of evidence - that astrology was true long before the Internet even existed. Why should I "fear" an ignorant moron like Hitchens who has nothing better to do with his life than to make videos especially to provide skeptics with spam fodder?
Now, perhaps you would like to answer this question: Why did my astrological sign already fit me so accurately when I was a child, yet I didn't discover it until I was 19? That alone proves it must be true because I was already conforming to something before I even knew it existed. How is that proof, you might ask? Simple. It proves that the conformity is natural and that we don't really need to consult books to find out what we're supposed to be like because we were already born with those traits. When we do consult those books, we simply find out why we are the way we are. There's nothing remotely foolish about any of this.
Everybody knows that's a bunch of Taurus.
Funny you should say that, Jewels. Taurus is high on the list of signs least likely to believe it, yet they still conform to their sign just like others conform to theirs. I'll give you an example to explain what I mean. A friend of mine called Barry, who I have known since the early 1980s, is such a typical Taurus that I correctly guessed that was his sign before he told me when his birthday was (it's May 9). In typically Taurean stubbornness, he still can't see that he is still conforming to his sign despite the fact that he doesn't believe in it. But I say this: why would he want to conform to something he's never believed in? Once again, that proves that the conformity is natural and not a personal choice. If we had any choice in the matter, those who don't believe in it wouldn't conform to it, would they? Surely that makes sense.
Once again, you are accepting evidence that confirms your belief, in the case of your friend Barry, while ignoring all the cases where people don't conform to their signs. Thanks again for demonstrating that astrology is nothing but a bit of cold reading combined with confirmation bias.
As for your friend, consider this: Is Taurus the only sign where stubbornness is a part of their personality? If so, then there's still a 1/12 chance that any one person who is considered stubborn would "match" their astrological sign.
According to this site, both Taurus and Scorpio are considered the most stubborn. So now the chances are only 1 in 6.
And on this site, EVERY sign is considered to have some kind of stubborn streak. So if you consider a person stubborn, and you take this view of astrology, then there is a 100% chance that you will conclude that they "conform" to their sign!
You see why I have a problem with these kinds of beliefs?
