Can a guy REALLY love you if he comments on other girls saying that they're cute?

What do we mean when we say that we think "in words"? When I think, I don't "hear" speech or "see" written words. So what is it, exactly, that we are aware of that indicates that thought is linguistic?

Is it, say, "reasonable" that philosophers analyse a scientific concept? I was wondering about concepts coming from the social sciences. Would it be a philosophical task to analyse e.g. the concept of "social interaction", as it is used by social scientists?

Following along from http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/2039: "Does the law of bivalence demand that a proposition IS either true or false today? What if the truth or falsity of this proposition is a correspondence to a future event that has yet to occur?" What's problematical about saying "yes, it's either true or false, but I don't happen to know which"? Is that substantively different from saying the same thing about an open problem in science or mathematics, to which the answer is presumably knowable but happens not yet to be known? The questioner seems to be demanding both that there be an answer, which may be a reasonable thing to want, and to be able to know what the answer is, which isn't necessarily reasonable. Is it reasonable always to expect somebody (other than deity) to know the answer to a question?

The consideration that harm is inherently related to the perception of the harmed (i.e., s/he who perceives that s/he has been harmed has been harmed) is widely accepted, and I even sometimes see philosophers on this site answering questions of ethics from this position. However, it seems to me that this way of viewing "harm" is too generally subjective. Are there widely accepted objective means for defining harm? What are they?

I am a very skilled amateur magician. As such I believe I hold a slightly better understanding about perception, deception, belief, conviction, and the human thought process than the average man on the street. One aspect about humanity that continually amazes me is the sheer predictability of actions and the dearth of variation when it comes to responding to a given situation. Case in point: In the middle of presenting a card trick where a chosen playing card continually goes to MY pocket under increasingly strenuous conditions I make the off-handed comment "One time I did this trick and I applied a little too much pressure and the card invisibly shot out and ended up in some other guy's pocket...". 9 times out of 10 after I am done with the initial sequences the spectator I am engaging will challenge me to make the card go to HIS pocket. Needless to say I have already secreted the card to his pocket using technical machinations much, much earlier. To the spectator the challenge was a random one; to me it...

Is it ethical to "cure" a mentally disabled/disturbed person if they might actually be unhappier when they are "healthy" than they were before when they were living in their own "world"?

I had to deal with some absolutely respectless persons a short while ago. They were very annoying to me, definitely the kind I don't like. This brought me to a question that seems interesting, at least to me: Do people that don't show any respect to other people deserve any respect themselves? Or, formulated else: Should respectless persons still be respected (e.g., by the persons they show no respect to)?

I personally think that abortion is immoral. But I don't think that everything that is immoral should be illegal. Marital infidelity is also immoral, but I feel strongly that it shouldn't be illegal. In the case of abortion, I don't know how I feel (nor what I should think) about the legal question. So my general question is this: is the inference from the immorality of some act X to the claim that X ought to be illegal ever justified? If not, why not?

Suppose a man commits murder and is then promptly involved in a car crash that leads to complete loss of all his memories prior to the car crash. The police have indisputable proof that the man did indeed commit the murder. Should they prosecute? If you conclude that they should because in some sense he's physically the same person what if a murderer somehow makes a copy of themselves and then commits suicide, should the copy be prosecuted? If you conclude that they shouldn't be prosecuted because the person after the accident is a different person from before the accident what if there's indisputable evidence that all of their memories will return in 5 years? 5 weeks? 5 days? To my mind the person after the accident is a different person from the one who committed the murder and should therefore not be prosecuted. If the memories return then they should be prosecuted but we shouldn't punish them for a crime "they" didn't commit. But I am unsure as to how much of their memories need to return before...