Post by: Euld on September 30, 2011, 04:37:45 pm
Quote
Additionally, Dr. Patricia Love, the author of The Truth About Love, writes that a feeling of intimacy is created by a "chemical cocktail" that is produced in the brain during sex and stays with each person for up to 24 hours after intercourse. Perhaps this physiological bonding is what Rob was referring to.
On the flip side, having sex is no guarantee that the deep emotional intimacy that everyone longs for will develop.
Alice Fryling, in an article titled, Why Wait for Sex? writes:
"Genital sex is an expression of intimacy, not the means to intimacy. True intimacy springs from verbal and emotional communion. True intimacy is built on a commitment to honesty, love and freedom. True intimacy is not primarily a sexual encounter. Intimacy, in fact, has almost nothing to do with our sex organs. A prostitute may expose her body, but her relationships are hardly intimate."
Some experts even report that premarital sex short circuits the emotional bonding process. Donald Joy, a writer for Christianity Today, sited a study of 100,000 women that linked "early sexual experience with dissatisfaction in their present marriages, unhappiness with the level of sexual intimacy and the prevalence of low self-esteem."
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on September 30, 2011, 04:42:29 pm
That's cute, and makes me wonder what other kind of sex they're into.
Post by: LordBucket on September 30, 2011, 04:50:36 pm
I wanted to discuss the logic involved
The article appears to be promoting a particular worldview, however...if one were a piece of canvas at an art school, and one allowed any art student to paint on you for year and year, it's extremely unlikely that anyone wishing to paint a portrait would choose you over a blank canvass.
Sex can be an emotionally defining event. If one wishes to one day have an emotional and sexual relationship with only one single person, for example...marriage, then spending years becoming accustomed to a lifestyle of shallow emotional attachment and casual sex with many partners probably isn't the wisest choice.
Post by: Vector on September 30, 2011, 04:52:23 pm
Post by: LordBucket on September 30, 2011, 05:00:56 pm
Alternatively, canvases do need to be primed. Usually a picture is painted with layer
upon layer, building up bit by bit. Sometimes the picture changes mid-way.
Ok, but how do you "prime" the emotional state of a human being? How do you "prime" the sexual preferences of someone whose first orgasm was doing something that doesn't appeal to you? In my experience, emotionally and sexually significant events tend to stay with people for most of their lives.
Common sense question: who would have an easier time staying committed to a single relationship: the person who's only ever had one relationship, or the person's who's had several?
I'm not advising people which sort of lifestyle they should choose for themselves. But if anyone wants to have a stable, single "marriage" kind of relationship someday, then it makes sense to live that way rather than have lots of relationships and casually sleep around for years then suddenly expect to give it all up and commit to one person. And that applies to others too: if someone else has had 10 emotionally charged and/or sexually active relationships before you, it's going to be more difficult for them to stick with just one "from now on" than the person who's never had all those previous relationships.
Post by: Duke 2.0 on September 30, 2011, 05:03:43 pm
I'm not gonna take a position here because both sides will devolve to making personal claims while the other side asks for sources to back them up.
Subjective, depends on the person. Somebody could be burned out to the idea of multiple partners and decide they want only one partner. Somebody who has had only one relationship may feel the urge for something new and exotic. Perhaps a person who dedicates themself to one relationship will be really faithful about it, not really caring about romance outside of it. Could go either way.Alternatively, canvases do need to be primed. Usually a picture is painted with layerCommon sense question: who would have an easier time staying committed to a single relationship: the person who's only ever had one relationship, or the person's who's had several?
upon layer, building up bit by bit. Sometimes the picture changes mid-way.
Post by: Virex on September 30, 2011, 05:03:54 pm
Post by: Duke 2.0 on September 30, 2011, 05:05:43 pm
The one who had several would know what she likes and what she's getting himself into. As a result, the relationship is much more likely to last, instead of crashing due to a mismatch between the ones involved or because of the inexperience of one of the partners.Not an issue of having one relationship as much as not knowing how to court. If you don't spend at least six months getting to know the person then it doesn't matter how much experience you have. And people really should get to know themself before they get involved in relationships with others. Significant others do help you along that road, but the struggles involved seem like the stuff that would cause friction in a relationship.
Post by: Max White on September 30, 2011, 05:08:04 pm
Because I agree to some extent that romance, dating, getting to know each other and really enjoying your time together is some what important, if not then enjoyable, thing to do before you get to sex, but that is far from marriage.
Post by: Virex on September 30, 2011, 05:08:53 pm
Post by: Max White on September 30, 2011, 05:11:07 pm
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on September 30, 2011, 05:15:34 pm
I've heard many of the horror stories where those that *waited* until marriage to have sex suddenly had sex and the woman demanded they go to counseling because the man had no idea what to do and ... yeah.
Painful experiences all around.
Post by: TheBronzePickle on September 30, 2011, 05:17:10 pm
Another thing about premarital sex is that it can often bring the focus away from important things, like if there's certain facets of a couple that tend to annoy the opposite partners. Once the two are married, the issues tend to become more apparent, where they'll be more easily spotted and worked on before the marriage.
Post by: Max White on September 30, 2011, 05:18:02 pm
Also, speaking as a guy who went to BYU and lived among mormons...
I've heard many of the horror stories where those that *waited* until marriage to have sex suddenly had sex and the woman demanded they go to counseling because the man had no idea what to do and ... yeah.
Painful experiences all around.
Well dammit! It is complicated! There are so manny buttons and levers and gears, and the instruction manual is in spanish. I don't speak Spanish, do you?
Post by: Duke 2.0 on September 30, 2011, 05:19:12 pm
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on September 30, 2011, 05:22:09 pm
Sex ed was fine where I grew up, although they did not go into specifics of what you're supposed to do, at least we learned not to force it. Some don't learn, or watch porn. *cringes*
Where I went to university, there's basically no sex ed. There was a joke that Utah was the meth capital of the world per capita because of disillusioned housewives with ten kids and the sex was so terrible.
Post by: Max White on September 30, 2011, 05:25:56 pm
Or rather, there is assessed sex ed in uni?
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on September 30, 2011, 05:26:37 pm
Post by: Max White on September 30, 2011, 05:27:46 pm
They don't have that in Australia, we mostly just know how things go by then. Good sex education in highschool and more liberal culture sees to that.
Post by: Africa on September 30, 2011, 05:28:43 pm
I'm wondering about the scientific methodology of whereever that statistic at the beginning came from. It could well just be saying "women who had earlier sexual experiences weren't as happy and satisfied with their marriages now" but not that women who didn't are satisfied. Not to mention God knows how they polled people or analyzed their statistics. They've probably also confused correlation and causation, as I'd not be surprised if teenage girls with low self-esteem were therefore more likely to start having sex, rather than the other way around.
Post by: Max White on September 30, 2011, 05:30:26 pm
I'm wondering about the scientific methodology of whereever that statistic at the beginning came from.
So I still get Christian-type news emails from when I really believed that kind of stuff.
So God.
Post by: woose1 on September 30, 2011, 06:11:12 pm
So God.My opinion is that-OH GOD THE FLAMES THEY HURT
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on September 30, 2011, 06:28:28 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on September 30, 2011, 06:34:43 pm
Common sense question: who would have an easier time staying committed to a single relationship: the person who's only ever had one relationship, or the person's who's had several?
I'm not advising people which sort of lifestyle they should choose for themselves. But if anyone wants to have a stable, single "marriage" kind of relationship someday, then it makes sense to live that way rather than have lots of relationships and casually sleep around for years then suddenly expect to give it all up and commit to one person. And that applies to others too: if someone else has had 10 emotionally charged and/or sexually active relationships before you, it's going to be more difficult for them to stick with just one "from now on" than the person who's never had all those previous relationships.
Your claim that this is "common sense" casts your own into question. Everyone != you. Some people cling to the first person who looks their way, others feel stifled by only having had one relationship.
Post by: Vester on September 30, 2011, 06:42:08 pm
The only comment I'm making is that I found it otterly hilarious :3 that Alice Fryling had to specify "genital sex".
That's cute, and makes me wonder what other kind of sex they're into.
Well, genital sex is when the man puts his man-thingy into the woman's woman-thingy. If the man-thingy goes anywhere else (or if something else goes into the woman-thingy), it's probably not genital sex.
Sorry, I just spent the night reading really bad fan fiction and it's fun to use weird euphemisms for genitals.
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on September 30, 2011, 07:05:52 pm
PS: I'd hit her with my hammer if you know what I mean.
Spoiler: Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog (click to show/hide)
Post by: Mindmaker on September 30, 2011, 07:11:34 pm
So are some of the apples and oranges comparisons. Comparing sex in a loving relationship to porn? Seriously?
The same goes for setting the line at marriage.
Post by: i2amroy on September 30, 2011, 07:31:50 pm
No, that's Armok. He was referring to the other one.So God.My opinion is that-OH GOD THE FLAMES THEY HURT
Anyways, I guess that I would have to agree with the article's purpose of limiting premarital sex, but I have definitely got some major problems with how they did their research and even what research they did. This is definitely one of the more "I'm gonna state my belief and then state more of my beliefs pretending they are sources to back up my first belief" instead of "I'm going to state my belief and then give actual data to support it. Also in this changing world of the definitions of "marriage" I'm coming to find more and more problems with the simple definition of pre-marital. Are they talking legal marriage or religious marriage? What about groups of three people who though they can't be married still act like one family group? (I've met a few of them if you really want to know) Also what about ideas in other religions than christianity? Where does the whole muslim extremist 40 virgins thing fit into this? And what about the feelings of said virgins?
All-in-all while I think that it is a good idea to stop our race from degenerating into debauchery and chaos, I think that a large portion of what we think as "ethical" is a lot more based on what we and our society think at a given time, and doesn't necessarily have any correlation to what are the general ideals or what would actually be the most productive to humanity as a species.
Post by: Siquo on September 30, 2011, 07:40:52 pm
Okay, maybe I shouldn't give advice like this while drinking.
Post by: scriver on September 30, 2011, 08:07:45 pm
But it happens somewhere?I think you're still misunderstanding. I believe Kael meant that he went to university in Utah, where they don't have sex ed (or rather, bad such) in high school, or the school before I can't remember the name of. Nothing about sex ed at university, just that there was where he interacted with Utah.
They don't have that in Australia, we mostly just know how things go by then. Good sex education in highschool and more liberal culture sees to that.
Where does the whole muslim extremist 40 virgins thing fit into this? And what about the feelings of said virgins?I'm 99% sure that whole 40 virgin thing is a myth, and that it doesn't actually say that. I remember hearing someone talk about that at one of those TED (I think?) talks.
Post by: Flying Dice on September 30, 2011, 08:08:55 pm
Sleep with as many as you can, and eventually you'll get one pregnant. That's the one you stick with ;)
Okay, maybe I shouldn't give advice like this while drinking.
So telling people to make poor life choices is easier when sober?
Post by: i2amroy on September 30, 2011, 08:14:07 pm
Where does the whole muslim extremist 40 virgins thing fit into this? And what about the feelings of said virgins?I'm 99% sure that whole 40 virgin thing is a myth, and that it doesn't actually say that. I remember hearing someone talk about that at one of those TED (I think?) talks.
Yeah I was just giving a known off-the-wall and deep left field example to demonstrate my point of how just because something is defined as "ethical" or the "best thing to do" in one group doesn't necessarily mean that it is considered ethical by the actual majority or actually is the best thing for humanity as a whole.
Post by: MaximumZero on September 30, 2011, 10:23:48 pm
I find absolutely nothing wrong with pre-marital sex. The biggest reason for this: compatibility. I would never, ever buy a car without giving it a thorough inspection and a test drive or two, and I'm only committing to that car for between 5-10 years. Furthermore, a lot of people don't even know what they like when they're inexperienced.
Post by: Max White on September 30, 2011, 10:33:20 pm
Sure, don't judge somebody only on how they preform in bed, but if your going to commit yourself to somebody for the rest of your life, might as well know everything about them.
Post by: MaximumZero on September 30, 2011, 10:41:04 pm
Post by: Max White on September 30, 2011, 10:42:29 pm
Post by: Pnx on September 30, 2011, 10:44:24 pm
When it comes to casual sex I'm a bit iffy.
I've noticed people have a lot of trouble separating sex from their emotions, it seems to lead to a lot of issues especially with how jealous people get.
It's kind of why I swore off sex for the time being. I don't want it fuzzing up relationships, and I don't want the question of "Am I going to have sex with this girl?" To hang in the air, which I noticed happened a lot when I was a horny teenager.
I know I've grown since then, but I don't feel I honestly need to have sex, so I just don't, it makes things simpler.
Post by: Vester on September 30, 2011, 10:51:35 pm
Where does the whole muslim extremist 40 virgins thing fit into this? And what about the feelings of said virgins?
It's not a "muslim extremist" thing any more than believing if you die you will go to heaven is a "christian fundamentalist" thing. The number of virgins you get is never specified in the Quran, but tradition says it's 72.
The virgins aren't even human virgins. They're "houris"; androgynous sex spirits who exist to have heavenly heaven sex with those who get to go to the afterlife.
It's weird, but no weirder than my belief that a bearded carpenter with incredible abs became a mass-absolving sacrificial lamb for humanity.
When it comes to premarital sex... I don't really care for marriage so it's kinda a moot point.
I forgot who said this, but "It doesn't count as premarital sex if you don't plan to get married. >:D"
Post by: Pnx on September 30, 2011, 10:56:36 pm
I forgot who said this, but "It doesn't count as premarital sex if you don't plan to get married. >:D"Ohhh, you are so sigged!
Post by: MaximumZero on September 30, 2011, 10:59:25 pm
I forgot who said this, but "It doesn't count as premarital sex if you don't plan to get married. >:D"Ohhh, you are so sigged!
dohohohoho...That's quality.
Post by: Eagleon on October 01, 2011, 12:12:51 am
Maybe it makes a marriage last longer to wait, because the novelty doesn't wear off as quickly, but there's no way to deny that a lot of people can delude themselves into ignoring problems for a very long time until something finally cracks (hi mom! :D)
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 01, 2011, 12:39:21 am
Post by: Girlinhat on October 01, 2011, 12:40:22 am
I think, really, the entire religious argument (debatably, all religious arguments), comes down to christians hating fun. Take blue laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law) for example. Example here (http://whatscookingamerica.net/History/IceCream/Sundae.htm) and we all know how to use the google machine to find more references. It basically amounts to "those young people are enjoying icecream! God fucking damn, I hate when people enjoy things!" and actually had a law passed to make icecream products illegal on sunday. That, in a nutshell, amounts to the christian mindset on pretty much all restrictions. "If it is good, then it must be put there by the devil, and is therefore evil." When I used to be dragged to church, I even remember one relative or a friend of a relative or the pastor, someone, I don't recall, said something like "this aint one of those fancy churches with the padded seats and arm-rests. We're real christians." I think a huge part of the push against sex is because it's a pleasurable act, and gets the knee-jerk reaction to be evil. I honestly think this is the entire reason for every anti-masturbation thing I've ever seen. If there was EVER an act that would be healthy, enjoyable, and safe, it would be masturbation. It 1: shows you're healthy enough for rigorous activity, and let's be fair, many aren't, 2: is enjoyable, and releases chemicals that elevate mood and curb depression/anger, and 3: actually causes a LOT of bloodflow to the brain, which in turn generates a lot more oxygen and nutrients flowing through the brain and that's nothing if not good. Plus, who are you hurting? The bedsheets? Your panties? (If you're a girl. Or if you're an inclined guy, I guess.)
There's always a big religious push against anything fun, and there's always a big extremist push to do only things fun. I'm not saying either is right, and really I'm exactly saying "neither is right".
BTW: Alabama sex ed was one 45 minute session where the girls went to one room and the guys to another, and we were showed a brief slideshow of female anatomy (I assume the guys were shown male) and then told a little about hygiene and regular showers. Through the slideshow, which was drawings, not pictures, I could think of nothing except "I don't care what the inside looks like, it's all bright blue and yellow squiggles, and if I'm curious about the outside I can go look in a mirror."
That was at public school, too. I transferred to private christian school in 6th grade and received even less sex ed from there. This was the area where mentioning the genitals could get you sent to the guidance counselor (who was an extremely fruity, creepy fellow who wore bright pink pants, whole 'nother can of beans).
Post by: Bohandas on October 01, 2011, 12:51:17 am
Being a lesbian, it's illegal for me to get married and thus double wrong for me to have sex. Of course if we're going by the same standards, then I'm already in so much religious trouble that no amount of shoveling will get me out, so I guess the point is ultimately moot.
You can have the ceremony, the government just won't recognize it (and that doesn't matter, because frankly its blatantly unconstitutional that the government recognizes any marriages). The only problem is finding a sect that is willing to hold such a ceremony; I recommend the Church of the SubGenius.
Post by: Girlinhat on October 01, 2011, 12:55:04 am
Post by: Bohandas on October 01, 2011, 01:04:59 am
Post by: Willfor on October 01, 2011, 01:08:35 am
I think, really, the entire religious argument (debatably, all religious arguments), comes down to christians hating fun.Yes. I, personally, hate fun, and that's why I'm a Christian.
I honestly think this is the entire reason for every anti-masturbation thing I've ever seen. If there was EVER an act that would be healthy, enjoyable, and safe, it would be masturbation.Actually, James Dobson of fucking Focus on the Family comes down in favor of masturbation. Though, the Focus on the Family perspective on it is different. It's debated within theological circles. There is actual scriptural justification for the thought in scripture, but in my opinion it is a weakly connected one. Though, that's simply my opinion.
Post by: Max White on October 01, 2011, 01:11:24 am
It doesn't matter if the government recognizes it! They shouldn't be recognizing ANY marriages, regardless of orientation! The fact that they recognize any form of marriage is a blatant violation of the separation of church and state!
I'm going to disagree with you there. Religion does not hold the monopoly on romance, as I'm sure there are plenty of people who would want to choose a partner to spend their lives with without a deity to worship, and some of them may very well want to put aside a special day to celebrate that, I know I sure do and I am far from the religious type. Government recognising that is just a way that your loved one can take some level of custody over you, and visa versa, as you would want in today's legal system.
The problem comes from then not recognising all forms of marriage, regardless of religious views, sexuality, or otherwise. If two (Or hey, even more, who am I to judge?) people want to claim dependency on each other in the eyes of the state, they should allow that and have the option open to everybody.
Post by: Bohandas on October 01, 2011, 01:14:24 am
I'm going to disagree with you there. Religion does not hold the monopoly on romance,No, it holds a monopoly on marriage.
Marriage is at its core, a religious institution.
Post by: Max White on October 01, 2011, 01:15:38 am
Post by: Realmfighter on October 01, 2011, 01:19:05 am
Marriage is at its core, a religious institution.
Doesn't have to be.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 01, 2011, 01:20:06 am
It doesn't matter if the government recognizes it! They shouldn't be recognizing ANY marriages, regardless of orientation! The fact that they recognize any form of marriage is a blatant violation of the separation of church and state!Marriage has been a civil institution as much as it has been a religious one for a long time. It makes sense, from a social standpoint, that it would develop independently in as many cultures as it did because of the strong ties it encourages. So I'd say there's no breach of the Separation of Church and State here, and this is coming from an atheist who believes that the national motto should be changed back back from In God We Trust to E Pluribus Unum, the Ten Commandments shouldn't be allowed on government buildings, circumcising minors should be an illegal act of mutilation, and that Halal and Kosher slaughtering practices should be banned.
It doesn't necessarily mean you. You can't really deny that there are strong movements within the macrocosm of your religion that view pleasure as the addictive aspect that drives people to sin, and thus to commit evil, even if you don't personally believe that in your variant of Christianity (which you might or might not, since you never specified).I think, really, the entire religious argument (debatably, all religious arguments), comes down to christians hating fun.Yes. I, personally, hate fun, and that's why I'm a Christian.
Quote
Well, it is a pretty weak connection. Onan's sin seems to be pretty clearly defying a direct order from Yahweh himself, rather than....well, he wasn't even actually masturbating, he withdrew to prevent getting his sister (yes, his sister, ick) pregnant. So if anything, that makes purposely trying to not have children a sin instead.I honestly think this is the entire reason for every anti-masturbation thing I've ever seen. If there was EVER an act that would be healthy, enjoyable, and safe, it would be masturbation.Actually, James Dobson of fucking Focus on the Family comes down in favor of masturbation. Though, the Focus on the Family perspective on it is different. It's debated within theological circles. There is actual scriptural justification for the thought in scripture, but in my opinion it is a weakly connected one. Though, that's simply my opinion.
Post by: Vester on October 01, 2011, 01:20:16 am
I'm going to disagree with you there. Religion does not hold the monopoly on romance,Marriage is at its core, a religious institution.
wat
Post by: Willfor on October 01, 2011, 01:35:48 am
It doesn't necessarily mean you. You can't really deny that there are strong movements within the macrocosm of your religion that view pleasure as the addictive aspect that drives people to sin, and thus to commit evil, even if you don't personally believe that in your variant of Christianity (which you might or might not, since you never specified).When I do discussion points on Christianity on this forum, I don't like to present my own viewpoint, I like to present the opinions of different variants. It makes it easier to talk about it clinically, and not get too personally entwined with the thread. I think every self-defense mechanism against letting myself start drama on the internet is a good self-defense mechanism. I think it also helps me from getting preachy since I'm only presenting opinions, and not attempting to convince anyone of a solid truth.
Unfortunately, keeping my sarcasm in my pants is not as easy -- sarcasm is more deeply rooted in my being than religion. It was the preferred sense of humour of both my grandmother and (continues to be for) my father, and now it just ... flows out.
Post by: MaximumZero on October 01, 2011, 01:49:27 am
No, I didn't get married in a church. (Fun fact: It was a town hall that the wife and I rented.) No, we weren't married by a pastor, (We were married by a fellow who got a license to marry people so he could do so legally in Tolkien Elven at Ren Faires. He did not do so for us, but both the wife and I would have been totally cool with that.) We kissed, we danced, we took four hours of pictures, and I almost passed out because I didn't eat breakfast.
The wife and I don't have the perfect marriage. Money is tight (understatement of the century!). Our views on organized religion differ substantially. She's an extrovert, and I'm an introvert. I'm a fighter, and love sports, and she's about as athletic as a box of chocolates. She cries and throws things when she gets mad, and I give the cold shoulder and the silent treatment. We're different, but we are just as much in love as the day we married, the year we dated, and the year we were friends with benefits. Our relationship has grown, and we both had partners before one another. There comes a point where you have to say, "You know what? It's really no big deal," and move forward.
I hate to use the most generic quote in sports, but I think it fits here.
It is what it is.
Post by: scriver on October 01, 2011, 03:59:49 am
No, it holds a monopoly on marriage.People have already responded to this, but I simply have to share my own reasoning too: Marriage, or at least marriage in any culture I'm familiar with, is at it's core a legal issue, draped in layers of religion/tradition/culture. At it's core, traditionally, it' more about choosing which children will be your legal heirs than anything else.
Marriage is at its core, a religious institution.
I just know I'm going to catch flak for this, but I'm going to say it anyway.This is pretty much how I feel as well.
I find absolutely nothing wrong with pre-marital sex. The biggest reason for this: compatibility. I would never, ever buy a car without giving it a thorough inspection and a test drive or two, and I'm only committing to that car for between 5-10 years. Furthermore, a lot of people don't even know what they like when they're inexperienced.
...I can't really understand why you thought you'd catch flak for it.
Unfortunately, keeping my sarcasm in my pants is not as easy -- sarcasm is more deeply rooted in my being than religion [...] and now it just ... flows out.There's so much innuendo going through my head right now. I can't decide which to choose! ;D
Post by: Montague on October 01, 2011, 06:11:55 am
Churches don't need to attach their religious requirements for morally-acceptable sex to government policy either. Let Catholic marriages and divorces be handled by a pastor or something and leave the state out of it.
Post by: Duke 2.0 on October 01, 2011, 06:29:28 am
circumcising minors should be an illegal act of mutilation,Pretty much guarantees a female partner will be freaked out when the couple gets down and dirty.
Marriage carries enough different views on how it works that a lot of these views are subjective as all hell. The western world seems to view it as two individuals showing commitment to eachother, and for a lot of other people it's the joining of two families. It can be a purely civil affair where each partner just wants the benefits of being able to rely on another person if they fall on hard times, and nothers view it as a hugely spiritual affair. There are those made in the flights of passion(With a 90% failure rate) and arranged ones(Less than 30% failure rate I think? It was probably lower last time I checked).
I think one of the main reasons a government has a civil system for marriages is due to some statistic I forgot on how married couples help the economy more than individuals. I can see how having responsibility over the well-being of ones significant other would would people be more responsible with finances and employment. And to this end there really shouldn't be any restrictions, unless they find marriages with multiple partners or something is not as helpful or something I dunno.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 01, 2011, 06:36:20 am
Are we going to have this thread again? Because this would mark the third time we've had a circumcision debate on the forum. Not that I particularly object, but it would be going off topic.circumcising minors should be an illegal act of mutilation,Pretty much guarantees a female partner will be freaked out when the couple gets down and dirty.
Post by: Duke 2.0 on October 01, 2011, 06:39:46 am
Post by: Max White on October 01, 2011, 06:41:51 am
Post by: scriver on October 01, 2011, 06:50:41 am
Disregarding the circumcising ethics discussion: No it doesn't.circumcising minors should be an illegal act of mutilation,Pretty much guarantees a female partner will be freaked out when the couple gets down and dirty.
Post by: Duke 2.0 on October 01, 2011, 06:51:27 am
It was more of a joke reply...I have retreated from the engagement.
it is your move.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 01, 2011, 06:52:34 am
Nope, too late now, I already got Glenn Beck to portray you as a Communist.It was more of a joke reply...
Post by: Max White on October 01, 2011, 06:54:16 am
Deploy the long sword brandishing geeks!
Post by: scriver on October 01, 2011, 07:03:25 am
I pursue, attacking your retreating forces in the back with my cavalry!It was more of a joke reply...I have retreated from the engagement.
it is your move.
Nah, anyway, I completely missed that second post of yours. My apologies.
Post by: Croquantes on October 01, 2011, 07:32:26 am
Post by: Zangi on October 01, 2011, 08:51:09 am
Tax Breaks
Declaration of Love
Insurance Benefits
Traditional Familial Unit
Not wanting to be alone
Bunch of others probably...
As for premarital sex, eh, it effects everyone differently. Its just people of both sides imposing their own ethics and standards upon others. You gotta live to learn... its your choice how you live it.
Post by: Bohandas on October 01, 2011, 10:17:43 am
There were two reasons I got married. 1) I wanted to profess my committed relationship to my now-wife. Until one of us dies. Or both. Or she gets fed up with me and kicks me out. But I'll be there until she no longer wants me to be. 2) I wanted to say, "Hey, society. This lady and I are a familial unit now. Treat us as one, please."
If you want to say it, just say it. Why did you need the government to help you say it?
Post by: MaximumZero on October 01, 2011, 10:21:44 am
We didn't need the government to help us say it, we needed them to understand it. Taxes, familial (medical decisions, etc,) rights, et al.There were two reasons I got married. 1) I wanted to profess my committed relationship to my now-wife. Until one of us dies. Or both. Or she gets fed up with me and kicks me out. But I'll be there until she no longer wants me to be. 2) I wanted to say, "Hey, society. This lady and I are a familial unit now. Treat us as one, please."
If you want to say it, just say it. Why did you need the government to help you say it?
Post by: Bohandas on October 01, 2011, 10:23:33 am
And it most definitely IS mutilation.Disregarding the circumcising ethics discussion: No it doesn't.circumcising minors should be an illegal act of mutilation,Pretty much guarantees a female partner will be freaked out when the couple gets down and dirty.
Post by: Bohandas on October 01, 2011, 10:27:16 am
It was more of a joke reply based off the number of times people have described their first and had a minor freakout about that skin flap.
Well I am CONSTANTLY freaking out over the fact that I no longer have one >:(
And now I'm gonna have to stop posting on this thread because the last time we discussed this it got me so infuriated that I said things that got me banned for a week >:( :(
Post by: Girlinhat on October 01, 2011, 10:39:04 am
Marriage: The main focus, for me, is on the financial and primarily the legal obligations. I know who I am and I know that I'm going to maim myself in a horrible metal-cutting related accident. It's ok, I've come to terms with this and I know it's going to happen. When it does happen, I'd like for the cops not to drag my lover away on legal charges. I'd also like several of the tax cuts it allows, and other direct financial benefits. Really, marriage offers enough pros that as long as two people aren't going to cause problems, then marriage would help both people. IE, you and your friend could both use a tax cut? Get married for the gift bag!
And also: Priests/Pastors/Etc have the certified for marriage. Marriage at its core WAS a religious institution, but is NOW a Vegas drive-thru institution. Religion only cares about marriage anymore when it's gay people getting married.
Post by: Angel Of Death on October 01, 2011, 10:40:00 am
Circumcision: Foreskins are cute, that's all I've got to say. It's like he's wearing a little turtleneck sweater! =DGoddamnit... I want to sig this but I don't think it's within forum rules to D:
Post by: Mindmaker on October 01, 2011, 12:55:46 pm
circumcising minors should be an illegal act of mutilation,Pretty much guarantees a female partner will be freaked out when the couple gets down and dirty.
[insert shriveled mushroom joke here]
Hurr we're a bunch of jokers, aren't we?
I just know I'm going to catch flak for this, but I'm going to say it anyway.This is pretty much how I feel as well.
I find absolutely nothing wrong with pre-marital sex. The biggest reason for this: compatibility. I would never, ever buy a car without giving it a thorough inspection and a test drive or two, and I'm only committing to that car for between 5-10 years. Furthermore, a lot of people don't even know what they like when they're inexperienced.
...I can't really understand why you thought you'd catch flak for it.
I always disliked that metaphor. Makes it sound like the sole purpose of a relationship/marriage was sexual gratification.
Post by: Girlinhat on October 01, 2011, 12:57:52 pm
Post by: Willfor on October 01, 2011, 01:02:03 pm
THIS JUST IN: Women are more complicated than cars ಠ_ಠDammit! I had just read tutorials on how to change their oil, and radiator fluid. Damn you internet, why did you make me think that cars and girls had the same complications!?
Post by: scriver on October 01, 2011, 01:04:46 pm
The metaphor is in no way limited to cars being women, by the way.
I always disliked that metaphor. Makes it sound like the sole purpose of a relationship/marriage was sexual gratification.Heh, yeah. Can't go to far with it.
Post by: kaijyuu on October 01, 2011, 01:11:16 pm
IMO there are vastly more important things to the relationship than sex. It should never make or break anything.
Post by: Bauglir on October 01, 2011, 01:14:54 pm
Wait, so you're saying I probably shouldn't have rotated that girl's tires?THIS JUST IN: Women are more complicated than cars ಠ_ಠDammit! I had just read tutorials on how to change their oil, and radiator fluid. Damn you internet, why did you make me think that cars and girls had the same complications!?
Post by: Willfor on October 01, 2011, 01:16:40 pm
I think it depends on whether they were all-season or winter tires.Wait, so you're saying I probably shouldn't have rotated that girl's tires?THIS JUST IN: Women are more complicated than cars ಠ_ಠDammit! I had just read tutorials on how to change their oil, and radiator fluid. Damn you internet, why did you make me think that cars and girls had the same complications!?
Post by: Girlinhat on October 01, 2011, 01:36:18 pm
Post by: darkrider2 on October 01, 2011, 01:46:26 pm
THIS JUST IN: Women are more complicated than cars ಠ_ಠ
Then I'll love my car, it's easier.
all joking aside
I never did understand the whole abstinence thing, why not just wear a wrapper and not worry about it?
Post by: TheBronzePickle on October 01, 2011, 03:00:08 pm
If you can't keep your zipper up, though, but still don't want to risk kids, keep a vial of radium in your underwear and never worry about children ever again.
Post by: Girlinhat on October 01, 2011, 03:05:40 pm
Post by: TheBronzePickle on October 01, 2011, 03:07:56 pm
Post by: Realmfighter on October 01, 2011, 03:13:56 pm
A common Christan rebuttal to birth control is that it's never 100% foolproof, which is true.
Neither is Abstinence, unless they want to call Mary a whore.
Post by: TheBronzePickle on October 01, 2011, 03:18:59 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 01, 2011, 03:23:17 pm
Post by: TheBronzePickle on October 01, 2011, 03:32:10 pm
Post by: Vector on October 01, 2011, 05:41:33 pm
I can see why abstinence might pose a problem for other people, though.
Post by: Euld on October 01, 2011, 06:28:42 pm
Post by: Max White on October 01, 2011, 06:33:58 pm
*Awkward whistle*
But I would never sleep with a girl just because I could get away with it. If there isn't a strong emotional attachment already there, then it would be no fun.
Seriously, you can say that your not interested in sex now, but things might change quickly if you find somebody special.
Spoiler: Don't (click to show/hide)
Post by: jc6036 on October 01, 2011, 06:35:59 pm
Post by: Max White on October 01, 2011, 06:37:09 pm
Post by: Vector on October 01, 2011, 06:39:44 pm
When you do get the . . .erm. . .urge, it's usually just your reproductive hormones going "DO IT!!! WE NEED TO CONTINUE THE HUMAN RACE EVEN THOUGH WE'VE GROWN OUT OF THE ERA THAT REQUIRED SHITTONS OF BIRTH TO HAVE A SURVIVING CHILD! NO REGRETS!" And then everything goes to shit.
Seriously, I... don't think I'm going to run into that problem.
Post by: G-Flex on October 01, 2011, 06:40:13 pm
When you do get the . . .erm. . .urge, it's usually just your reproductive hormones going "DO IT!!! WE NEED TO CONTINUE THE HUMAN RACE EVEN THOUGH WE'VE GROWN OUT OF THE ERA THAT REQUIRED SHITTONS OF BIRTH TO HAVE A SURVIVING CHILD! NO REGRETS!" And then everything goes to shit.
If you're going to get all biologically deterministic about it, you might as well say that the entirety of human behavior and physiology is the result of natural selection mostly taking place nowhere even close to the modern era to begin with, though. And then everything goes to shit!
Post by: Bauglir on October 01, 2011, 06:50:03 pm
Post by: jc6036 on October 01, 2011, 06:50:51 pm
Post by: Vector on October 01, 2011, 06:52:11 pm
Post by: Bohandas on October 01, 2011, 06:52:24 pm
When you do get the . . .erm. . .urge, it's usually just your reproductive hormones going "DO IT!!! WE NEED TO CONTINUE THE HUMAN RACE EVEN THOUGH WE'VE GROWN OUT OF THE ERA THAT REQUIRED SHITTONS OF BIRTH TO HAVE A SURVIVING CHILD! NO REGRETS!" And then everything goes to shit.
If you're going to get all biologically deterministic about it, you might as well say that the entirety of human behavior and physiology is the result of natural selection mostly taking place nowhere even close to the modern era to begin with, though. And then everything goes to shit!
None of this matters anyway. Evolution means that current extant adaptations are always those that were useful to previous generations.
On a related note, what would you say is "required", now that we're talking in a more general sense. I believe that we should just go with these things because in the grand scheme nothing is required. Ultimately the fact that we no longer "need" to have lots of children, or "need" to consume any food that becones available, in order to continue the human race means nothing because we never needed to to continue the human race in the first place. Its just something we do and just as much as these other things that have been mentioned is not "Needed" but is merely a side-effect of the unthinking process of evolution. If we limited ourselves to things that were truly necessary we would fall inert until we die.
If you meant "adaptationally required", then it is still unnecessary to do something about it. Adaptation will take care of itself, as it did for billions of years before humanity evolved.
Post by: Max White on October 01, 2011, 06:54:59 pm
Post by: Bauglir on October 01, 2011, 06:58:04 pm
Also, I am going to shake my fist in Vector's general direction now. I'll probably miss, what with the distance and all that. Still, envy! I have such instincts, they just crop up too infrequently to justify changes to my lifestyle. Very annoying when they do arise.
see what I did there?
Post by: Vector on October 01, 2011, 06:59:23 pm
Post by: Max White on October 01, 2011, 07:00:32 pm
Post by: inteuniso on October 01, 2011, 07:01:13 pm
Not that I'm suggesting that of course. We've... chosen to do better than that.
BACK ON THE VIRGINITY TOPIC HOWEVER: 16 and a virgin, yet unlike all of you, I wouldn't mind a sexual relationship. My hormones won out over the romantic part of me.
Post by: Bauglir on October 01, 2011, 07:02:47 pm
Post by: Max White on October 01, 2011, 07:03:06 pm
Post by: Vector on October 01, 2011, 07:04:20 pm
Post by: jc6036 on October 01, 2011, 07:04:54 pm
Post by: Bauglir on October 01, 2011, 07:07:53 pm
Also, Max has demonstrated one form of natural selection, although you have to demonstrate that such stupidity is in some way heritable. Still, selection exists in every metric that's considered standard for judging one's mate, although often the selection is cultural rather than genetic. Still exists, though. Pretty much every imperfectly self-perpetuating system evolves, if we want to go down that road.
Post by: Darvi on October 01, 2011, 07:08:14 pm
Post by: Mindmaker on October 01, 2011, 07:09:34 pm
Thank heavens we're out of the age where the others shouted "Shut up, you fuckin virgin" if they ran out of arguments, even though that was only 4 years ago >.>
It might however become a awkward topic somewhere in the future, although I trust my knowledge of human nature to pick out a person for me, where it won't be a big deal.
Next plan: find out how to reproduce asexually.
I liked the theory about Sheldon from Big Bang Theory :D
Post by: Virex on October 01, 2011, 07:10:13 pm
Meh. I'm close to being 22 years old and virginal; I may end up that way for the rest of my life, depending (hopefully not the "almost 22" part, though). I guess the main reason is because my interest in sex approaches zero, and my interest in not having babies is very, very high. Oh, and I doubt my ability to pick up girls.I envy you. Why do we men have to be so shallow? I don't want to feel attracted to anyone, it's unfair towards those I'm not attracted to...
I can see why abstinence might pose a problem for other people, though.
Post by: Bohandas on October 01, 2011, 07:10:34 pm
Well, prehistoric evolution no longer occurs, what with us not physically culling the genetic rejects of the pool.
Not that I'm suggesting that of course. We've... chosen to do better than that.
Indeed. In fact, I believe that the lack of evolutionary pressure is a good thing because it will force medical science to continue to advance.
Post by: Vector on October 01, 2011, 07:11:43 pm
Post by: Max White on October 01, 2011, 07:12:41 pm
I envy you. Why do we men have to be so shallow? I don't want to feel attracted to anyone, it's unfair towards those I'm not attracted to...
WHY ARE WE ALL SO ANTI-LOVE?!?! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHj_WC_IzFc&ob=av3e)
Post by: Bohandas on October 01, 2011, 07:13:42 pm
Hm. . .I can see why we haven't evolved past this point already. While our survival needs are over met, they're already met so there's really no need to evolve any further. Damn you evolution! Stop making up so horny! We don't need this shit right now!
We don't NEED anything! Ultimately even survival is merely something that we want.
Post by: Virex on October 01, 2011, 07:14:02 pm
If I love one person so much, how can I love the rest of the world?I envy you. Why do we men have to be so shallow? I don't want to feel attracted to anyone, it's unfair towards those I'm not attracted to...
WHY ARE WE ALL SO ANTI-LOVE?!?! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHj_WC_IzFc&ob=av3e)
But at least you're attracted to others for acceptable reasons.
Trust me, it's not a man/woman thing. And I am attracted to people, just not really sexually.
Post by: Gunner-Chan on October 01, 2011, 07:14:51 pm
Still have two loving steady girlfriends though. Who I'm most definitely not shallow with.
Post by: Vector on October 01, 2011, 07:15:37 pm
Post by: Darvi on October 01, 2011, 07:16:42 pm
... Because I have a fetish for old men?'bout 3 millenia old right? :P
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 01, 2011, 07:16:42 pm
Next plan: find out how to reproduce asexually.Well, that's easy.
Step One: Harvest yo stem cells.
Step Two: Make some of yo stem cells sperm and one an egg cell.
Step Three: ???
Step Four: Stand trial for crimes against humanity.
Virex, you really need to get past this self-hatred of yours. You and Vector are almost certainly attracted to others for the same acceptable reasons.If I love one person so much, how can I love the rest of the world?I envy you. Why do we men have to be so shallow? I don't want to feel attracted to anyone, it's unfair towards those I'm not attracted to...
WHY ARE WE ALL SO ANTI-LOVE?!?! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHj_WC_IzFc&ob=av3e)But at least you're attracted to others for acceptable reasons.
Trust me, it's not a man/woman thing. And I am attracted to people, just not really sexually.
Post by: Max White on October 01, 2011, 07:18:00 pm
I'm so shallow I already dumped several people without even being aware of their existance. :/Darvi you ladykiller, I thought we could be together!
Post by: Vector on October 01, 2011, 07:20:37 pm
... Because I have a fetish for old men?'bout 3 millenia old right? :P
Nah, only 45 through 60--and seriously, only in that range. I suspect it's my desire to create a strong bond between myself and paternal figures, as I never got to know any of the older (i.e. uncles/father upward) men in my family very well. Fix what's missing, in essence.
Post by: Bohandas on October 01, 2011, 07:22:18 pm
When you do get the . . .erm. . .urge, it's usually just your reproductive hormones going "DO IT!!! WE NEED TO CONTINUE THE HUMAN RACE EVEN THOUGH WE'VE GROWN OUT OF THE ERA THAT REQUIRED SHITTONS OF BIRTH TO HAVE A SURVIVING CHILD! NO REGRETS!" And then everything goes to shit.
If you're going to get all biologically deterministic about it, you might as well say that the entirety of human behavior and physiology is the result of natural selection mostly taking place nowhere even close to the modern era to begin with, though. And then everything goes to shit!
Hooray for greedy algorithms, amirite?
Also, I am going to shake my fist in Vector's general direction now. I'll probably miss, what with the distance and all that. Still, envy! I have such instincts, they just crop up too infrequently to justify changes to my lifestyle. Very annoying when they do arise.
see what I did there?
Hm. . .I can see why we haven't evolved past this point already. While our survival needs are over met, they're already met so there's really no need to evolve any further. Damn you evolution! Stop making up so horny! We don't need this shit right now!
It seems to me that we would all be a lot happier if we stopped trying to be something that we're not.
Post by: Virex on October 01, 2011, 07:22:57 pm
I don't think I hate myself (at least not to an unhealthy extent), I'm just trying to be realistic and conservative when it comes to judging my behavior and thoughts instead of assuming that I'm good at something without any evidence of it. Although on the other hand I may be too quick to assume people are right when they say subjective things about themselves...Virex, you really need to get past this self-hatred of yours. You and Vector are almost certainly attracted to others for the same acceptable reasons.If I love one person so much, how can I love the rest of the world?I envy you. Why do we men have to be so shallow? I don't want to feel attracted to anyone, it's unfair towards those I'm not attracted to...
WHY ARE WE ALL SO ANTI-LOVE?!?! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHj_WC_IzFc&ob=av3e)But at least you're attracted to others for acceptable reasons.
Trust me, it's not a man/woman thing. And I am attracted to people, just not really sexually.
Post by: Max White on October 01, 2011, 07:26:19 pm
Nah, only 45 through 60--and seriously, only in that range. I suspect it's my desire to create a strong bond between myself and paternal figures, as I never got to know any of the older (i.e. uncles/father upward) men in my family very well. Fix what's missing, in essence.Older man also have the advantage of being able to read a wine menu. Seriously, I'm the only one I know my age who knows a merlot from a pinot.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 01, 2011, 07:46:11 pm
I don't think I hate myself, I'm just trying to be realistic and conservative when it comes to judging my behavior and thoughts instead of assuming that I'm good at something without any evidence of it.
Spoiler: I think you do hate yourself. (click to show/hide)
Post by: Virex on October 01, 2011, 07:52:20 pm
Post by: Bauglir on October 01, 2011, 07:55:51 pm
Winetasting ftw!Nah, only 45 through 60--and seriously, only in that range. I suspect it's my desire to create a strong bond between myself and paternal figures, as I never got to know any of the older (i.e. uncles/father upward) men in my family very well. Fix what's missing, in essence.Older man also have the advantage of being able to read a wine menu. Seriously, I'm the only one I know my age who knows a merlot from a pinot.
Also, being sexually attracted to someone is fine. It's when you restrict someone to being valuable only sexually (or, really, in any other way) that you get problems. There's no real difference, to my mind, between objectifying somebody for her breasts or for her keen logic skills.
As for being something I'm not, that's not the aim. I'm recognizing that one thing I am (occasionally lustful) is at odds with another, more important thing I am (all those reasons I gave) and choosing accordingly. The great thing about being sapient is the ability to examine myself, and to choose what I want to be from among the myriad impulses that make up who I am. To deny my desire for particular kinds of relationships to the exclusion of others is a greater denial of who I am than to deny a few sexual impulses.
Post by: Leafsnail on October 01, 2011, 08:04:31 pm
We don't NEED anything! Ultimately even survival is merely something that we want.I'm pretty sure "need" is a conditional word (ie "You need X in order to Y" or something variant thereof). It's normally assumed that "need" is in reference to survival ("I need to drink [subtext: in order to survive"]"). You're trying to remove it from any kind of context, and I'm not sure if it's even a meaningful concept then.
I'm attracted to so many people and in a ton of cases I'm much more shallow than a ton of men I've met.Does being attracted to many people make you "shallow"? I wouldn't have said so.
Post by: Bohandas on October 01, 2011, 08:09:17 pm
I don't think I hate myself, I'm just trying to be realistic and conservative when it comes to judging my behavior and thoughts instead of assuming that I'm good at something without any evidence of it.This isn't an attack Virex, but the evidence that you have an self-hatred problem over being male seems all there in my eyes.Spoiler: I think you do hate yourself. (click to show/hide)
He also seems to have some kind of paranoid belief in bizarre imagined conspiricies that he believes to be controlling him, as well as an inability to appreciate Hanlon's Razor.
Maybe you're different, I don't know you so I'll have to take your word for it. But considering the current situation of the world, it's much safer to be very careful when it comes to men. It just happens so often that someone who's seemingly nice and innocent turns out to be a complete monster. I don't want to be a danger to society any more then you or the next person but I'm afraid that's beyond our control in this case.We kinda earned this kind of hostility you know..."We" didn't earn anything. I am not part of a hive mind with my fellow males. There is no "We". I care about the oppression of women by other men like I care about the oppression of anyone by anyone: It's horrible and it should stop, but I'm not doing it, I'm not part of it, and I'm not responsable for it. I oppress no one, and I refuse to be treated like I do.
EDIT: Subject also appears to exhibit some manner of disassociative mental state. Displays an inability to distinguish between different male humans; believes them, and himself with them, to be a single entity.
Post by: Max White on October 01, 2011, 08:11:14 pm
Post by: Virex on October 01, 2011, 08:12:54 pm
Post by: Gunner-Chan on October 01, 2011, 08:13:21 pm
I'm attracted to so many people and in a ton of cases I'm much more shallow than a ton of men I've met.Does being attracted to many people make you "shallow"? I wouldn't have said so.
I was just saying that being attracted all over and feeling conflicted or doing bad things over it isn't just a male thing in general. In MY case, it is since a lot of times that's what I'm looking for. Sex. That really should of been two different sentences now that I think of it, but my ability to actually communicate has always been questionable.
Though that doesn't hurt me right now since the people I'm with understand I'm like that. And it doesn't diminish how I actually FEEL for them in comparison. Whereas everyone else is just for fun.
Post by: Max White on October 01, 2011, 08:15:09 pm
Can we get back to the topic? I don't really like being the subject of an unannounced psychoanalysis...So would you say that being analysed makes you uncomfortable? Hmm. Maybe because of traumatic childhood experiences involving clowns and mail boxes? Hmmmm. Must be deeply repressed memories. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
Post by: Bohandas on October 01, 2011, 08:15:09 pm
We don't NEED anything! Ultimately even survival is merely something that we want.I'm pretty sure "need" is a conditional word (ie "You need X in order to Y" or something variant thereof). It's normally assumed that "need" is in reference to survival ("I need to drink [subtext: in order to survive"]"). You're trying to remove it from any kind of context, and I'm not sure if it's even a meaningful concept then.
That's kind of the point. You can say "You need X in order to Y", but an inquisitive mind would ask "Why do you need Y", and perhaps you could answer "You need Y in order to Z", and perhaps even "You need Z in order to A", but eventually you will either run up against a point where you can't answer the question of why the end is necessary, or else will get caught up in an invalid web of circular reasoning.
Post by: Max White on October 01, 2011, 08:15:29 pm
Post by: Virex on October 01, 2011, 08:15:58 pm
Nah, it's just an uncontrollable urge to bash your head in, other than that I'm fine doc.Can we get back to the topic? I don't really like being the subject of an unannounced psychoanalysis...So would you say that being analysed makes you uncomfortable? Hmm. Maybe because of traumatic childhood experiences involving clowns and mail boxes? Hmmmm. Must be deeply repressed memories. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
Post by: Girlinhat on October 01, 2011, 08:16:08 pm
Post by: Max White on October 01, 2011, 08:18:16 pm
Nah, it's just an uncontrollable urge to bash your head in, other than that I'm fine doc.Don't worry, if I were a doctor I fix myself up afterwards. :P
But seriously, mental health services are so fucking degrading to your metal health, ironically enough.
Post by: Bauglir on October 01, 2011, 08:19:09 pm
What if my response is "Because I have arbitrarily decided that is a good aim, since there's nothing inherent to reality to contradict me."?We don't NEED anything! Ultimately even survival is merely something that we want.I'm pretty sure "need" is a conditional word (ie "You need X in order to Y" or something variant thereof). It's normally assumed that "need" is in reference to survival ("I need to drink [subtext: in order to survive"]"). You're trying to remove it from any kind of context, and I'm not sure if it's even a meaningful concept then.
That's kind of the point. You can say "You need X in order to Y", but an inquisitive mind would ask "Why do you need Y", and perhaps you could answer "You need Y in order to Z", and perhaps even "You need Z in order to A", but eventually you will either run up against a point where you can't answer the question of why the end is necessary, or else will get caught up in an invalid web of circular reasoning.
And now we're talking about philosophy, and I am very impressed that we've got here from sex. Usually one arrives at sex from literally any other topic, and once there the topic is forever locked into juvenile wisecracks. Well done at reversing the trend!
Post by: Virex on October 01, 2011, 08:20:27 pm
Reminds me of the joke my dad used to make: Don't worry, I'm a doctor, I can patch you up (he has a PhD in physics)...Nah, it's just an uncontrollable urge to bash your head in, other than that I'm fine doc.Don't worry, if I were a doctor I fix myself up afterwards. :P
But seriously, mental health services are so fucking degrading to your metal health, ironically enough.
Anyway, I guess that for an explanation of why you're doing something an internally coherent and sufficiently complex system of reasons would do just fine, because whatever way you're going to turn it, you'll run into the demiurg* problem one way or another.
*Also known as "the unmovable mover", the first one to set things into motion, nothing before it caused it to be.
Post by: MaximumZero on October 01, 2011, 09:16:45 pm
Post by: Vector on October 01, 2011, 09:19:13 pm
Post by: Max White on October 01, 2011, 09:20:24 pm
Post by: jc6036 on October 01, 2011, 09:21:11 pm
Post by: G-Flex on October 01, 2011, 09:22:29 pm
I may have missed this earlier (reading comprehension = shitwhen I have a coldmost of the time,) but what about people who actually do separate emotion from physicality?
How exactly do we define "emotion"? Which emotions count as "emotion" and which don't? Does physical/sexual pleasure not constitute an emotional state?
... You know, I just realized basically this entire thread is incompatible with the forum guidelines. I'm kind of surprised it's lasting this long.
And thus we come back around to "WE MUST MAKE BABIES" in ones subconcious, but one logical mind using contraceptives >_> It's all in the chemicals baby, all in the chemicals.
All in the chemicals? So is literally everything you are. You're a physical system composed of chemicals arranged into some particular state. This is no more or less true of sexuality than it is of anything else people think or do.
Post by: Max White on October 01, 2011, 09:23:11 pm
And thus we come back around to "WE MUST MAKE BABIES" in ones subconcious, but one logical mind using contraceptives >_> It's all in the chemicals baby, all in the chemicals.
Everything is all in the chemicals. Every time you eat, sleep and breath, chemicals, so why trivialise it? What is wrong with it being chemicals, do you know of anything more?
Post by: MaximumZero on October 01, 2011, 09:26:44 pm
I'd have no problems with that, if I were the sort.If only you were the sort. :P I'm still intrigued why anyone would face as much apprehension as you do, but hey, that's really neither here nor there. I kind of expected you to shred me when I saw your name pop up. Maybe I've been reading too many mafia posts.
And thus we come back around to "WE MUST MAKE BABIES" in ones subconcious, but one logical mind using contraceptives >_> It's all in the chemicals baby, all in the chemicals.Yes, but the question is, is it ethical to act on those impulses with people you don't know and don't particularly care about?
SO MANY NINJAS!
Do we get to have full emotions and half emotions? I mean, I don't consider having an adrenaline rush from driving really fast an emotional state. It's just a momentary feeling, not one that will evoke memories sixty years from now. It's just kind of there.I may have missed this earlier (reading comprehension = shitwhen I have a coldmost of the time,) but what about people who actually do separate emotion from physicality?
How exactly do we define "emotion"? Which emotions count as "emotion" and which don't? Does physical/sexual pleasure not constitute an emotional state?
... You know, I just realized basically this entire thread is incompatible with the forum guidelines. I'm kind of surprised it's lasting this long.Yeah, I realized that a while ago. I assume it's because we're being mostly civil and mature about the topic.
Post by: Bohandas on October 01, 2011, 09:33:01 pm
And thus we come back around to "WE MUST MAKE BABIES" in ones subconcious, but one logical mind using contraceptives >_> It's all in the chemicals baby, all in the chemicals.
Everything is all in the chemicals. Every time you eat, sleep and breath, chemicals, so why trivialise it? What is wrong with it being chemicals, do you know of anything more?
Exactly! Thank You!
Post by: Bauglir on October 01, 2011, 09:36:34 pm
I'd have no problems with that, if I were the sort.This is my thoughts on people who do separate the two. It's something I've decided I don't want to do, but that hardly decides what the choice ought to be for everybody else.
Also, regarding chemicals. Yeah, and so what? I don't see how that changes anything about my life. To say everything is "just chemicals" is like saying the Internet is "just a series of 1s and 0s". I mean, yes, that's a literal description, but you're dismissing truly preposterous levels of complexity and order intermingling with chaos, giving rise to such an astoundingly complicated pattern that it can actually examine itself, as something not worthy of awe. It really confuses me how people can write things off as boring like that. Besides, it's not like that conclusion erases other theories of the mind anyway; any valid such theory would still be true. It'd be something that arose from the lower levels of the pattern, in the same way that (say) the rules about chemical equilibrium arise from more fundamental laws of physics governing atomic interactions intermingled with statistics (that might be redundant, I'm not particularly familiar with atomic physics, but I'm pretty sure there's an extra dose of statistics required to jump from the physics to the chemistry anyway).
Of course, it's worth emphasizing that you're a pattern more than you are chemicals. The chemicals are a medium through which you propagate.
All of this, of course, is hardly as authoritative as I've made it out to be. I'm far from omniscient, it's just what makes sense to me at this stage in my life. I bet in another 22 years, if I read this post, I'd die of shame.
NINJAAAAAAAAAAS
Post by: Bohandas on October 01, 2011, 09:41:38 pm
And thus we come back around to "WE MUST MAKE BABIES" in ones subconcious...
You're confusing proximate and ultimate causes. The subconscious is actually generally screaming "WE MUST HAVE SEX!", or perhaps more correctly, "WE MUST ORGASM", a factor which was propogated very successfully evolutionarily because it led to more babies. "WE MUST MAKE BABIES" and "WE MUST HAVE SEX" are there too, but they're singing backup, as it were, having been largely redundant throughout most of the evolutionary process.
Post by: Leafsnail on October 01, 2011, 09:42:29 pm
That's kind of the point. You can say "You need X in order to Y", but an inquisitive mind would ask "Why do you need Y", and perhaps you could answer "You need Y in order to Z", and perhaps even "You need Z in order to A", but eventually you will either run up against a point where you can't answer the question of why the end is necessary, or else will get caught up in an invalid web of circular reasoning....Huh? "I need to drink in order to survive". That's true, and there's no need to go any further. Sure, someone might say "I need to drink" and have the "in order to survive" bit assumed, but that makes no difference.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 01, 2011, 09:43:20 pm
... You know, I just realized basically this entire thread is incompatible with the forum guidelines. I'm kind of surprised it's lasting this long.From what I've seen in the past, Toady only seems to enforce that part of the guidelines on things that are explicit or illegal. Then again, that may just be a false observation on my part, but he's been online a few times since this thread was started, so either he's fine with this or hasn't seen it.
Post by: jc6036 on October 01, 2011, 09:47:52 pm
Post by: MaximumZero on October 01, 2011, 09:48:58 pm
*facepalm* You guys are reading too much into what I said. It seems that you took it literally. I was just saying that humans have certain hormones that give them a large urge to reproduce, and that it was uneccessary during this day and age, and acting upon those urges is completly natural. I mean, whoa, I was just trying to make a little joke, don't take it too seriously. It's obvious that nothings ever as simple as "just chemicals", I know that. All I was trying to do was put a humorous spin on it. I never said it was a totally bad thing, just annoying at times. Meaning, I don't really care that I, as a human, have there urges; it can just get on ones nerves rather quickly. As for ethics: I'd say as long as there is no adultery or disease transfers, then there's really no problem. You explained it pretty well in your post.Don't you understand? Chemicals are serious business. ಠ_ಠ
Post by: Max White on October 01, 2011, 09:49:29 pm
Post by: Girlinhat on October 01, 2011, 09:51:06 pm
Or rather, you're discussing. I've moved to the popcorn and betting ring myself.
Post by: Vector on October 01, 2011, 09:51:26 pm
a. It's inappropriate to date the age range I prefer right now. I need at least a couple more years under my belt in order to become anything like an appropriate partner. And when I say fetish, I actually mean that my little atoms of physical attraction are really just kind of not so crazy about young men's bodies. I blame the non-attraction part of this on growing up with guys as my close friends, so there was really no mystique.
b. I spent a while being very sexually harassed and also physically bullied with punching and all that, right around the time when I was supposed to be becoming sexually curious and all that. I'm too cautious about bodily contact to just go hooking up. It was... formative.
c. I enjoy being ensconced in my university, perpetually wearing dark clothing and copying out the content of books by hand, speaking with other novitiates, rediscovering ancient knowledge, being monkish and celibate.
d. I really don't do anything at all casually. I don't eat casually. I don't chew casually. I don't write casually. And sure, I separate sex and love, but anyone who I permit to get that close to me physically is already someone I love (see: b.).
Some people easily experience and crave physical attraction. I easily experience and crave affection. So for me, it'd be like saying "Is it okay to be affectionate without physical things attached" and "Is it okay to be affectionate towards someone you don't know and have never met before, just being affectionate in order to fulfill your individual needs," and to all that I say "Well, obviously!"
People talk a lot about the long-term bonding that sex creates; however, once I've spoken to a person once in an affectionate context I tend to feel happy, bondingy, puppyish, loving, altruistic thoughts for life. So, who knows?
Post by: jc6036 on October 01, 2011, 09:53:42 pm
Post by: Max White on October 01, 2011, 09:54:52 pm
Post by: Bauglir on October 01, 2011, 09:55:09 pm
*facepalm* You guys are reading too much into what I said. It seems that you took it literally. I was just saying that humans have certain hormones that give them a large urge to reproduce, and that it was uneccessary during this day and age, and acting upon those urges is completly natural. I mean, whoa, I was just trying to make a little joke, don't take it too seriously. It's obvious that nothings ever as simple as "just chemicals", I know that. All I was trying to do was put a humorous spin on it. I never said it was a totally bad thing, just annoying at times. Meaning, I don't really care that I, as a human, have there urges; it can just get on ones nerves rather quickly. As for ethics: I'd say as long as there is no adultery or disease transfers, then there's really no problem. You explained it pretty well in your post.
Oh, well, alright then. My bad! I tend to see anybody referring to chemicals as the ultimate basis for life doing so in a "So there'd be no point if that were true!" way, or something like that. Assumption fail on my part.
Post by: Girlinhat on October 01, 2011, 09:55:39 pm
Post by: jc6036 on October 01, 2011, 10:02:24 pm
Post by: G-Flex on October 01, 2011, 10:19:29 pm
*facepalm* You guys are reading too much into what I said. It seems that you took it literally. I was just saying that humans have certain hormones that give them a large urge to reproduce, and that it was uneccessary during this day and age, and acting upon those urges is completly natural.
You could boil down a lot of human behavior to naturally-selected inclinations that don't necessarily apply very well in the modern era, though. That's hardly limited to sex.
Post by: jc6036 on October 01, 2011, 10:28:40 pm
Post by: Footkerchief on October 02, 2011, 11:23:24 am
Well, there's a number of reasons.
You're seeing someone about that, right?
Post by: Vector on October 02, 2011, 11:54:16 am
Well, there's a number of reasons.
You're seeing someone about that, right?
... No? I mean, why would I?
Post by: scriver on October 02, 2011, 12:03:40 pm
Post by: Vector on October 02, 2011, 12:19:54 pm
If I went back to those folks, I'd probably be back to seeing a postdoc every two to four weeks, because that's the best they're willing to do for someone high-functioning in all the money-making ways. Besides, I'm not even clinically depressed anymore, or even anhedonic, so I'd be lucky to even get that.
Post by: Tack on October 03, 2011, 01:15:30 am
To that end, I'd say I'm very casual about who I sleep with. I don't do one-night stands, however I feel like that's more opportunity and personality- based, rather than by choice. For me, as long as the friend (wb), girlfriend, partner or drinking buddy isn't liable to get emotionally attached, I'm happy. However, seeing as for most other people sex leads to this attachment, I've been kind of avoiding the whole act for a fair while.
Post by: Vester on October 03, 2011, 01:42:05 am
I hug pretty much anyone who is more than a slight aquaintance, unless it's unacceptable for social reasons, etc. And I really don't like going for drives by myself, or sleeping with the door closed.
This is pretty much standard practice here, at least with friends of the opposite gender. The other option is the cheek kiss (beso). I think we all just really like touching people in ways that have no intimate component.
Of course you're really unlikely to see two guys hugging each other.
Post by: Duke 2.0 on October 03, 2011, 01:45:20 am
Post by: ed boy on October 03, 2011, 04:15:01 am
Although I find nothing wrong with sex, I do dislike the emphasis on sex that exists today. Everybody in my demographic considers sex to be a necessary part of a relationship. The concept of a non-sexual relationship does not seem to exist.
Normally I would not have a problem with that, but unfortunately I have a genital birth defect. I would very much like to experience the non-sexual aspects of relationships, and maybe even the sexual aspects, but because of my defect I try to stay away from anything even remotely sexual. I would be more willing to participate in sexual activities if the other person knew about my defect beforehand, but it is a very embarrasing situation, and I would be very keen for 'ed boy has a defective penis' to not become common knowledge among my peers, so I am very reluctant to tell people.
Post by: Alastar on October 03, 2011, 05:46:26 am
I've avoided sex for years and don't really plan on changing that. While enjoyable, I found the expectations that seem to come with it awkward at best and demeaning at worst.
Post by: Vester on October 03, 2011, 05:48:58 am
While enjoyable, I found the expectations that seem to come with it awkward at best and demeaning at worst.
Which expectations?
Post by: Alastar on October 03, 2011, 06:06:47 am
I could go on. Not all of these, all the time... but enough, enough of the time to take the joy out of relationships.
*
What irks me most is that society and law mandate some silliness. There's marriage, and then maybe some other common alternatives get blessed with equal status. From a legal point, I'd like 'life contracts' that leave it to me who and how many people are close enough to me that there are formalised mutual responsibilities... independent of whether I share a bed with them or not.
Post by: G-Flex on October 03, 2011, 07:22:48 am
That a sex partner has to be one of the more important people to me. That anything deeper than a casual fling assumes exclusivity. That I should be fine being held hostage emotionally. That I am to engage in heavy emotional manipulation myself, lest I be seen as cold and distant. That I am to be in the mood for sex more or less constantly (withdrawal of 'privileges' being supposed to phase me, declining myself being seen as either an affront or sign something is wrong with me). That I'm to agree with my partner on matters where I frankly don't.
I could go on. Not all of these, all the time... but enough, enough of the time to take the joy out of relationships.
That sounds less like you're describing expectations of real-life relationships and more like you're describing those on TV sitcoms. Granted, I suppose some people do treat real life like that.
Post by: Tack on October 03, 2011, 09:01:36 am
And I guess each person of each type would have their own differing reasons for sex before or after marriage.
But to use shark puncher's analogy, I wouldn't really want to be locked into a relationship with a girl before finding out that we're not compatible. Or that she has cystic ovaries or something. Sex is just another facet of finding out the person you want to spend your life with anyway. You wouldn't wait until you're married before meeting her parents, so why should you wait before meeting her genitals?
Also, Bro bump hugs are awesome.
Post by: Duke 2.0 on October 03, 2011, 09:09:12 am
Yeah, so everyone's essentially split between having a very strong connection between sex and relationships, or having no connection.I think it should happen after a lifelong commitment, and that sex is an important part of a relationship.
I am in the venn diagram that should not be.
Post by: Mindmaker on October 03, 2011, 09:27:09 am
I hug pretty much anyone who is more than a slight aquaintance, unless it's unacceptable for social reasons, etc. And I really don't like going for drives by myself, or sleeping with the door closed.
This is pretty much standard practice here, at least with friends of the opposite gender. The other option is the cheek kiss (beso). I think we all just really like touching people in ways that have no intimate component.
Of course you're really unlikely to see two guys hugging each other.
When saying goodbye to two nice persons I met at the polish language course on the train station, I got a hug from the male sociology student and a handshake from the female geology student :P
Must have looked akward for anyone who was watching.
I've had no problem with it though.
Post by: LordBucket on October 03, 2011, 06:31:38 pm
You wouldn't wait until you're married before meeting her
parents, so why should you wait before meeting her genitals?
There are reasons, and they have already been addressed in this thread. Whether those reasons are sufficient or applicable to any particular individual is something for those individuals to decide.
To recap:
1) For many people, possibly even most, sex is an emotionally significant event. The first time imprints them in several ways. When two people imprint on each other, that creates a potential for compatibility that is very difficult to achieve in other ways. You speak of sexual compatibility, but while trial and error with lots of people in one way to "find" it, it can be created between two people who share their learning process about sex together exclusively with each other.
2) The concept of inertia applies to behavior and psychology just as much as it does to physical objects. If one wants to have an exclusive relationship eventually, it makes practical sense to become accustomed to such a lifestyle. If a ball is sitting on a pool table, it doesn't magically start moving on its own. When I hit it with a pool cue it will tend to stay in motion until something stops it from moving. Inertia. If you live your entire life planning to have a relationship with only one person, and then meet one person and marry that one person and have sex with that one person, you've living a lifetime of consistent behavior that will tend to more easily continue to be consistent in that behavior. If you have casual sex with different people whenever you meet someone sexy, once again, you're creating a pattern of behavior that will tend to continue. Living a lifestyle of casual sex with whomever you want and ending relationships whenever they become inconvenient, is not a lifestyle that is easily conducive to lifelong commitment. If you want to someday have a relationship that involves lifelong commitment, it's helpful to have psychological inertia conducive to it.
3) Additionally, while it hasn't been addressed that I've seen, there are a few less "nice" reasons resulting from, for lack of a better way of phrasing it, human frailties. For example, if you've had sex with 10 people, and then settle down and get married, it's entirely likely that the person you marry might not be the best of them in bed. That has the potential to weigh, not only on you, having sex with someone and after a few years becoming increasingly disappointing that they don't live up to the better sex you used to have and now miss, it also has the potential to weigh upon them, because they know that you've had sex with nearly a dozen people, they know that the odds are that they're not the best, and it's difficult for them to be sure how honest you're being about it. Whereas, if two people have only ever had sex with each other, they both know that they're the best sex their partner has ever had. There's a very real and significant feeling of security and certainty that can result from that. There are lots of issues of this sort that sex-with-only-one-person-per-lifetime enables one to avoid. What about penis size? Mathematically speaking, half of the entire male population has a penis that is in the bottom half of the pool of penis sizes. "Below average." If a girl has sex with 10 guys, then marries one, it's extremely likely that she will have had sex with guys with a bigger penis than her husband. How will he feel about that? Once again, if two people have only ever had sex with their one partner, that will never be an issue.
Granted, none of this has anything to do with marriage specifically, and I'm not arguing in favor of the rationalizations given by the article in the original post. I'm not suggesting that anyone requires permission from a preacher to do as they choose with whom they choose. Nevertheless, there are some definite benefits to lifetime exclusive sexual partnering.
Post by: Bohandas on October 03, 2011, 07:01:12 pm
Post by: Lord Shonus on October 03, 2011, 07:06:26 pm
Our species went for thousands of years without marriage before the dawn of civilization and we survived. How far we have fallen if such a contrivance is now necessary.
Marriage is one of the oldest human institutions, to the point where there are virtually no recorded societies that lacked it in some form. This includes Stone Age cultures with massive inertia, such as the Amerindians.
Post by: Bohandas on October 03, 2011, 07:09:35 pm
Our species went for thousands of years without marriage before the dawn of civilization and we survived. How far we have fallen if such a contrivance is now necessary.
Marriage is one of the oldest human institutions, to the point where there are virtually no recorded societies that lacked it in some form. This includes Stone Age cultures with massive inertia, such as the Amerindians.
I'm talking about, like, prior to the dawn of civilization.
Post by: Lord Shonus on October 03, 2011, 07:13:32 pm
Post by: MaximumZero on October 03, 2011, 07:14:21 pm
There was prostitution, too. What's your point?Our species went for thousands of years without marriage before the dawn of civilization and we survived. How far we have fallen if such a contrivance is now necessary.
Marriage is one of the oldest human institutions, to the point where there are virtually no recorded societies that lacked it in some form. This includes Stone Age cultures with massive inertia, such as the Amerindians.
Post by: Bohandas on October 03, 2011, 07:25:03 pm
I will say, however, that Maximum Zero's point, on the other hand, is absolutely valid.
Post by: Euld on October 03, 2011, 07:45:00 pm
Post by: Bohandas on October 03, 2011, 07:51:58 pm
I do believe there are certain animals (I think emperor penguins are one?) that mate for life, so are essentially married.
Ok, I'll grant that too.
However, it does ironically provide proof of concept for the idea of marriage itself being pointless, or rather, redundant. If lower animals don't need contracts and/or churches to stay together, why should we?
Post by: Africa on October 03, 2011, 08:26:15 pm
Post by: Tack on October 03, 2011, 08:28:50 pm
Post by: Duke 2.0 on October 03, 2011, 08:30:15 pm
contracts and/or churchesThe contracts provide quite a few legal benefits that are pretty important. Like if one partner is critically injured the other partner decides what should be done, whereas the lack of a contract would provide a good deal of grief. There are dozens of other legal connections that are about as difficult to work with as this one.
Post by: nenjin on October 03, 2011, 08:30:40 pm
Quote
If lower animals don't need contracts and/or churches to stay together, why should we?
Just because animal relationships don't coincide with ones humans create doesn't mean they don't have them. The pack, the pride...there are all sorts of arrangements in the animal kingdom that have human counterparts. That we abstract ours to a higher degree is just a byproduct of the whole 'higher animal' thing.
Post by: Bohandas on October 03, 2011, 08:31:22 pm
Like if one partner is critically injured the other partner decides what should be done,
Couldn't the same be accomplished with a living will?
Post by: Duke 2.0 on October 03, 2011, 08:34:36 pm
Post by: Vester on October 03, 2011, 11:10:14 pm
Like if one partner is critically injured the other partner decides what should be done,
Couldn't the same be accomplished with a living will?
To answer that I'm just gonna quote you:
How far we have fallen if such a contrivance is now necessary.
In fact, every time you bring up a social institution, I'm going to quote this particular line.
Post by: G-Flex on October 04, 2011, 12:56:21 am
I do believe there are certain animals (I think emperor penguins are one?) that mate for life, so are essentially married.
Ok, I'll grant that too.
However, it does ironically provide proof of concept for the idea of marriage itself being pointless, or rather, redundant. If lower animals don't need contracts and/or churches to stay together, why should we?
The fact that you use the term "lower animals" makes my response for me. Humans are not other animals. Humans have the capacity (and/or curse) to constantly question themselves, their actions, their social institutions, and their very lives. We worry about things, and we're very opportunistic, and expect others to be so. Penguins don't entertain the thought that they even have a "choice".
Simply put, it's an unfair comparison. Humans feel the need for things that other animals don't because other animals are not humans and humans are not other animals. And they sure as hell aren't penguins.
Post by: Tack on October 04, 2011, 01:41:37 am
Post by: Mindmaker on October 04, 2011, 02:36:08 am
The way it looks like, the majority of humaity is still beng held hostage by their animalistic drives.
Post by: Vester on October 04, 2011, 03:03:05 am
Humans are dolphins with opposable thumbs.
We're a race partly composed of sex-crazed vicious baby murderers that enjoy the pain of others?
With opposable thumbs?
Okay I think you have something there...
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on October 04, 2011, 03:31:25 am
Of course, you never hear from the humans that encountered dolphins that are dicks, because they're dead. :P
But yes, it appears that the more "intelligent" creatures become, the more we open ourselves up to brilliant displays of understanding and eternal fuckery.
EDIT: late night grammar.
Post by: Vester on October 04, 2011, 03:37:36 am
It's chimps and bottlenose dolphins that regularly engage in evil though. Or as Kael might put it, "eternal fuckery".
Octopi are just tricky jerks.
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on October 04, 2011, 03:49:53 am
Anyhow, we're offtopic. Humans aren't separate from other animals, but we are indeed different in ways others creatures aren't. It should mean that we're capable of greater understanding and empathy, not that we're dicks because we refuse to empathize and enjoy watching others pain.
Post by: Tack on October 04, 2011, 05:55:06 am
Post by: scriver on October 04, 2011, 06:10:18 am
Of course, you never hear from the humans that encountered dolphins that are dicks, because they're dead. :PThere's plenty of people who have encountered their dicks, though ;)
Captive orcas have attacked their trainers (no need/will to eat them, just kill).Can't really say I view that as very evil. If I was captured and forced (often tortured) into making cheap tricks for other people's enjoyment with little hope of ever escaping, I'd be pretty pissed of as well.
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on October 04, 2011, 06:32:41 am
Post by: Bohandas on October 04, 2011, 06:47:24 am
But we are.
The way it looks like, the majority of humaity is still beng held hostage by their animalistic drives.
Humans ARE animals. I'm not even being facetious. This is literally true, and people always forget it. Man is an animal, not a god.
Post by: scriver on October 04, 2011, 06:48:31 am
Post by: Bohandas on October 04, 2011, 07:00:50 am
Ah, I didn't mean it very seriously/argumentatively. Maybe I should've put a smiley at the end of it but I didn't want to do that twice in the same post ;)
You should put a quote of the post by Kael that you're responding to there so people don't think that you're responding to my comment that comes between kael's post and your response and get confused.
Post by: Zangi on October 04, 2011, 08:29:17 am
I don't want to derail the thread any more to debate the ethics of it, you can start your own thread if you wish, but I'm going to call any deliberate killing of an animal for the sake of killing that goes quite beyond its instincts and within it's moral understanding - as mentioned earlier such animals may have an understanding of human drowning - I'm just going to call a deliberate murder by dragging a trainer underwater until she dies "evil". Not to say that someone doesn't deserves shit for imprisoning animals that shouldn't be imprisoned, but just saying that the murder itself is evil.Its only evil because it goes against the ethical/morale standard of 'modern' human society.
Post by: Vester on October 04, 2011, 08:31:44 am
I don't want to derail the thread any more to debate the ethics of it, you can start your own thread if you wish, but I'm going to call any deliberate killing of an animal for the sake of killing that goes quite beyond its instincts and within it's moral understanding - as mentioned earlier such animals may have an understanding of human drowning - I'm just going to call a deliberate murder by dragging a trainer underwater until she dies "evil". Not to say that someone doesn't deserves shit for imprisoning animals that shouldn't be imprisoned, but just saying that the murder itself is evil.Its only evil because it goes against the ethical/morale standard of 'modern' human society.
We're modern humans. We judge things based on our subject position as modern humans. That's how it always is.
Post by: G-Flex on October 04, 2011, 12:23:44 pm
I don't want to derail the thread any more to debate the ethics of it, you can start your own thread if you wish, but I'm going to call any deliberate killing of an animal for the sake of killing that goes quite beyond its instincts and within it's moral understanding - as mentioned earlier such animals may have an understanding of human drowning - I'm just going to call a deliberate murder by dragging a trainer underwater until she dies "evil". Not to say that someone doesn't deserves shit for imprisoning animals that shouldn't be imprisoned, but just saying that the murder itself is evil.Its only evil because it goes against the ethical/morale standard of 'modern' human society.
That's pretty circular. As modern humans, we consider it "evil" because it goes against the standards of modern humans? That's tautological.
Post by: Footkerchief on October 04, 2011, 12:33:45 pm
I don't want to derail the thread any more to debate the ethics of it, you can start your own thread if you wish, but I'm going to call any deliberate killing of an animal for the sake of killing that goes quite beyond its instincts and within it's moral understanding - as mentioned earlier such animals may have an understanding of human drowning - I'm just going to call a deliberate murder by dragging a trainer underwater until she dies "evil". Not to say that someone doesn't deserves shit for imprisoning animals that shouldn't be imprisoned, but just saying that the murder itself is evil.
If only there was some kind of axis of which we could declare them members.
Post by: Zangi on October 04, 2011, 12:46:00 pm
Post by: Bohandas on October 04, 2011, 02:49:08 pm
I don't want to derail the thread any more to debate the ethics of it, you can start your own thread if you wish, but I'm going to call any deliberate killing of an animal for the sake of killing that goes quite beyond its instincts and within it's moral understanding - as mentioned earlier such animals may have an understanding of human drowning - I'm just going to call a deliberate murder by dragging a trainer underwater until she dies "evil". Not to say that someone doesn't deserves shit for imprisoning animals that shouldn't be imprisoned, but just saying that the murder itself is evil.Its only evil because it goes against the ethical/morale standard of 'modern' human society.
That's pretty circular. As modern humans, we consider it "evil" because it goes against the standards of modern humans? That's tautological.
It kind of makes sense given that things like 'good' and 'evil' have no existence outside of the human mind...
...and the corollary following from this, that the 'good' and 'evil' of previous generations of humans died with them...
The animals can be good and evil to the extent that good and evil exist, but this is very little.
Post by: Vertigon on October 05, 2011, 05:29:09 pm
Of course you're really unlikely to see two guys hugging each other.
Unless you're a band kid :b seriously our band is the huggiest group I've ever seen and it's awesome :3
Post by: Phmcw on October 05, 2011, 06:21:08 pm
1° is sex is a defining even he first time is emotionally bonding,...
Well it's not true. Period. The proof is that you're desperately trying to make it so. You try to make your first time special, when it's really not. If you're a girl it will be painful, if you're a boy you will be clumsy. If you're both virgin......
2° If you only know one person you won't know what you're missing.
Yeah and you'll wonder what you've missed. And possibly cheat on your partner for this sole reason.
I've been with a girl whose I has been her sole boyfriend and it has serious downsides. First there is no point of reference. If you're a douche this can be a good point but often not. Second it raised a few problem with her self esteem. And third when you lack experience in relationship you're simply less good at it. We broke for a time and now we're back together and happier than ever.
3° purity, blah, blah.
Yeah that made A LOT of sense, before we invented test for this kind of thing.
This is btw a perfect example for me of the supremacy of science against religion. All religious book contain GREAT public health advice but sadly their follower follow them even when it stop to make sense. And now it impregnate our culture.
Post by: Willfor on October 05, 2011, 06:49:30 pm
3° purity, blah, blah.This final one amuses me in the largest way. Absolutely no one in this thread has argued from the position of purity. You literally just made this point to argue against no one who is posting in this thread unless I missed it. And the best part is you're arguing it from the point of "science over religion" when that has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's culture versus culture, and you are arguing for your ideals. Which is not a bad thing, but you're holding them up as if science mandates your beliefs, when you just use facts to justify them.
Yeah that made A LOT of sense, before we invented test for this kind of thing.
This is btw a perfect example for me of the supremacy of science against religion. All religious book contain GREAT public health advice but sadly their follower follow them even when it stop to make sense. And now it impregnate our culture.
Post by: Tack on October 05, 2011, 07:45:25 pm
Post by: Phmcw on October 05, 2011, 08:21:46 pm
3° purity, blah, blah.This final one amuses me in the largest way. Absolutely no one in this thread has argued from the position of purity. You literally just made this point to argue against no one who is posting in this thread unless I missed it. And the best part is you're arguing it from the point of "science over religion" when that has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's culture versus culture, and you are arguing for your ideals. Which is not a bad thing, but you're holding them up as if science mandates your beliefs, when you just use facts to justify them.
Yeah that made A LOT of sense, before we invented test for this kind of thing.
This is btw a perfect example for me of the supremacy of science against religion. All religious book contain GREAT public health advice but sadly their follower follow them even when it stop to make sense. And now it impregnate our culture.
No.
Purity, as in "no sex is purer than sex" is an idea pervasive in our society, and I cannot help but think that it give the "blank canvas" idea mentioned on the first page a lot of it's appeal.
Said idea come from religion as prophylactic advice, but as it became sacred it's now rather a pain, especially since it's irrelevant, even as health advice.
It's not a circular logic but you've got to agree with my premise (sex and purity are not related) to agree with my conclusion (science is better than religion), not the other way around. I don't use science to validate my belief, I say that my views of the world (beliefs if you will, but it's not exactly that), once again, lead me find science more efficient than religion.
Post by: Willfor on October 05, 2011, 08:33:37 pm
No.
Purity, as in "no sex is purer than sex" is an idea pervasive in our society, and I cannot help but think that it give the "blank canvas" idea mentioned on the first page a lot of it's appeal.
Said idea come from religion as prophylactic advice, but as it became sacred it's now rather a pain, especially since it's irrelevant, even as health advice.
It's not a circular logic but you've got to agree with my premise (sex and purity are not related) to agree with my conclusion (science is better than religion), not the other way around. I don't use science to validate my belief, I say that my views of the world (beliefs if you will, but it's not exactly that), once again, lead me find science more efficient than religion.
My first response will be Tack's:
Yeah, nobody really mentioned religion here.
And I will add a point:
No one has brought up purity. No one is arguing that people who don't have sex are somehow holier than people who have sex. This may be a point that you are experiencing in your real life by people who are arguing this issue with you. However, no one has used that reasoning in this thread.
Post by: Phmcw on October 05, 2011, 08:41:11 pm
Religion has been mentioned by the way, but indeed the point of purity from a religious perspective has not been defended within this thread (though it is often raised IRL) still the point of a "blank canvas" being preferable is on page 1.
I claim that the appeal of that idea come from the fact that a virgin is seen as more pure (or from fear of he competition, but that's another can of worms).
If we were talking about making music who the hell would rather work with a complete beginner than an accomplished musician?
Post by: Bohandas on October 05, 2011, 08:50:44 pm
You don't understand.
Religion has been mentioned by the way, but indeed the point of purity from a religious perspective has not been defended within this thread (though it is often raised IRL) still the point of a "blank canvas" being preferable is on page 1.
I claim that the appeal of that idea come from the fact that a virgin is seen as more pure (or from fear of he competition, but that's another can of worms).
Phmcw is right. Here is the offending quote:
I wanted to discuss the logic involved
The article appears to be promoting a particular worldview, however...if one were a piece of canvas at an art school, and one allowed any art student to paint on you for year and year, it's extremely unlikely that anyone wishing to paint a portrait would choose you over a blank canvass.
Incidentally, it sounds like the canvas in that metaphor has served that art school well, and if it served this purpose for years and years, it could serve it for years and years more.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, BTW, a fourth fallacious assumption common on this thread is that everybody wants intimacy.
Post by: Descan on October 05, 2011, 09:50:18 pm
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: Tack on October 06, 2011, 03:11:47 am
Post by: Mindmaker on October 06, 2011, 09:06:47 am
You probably meant scientific reasoning vs religoius reasoning.
Post by: Phmcw on October 06, 2011, 09:20:36 am
I just wanted to mentin that science is not better than religion, since a) those are not comparable and b) opinions man.Actually they are : they are both way to envision the world. And "opinion man" is a terrible argument that I never accept.
You probably meant scientific reasoning vs religoius reasoning.
Post by: Mindmaker on October 06, 2011, 09:27:35 am
Post by: Phmcw on October 06, 2011, 10:02:42 am
That's pretty ethnocentric (if that expression can be bend this way, didn't really want to say 'arrogant') believing that you hold the ultimate truth.I am right until proved wrong. Then I'll be righter.
I know I don't hold the ultimate truth. But it's definitely the best I know,
Post by: Vector on October 06, 2011, 10:06:40 am
Post by: Mindmaker on October 06, 2011, 10:07:28 am
Post by: Phmcw on October 06, 2011, 10:14:38 am
There is no scientific knowledge without a priori, assumed, unprovable knowledge.First, there is no driving without risk still it's better to drive safely than speeding drunk.
Second while it's philosophically correct, experimental evidence remain. That unprovable knowledge is actually, by definition, hypothesis and should always be challenged, as Einstein shown.
Post by: Vector on October 06, 2011, 10:22:18 am
Post by: Leafsnail on October 06, 2011, 11:00:49 am
...Or even why you'd somehow need to temporarily abandon scientific reasoning in order to tend to yourself.
Post by: MaximumZero on October 06, 2011, 11:04:26 am
I'm not sure why engaging in scientific reasoning and tending to your inner self should be at all mutually exclusive.
...Or even why you'd somehow need to temporarily abandon scientific reasoning in order to tend to yourself.
I feel the same way. Not all of humanity's perceived needs are physical. Mind you, I'm not a religious person, but I still take time to sort out my mind every now and again.
Post by: kaijyuu on October 06, 2011, 11:27:55 am
That's not so much "abandoning" as using a different tool for a different job.
Post by: Vester on October 06, 2011, 11:32:59 am
There is no scientific knowledge without a priori, assumed, unprovable knowledge.First, there is no driving without risk still it's better to drive safely than speeding drunk.
Did you just compare people of faith to speeding drunks?
Post by: Vector on October 06, 2011, 01:25:29 pm
Perhaps Vector's saying she uses something other than empiricism for her "tending to herself." Science only works on empirical principles, and empirical principles are of course, based on assumptions.
That's not so much "abandoning" as using a different tool for a different job.
This.
Science presupposes objectivity--that is, holding the subject of inquiry at arm's length from the self, separate from feeling, emotion, intuition, instinct. Holding the self away from the self is senseless.
If one needs psychiatry or psychology, then more power to them. There's more than one way of being. However, I found my steps in that direction deeply misguided and, more than that, damaging.
I do not deny that science has its place in bridge-building, in engineering, in thousands of diverse applications that improve life--but do the equations describing the rotation of the earth around the sun tell us more of our experience of sunsets, as humans in the world, than sitting on the porch as gloaming approaches?
Post by: LordBucket on October 06, 2011, 03:06:09 pm
the point of a "blank canvas" being preferable is on page 1.
I claim that the appeal of that idea come from the fact that a virgin is seen as more pure
That's a different way of phrasing it, but essentially yes. However, I'm approaching it from a Pavlovian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning) sense, rather than a religious one. If a girl's first orgasm is all with a 200lb weight lifter, she's likely to develop a preference for muscular guys. If a guy's first time is in his girlfriend's house watching the door because her parents might come in at any moment, he's likely to develop a preference for risky sex in places he might get caught. And the more consistently one engages in any particular activity while in a highly pleasured state, the more strongly those cues will come to be associated with pleasure in the mind.
The benefit of having a partner who is "pure" in the sense of having not already been conditioned towards a particular set of sexual cues is that she can be more easily conditioned to want exactly what you are and what you want to do. The benefit of being a "pure" partner is that you can be conditioned to want exactly what your partner wants.
Again, like a blank canvas. If you paint on top of somebody else's work, you need to prime it to get a very clear result. But it's difficult to "prime" a human being.
Quote
fallacious assumption common on this thread is that everybody wants intimacy.
Oh? Allow me to quote myself from the very first page of this thread:
Quote
I'm not advising people which sort of lifestyle they should choose for themselves.
Quote
If one wishes to one day have an emotional and sexual relationship with only one single person, for example...marriage, then spending years becoming accustomed to a lifestyle of shallow emotional attachment and casual sex with many partners probably isn't the wisest choice.
I'm not telling people that they "should" choose one way or another. If you want to have lots of sex with lots of people, then it doesn't make sense to intentionally remain a virgin while waiting for one particular person. And if you want to have a lifelong committed relationship with one person, it doesn't make sense to have sex with lots of people.
It's simply a matter of behavioral inertia. If somebody deliberately stays a virgin until they get married at 25 because it's important to them to live their life with only one person, would those 25 years of life be condusive to immediately rushing out and sleeping with a bunch of people after marriage? Probably not. Similarly, if somebody lives a life casually having sex with everyone they can, that kind of lifestyle is not conducive to immediately being sexually exclusive and committed for life to one single person just because you happen to get married to them.
And to all of you who who gritting your teeth getting ready to type out about how "some people are different" and "there are always exceptions" well, that's nice. Yes, some people are different and there may be exceptions. Doesn't change anything I'm saying here. If you want to be in the habit of waking up at 6:00am every day, it makes sense to wake up at 6:00am every day, rather than sleep in until noon. It's easier to wake up at 6:00am if you've been waking up at 6:00am every day for years than if you wake up at noon every day for years. Nobody here would argue with that. It's basic behavioral inertia, and it doesn't magically not apply just because we're talking about sex.
There are benefits to living a life having sex with only one person. Getting to have lots of wild and crazy sex with lots of people is not one of them.
There are benefits to having lots of casual sex. High probability of having a mutually committed lifelong relationship later in life is not one of them.
Post by: Vector on October 06, 2011, 03:14:08 pm
Case in point: Love isn't mathematical. I don't think it's possible, or proper, to abstract away from what we know and say "Ah, yes, it's all Pavlovian: now here's what you do if you want to find love! I've run some experiments!"
I don't think it works this way, where you condition your partner, your partner conditions you, etc. Maybe people should love for the sake of loving, and not with all of these optimization conditions.
Post by: LordBucket on October 06, 2011, 03:17:08 pm
Love isn't mathematical
Strange. I thought we were talking about sex, not love.
Quote
Maybe people should love for the sake of loving,
and not with all of these optimization conditions.
Sure you don't mean "I want to have sex without worrying about the consequences, so I'm going to change the subject and talk about love?"
Post by: Footkerchief on October 06, 2011, 03:19:37 pm
If a girl's first orgasm is all with a 200lb weight lifter, she's likely to develop a preference for muscular guys. If a guy's first time is in his girlfriend's house watching the door because her parents might come in at any moment, he's likely to develop a preference for risky sex in places he might get caught.
Citation please.
Post by: Vector on October 06, 2011, 03:27:30 pm
The reason why "desires" is in quotations is because I've already said here multiple times that I have next to no interest in sex, and what's keeping me from it sure as hell isn't any fear of being able to develop stable long-term relationships.
If a girl's first orgasm is all with a 200lb weight lifter, she's likely to develop a preference for muscular guys. If a guy's first time is in his girlfriend's house watching the door because her parents might come in at any moment, he's likely to develop a preference for risky sex in places he might get caught.
Citation please.
I gotta say, I spent about two years kissing a skinny young programmer to my pleasure, and what came out of it was a very strong disinterest in romancing people who shared the same body type and interests. If I wanted to be with that guy, I'd be with that guy. I want to experience new bad points, and also new good points.
Post by: Mindmaker on October 06, 2011, 03:29:07 pm
I don't think it works this way, where you condition your partner, your partner conditions you, etc. Maybe people should love for the sake of loving, and not with all of these optimization conditions.It rather shouldn't work this way. Sadly it does happen a lot.
But as long as it's only minor things (getting your partner to be a more orderly person, to unlearn a habit that freaks your partner out etc.) I'd say it's ok.
I mean there isn't a 'perfect' match and I'm more than ready to adapt a bit as long as it doesn't threaten my core self.
Post by: Phmcw on October 06, 2011, 03:30:55 pm
Quote
Science presupposes objectivity--that is, holding the subject of inquiry at arm's length from the self, separate from feeling, emotion, intuition, instinct.
Here is your mistake.
Objectivity is not that at all. I mean if I must find word do describe the relations of researchers I know with their jobs it would be passionate, dedicated, and certainly emotional.
Science is the result of a thought process where verifiable = true.
Quote
but do the equations describing the rotation of the earth around the sun tell us more of our experience of sunsets, as humans in the world, than sitting on the porch as gloaming approaches?
Isn't the night-sky more beautify when you know what a star is. Isn't a blank wall fascinating when you try to visualise the Billions of atoms composing it, and try to link the quantics behaviour you've just learned about to the pressure you feel?
Isn't your computer one million time more interesting when you've learned about the functioning of your processor?
Isn't the light more poetic since Einstein.
Yeah you need a bit of imagination to be an happy materialist.
I hate pseudo materialist a la Ayn Rand who simplify the world to make it fit their narrow views. To me everything is a treasure of complexity. Is kindness less enjoyable because you know it's a phenomenon that probably come from evolutionary mechanism. Is life less important because it's all that you'll ever have. Do you love less because we're all only matter?
Post by: LordBucket on October 06, 2011, 03:35:45 pm
Citation please.
Classical conditioning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning)
Unconscious Classical Conditioning of Sexual Arousal: Evidence for the Conditioning of Female Genital Arousal to Subliminally Presented Sexual Stimuli (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00643.x/abstract)
Neuro associative conditioning (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=637&q=neuro+associative+conditioning&oq=neuro+ass&aq=1&aqi=g10&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1096l2277l0l3531l9l8l0l1l1l0l172l829l1.6l7l0)
Post by: Leafsnail on October 06, 2011, 03:43:36 pm
Post by: Vector on October 06, 2011, 03:50:21 pm
Trust me, I do like science. I love engineering, and woodshop, and chemistry. I'm nuts about building stuff, and fixing stuff, and repairing. I'm emotional about it--the key thing about emotions is that they aren't allowed to affect, or effect, your results (sorry for misspeaking). But verifiable thinking really doesn't do much for me in terms of finding out who and how I am.
A computer's a lot more interesting when you know how it works--sure. Complexity is wonderful, too. But all these things that we know, just by being in the world, just by enjoying experiences as they make themselves known to us... all of that is worthwhile. I don't know more about a chair from its specs online than I do from sitting in it, nor do I know more about a dish from the recipe than I do by tasting it. And similarly, a world where the wind is not only a force, but also a feeling, a sound, the movement of a goddess moving through the trees (as presupposed in Ancient Greece) is more open to understanding it as it is.
Life is not less important to me because it is all I will ever have, and I do not love less because we are only matter.
But to say "you love them because of genetics, classical conditioning, and all of those things--you're a product of everyone else's choices! You have no free will! You're just a slave to your wants and desires :3 Nothing we do really matters at all, hoho" is brutal and empty, and cannot speak to the experience of what it is to love. Not from the inside--only from without.
And Freud thinks that fetishes develop because they're closely associated to things kids experience right before they see the genitalia of the opposite sex for the first time.
So what? What does that have to do for my proclivity for Eastern European mathematicians of middle age and weight? If I somehow ... experienced... an old man with chalk stains in his hair right before I saw my dad naked for the first time, yeah, that would be weird--but it doesn't really matter.
So what if your first orgasm was with a weight lifter? If you end up having sex with weight lifters, who really cares? There's loads of them! More than enough to go around. It's not like we've got a shortage or something.
Oh, and another thing:
No, you are not going to get a tabula rasa girlfriend. She's always going to have preferences, desires and so on, and there's always going to be clashes so that you can't train and condition her to love you like a slavish robot (this is one of the reasons why we tend to condemn pedophilia--kids take a while to figure out who they are and what they want for themselves). Pretending otherwise is ridiculous.
Besides, why would you want to screw a blank slate, anyway?
Post by: Willfor on October 06, 2011, 03:55:17 pm
Besides, why would you want to screw a blank slate, anyway?As far as I know, the process of attaching a slate to the wall is the same whether it has chalk markings on it or not.
Post by: Vector on October 06, 2011, 03:57:09 pm
Besides, why would you want to screw a blank slate, anyway?As far as I know, the process of attaching a slate to the wall is the same whether it has chalk markings on it or not.
Yeah, pretty much. I guess you're right.
Post by: Phmcw on October 06, 2011, 04:06:11 pm
Quote
But to say "you love them because of genetics, classical conditioning, and all of those things--you're a product of everyone else's choices! You have no free will! You're just a slave to your wants and desires :3 Nothing we do really matters at all, hoho" is brutal and empty, and cannot speak to the experience of what it is to love.
Exactly what I'm speaking about. Why would free will matter? Who is the omniscient being who could predict us?
Nothing we do matter? but if life is all we have, what we do and what we are is all that matter!
A slave to your wants and desire? When you've pushed yourself so much to achieve what you really want?
That version of materialism is stupid : it negate whole parts of the worlds while pretending superiority over philosophies that invent some. Applying my mind to purely rational though process without negating the aspects of the world that are wonderful or that I don't understand is my objective.
Post by: Vester on October 06, 2011, 04:08:42 pm
If a girl's first orgasm is all with a 200lb weight lifter, she's likely to develop a preference for muscular guys.
Not really. Cart before the horse, etcetera etecetera.
Post by: LordBucket on October 06, 2011, 04:09:00 pm
Do as you will, people. You don't need my permission. Just be prepared to live with the consequences.
Post by: Vector on October 06, 2011, 04:11:41 pm
Exactly what I'm speaking about. Why would free will matter? Who is the omniscient being who could predict us?
Nothing we do matter? but if life is all we have, what we do and what we are is all that matter!
A slave to your wants and desire? When you've pushed yourself so much to achieve what you really want?
That version of materialism is stupid : it negate whole parts of the worlds while pretending superiority over philosophies that invent some. Applying my mind to purely rational though process without negating the aspects of the world that are wonderful or that I don't understand is my objective.
God doesn't necessarily have to be omniscient =) The experience of the divine need not be Christian, you know.
And yes, that's good. But then, how can science be better than religion/spirituality? They walk hand in hand.
Post by: Phmcw on October 06, 2011, 04:19:03 pm
Starting to wonder if I'm being deliberately trolled here.
Do as you will, people. You don't need my permission. Just be prepared to live with the consequences.
Not really, you're just giving a VERY one sided approach at what would happen based on one single piece of our psyche.
Pavlov conditioning is a real thing, but it's hardly the only mechanism that make our thought process, and well,... your approach is overly simple. And when I say it's overly simple is the psychological equivalent of saying that since a processor run faster when it's clock is fast, all you need to do to have a super fast computer is to cadence it at 10GHZ in the bios.
Quote
But then, how can science be better than religion/spirituality? They walk hand in hand.
Religion is the opposite of Science. Religion is based on faith, and faith poison Science.
In the same process science is based on rationality, and rationality destroy religion.
You can do both in the same time, but you'll always be in conflict with yourself. You'll struggle with your faith as rationality take is toll and refuse evidence because it contradict your faith.
Post by: Vester on October 06, 2011, 04:25:45 pm
Religion is the opposite of Science. Religion is based on faith, and faith poison Science.
In the same process science is based on rationality, and rationality destroy religion.
I do both at the same time, and I'm perfectly fine.
You're making strong statements here that, ironically, don't really seem to be logical. You could make a case for empiricism destroying religion, but that doesn't actually do it either.
Might be a language barrier factor.
Post by: Vector on October 06, 2011, 04:29:27 pm
I enjoy lying in bed, listening to the rain, and thinking about how things are going to grow, and how wonderful that is. There'll be little shoots of green grass coming up, as though to echo the Talmud, which writes: "Every blade of grass has an angel, which whispers to it 'Grow.'" And thinking about water, I think about the waves, the ponds, the pools, and all of the life they support. The magic of coming across a waterfall, when looking down one could almost think one had arrived at the end of the world.
I don't really think science will somehow be able to destroy that feeling. "God is not scientifically verifiable" does not mean some higher power is non-extant. Faith does not require blindness. It means being open to what is there.
Faith is certainly not the opposite of science. One must have faith that the scientific method will bring the correct answers, after all.
Refusing evidence because it contradicts faith sounds like a lot of bad scientists who fix results, by the way. The edifice isn't exactly unshakeable. It's a flawed, imperfect tool, like many others.
Might be a language barrier factor.
I think all three of us may have different native languages (I don't know if Tagalog is your first or not), but so far it seems that we're still having an argument based on ideas, not misunderstood words.
Post by: Vester on October 06, 2011, 04:32:17 pm
Faith is certainly not the opposite of science. One must have faith that the scientific method will bring the correct answers, after all.
Oh, I'd forgotten about that. The fundamental basis of science is the idea that the questions you ask can be answered. Which my physics professor once said is basically an article of faith, without which everything would collapse.
Might be a language barrier factor.I think all three of us may have different native languages (I don't know if Tagalog is your first or not), but so far it seems that we're still having an argument based on ideas, not misunderstood words.
It is, but I have a fair grasp of English.
Post by: Vector on October 06, 2011, 04:35:23 pm
Hopefully we'll be able to continue discussing pleasantly for now.
Post by: G-Flex on October 06, 2011, 04:37:37 pm
Faith is certainly not the opposite of science. One must have faith that the scientific method will bring the correct answers, after all.
I don't know that I agree. I (attempt to) use scientific and empirical reasoning not because I think it'll bring me any closer to some unattainable absolute truth, but because it has a good track record for providing results. Is that circular, though, to say that I use empirical methods because it succeeds by empirical standards? Now my head hurts.
I'd say the distinction should be between claims of absolute truth/knowledge and claims of functioning yet potentially flawed systems of knowledge. There's the difference between "I have faith that this is true" and "This seems to be a valid predictive tool, judging by past experience".
Post by: Leafsnail on October 06, 2011, 04:39:18 pm
I don't really think science will somehow be able to destroy that feeling. "God is not scientifically verifiable" does not mean some higher power is non-extant. Faith does not require blindness. It means being open to what is there.I am seriously struggling with that definition.
Faith is certainly not the opposite of science. One must have faith that the scientific method will bring the correct answers, after all.Not really, especially with your previous definition of fate. You can look at how well the scientific method has worked in providing working theories in the past, for instance.
Refusing evidence because it contradicts faith sounds like a lot of bad scientists who fix results, by the way. The edifice isn't exactly unshakeable. It's a flawed, imperfect tool, like many others.This seems to be ad hominem. The fact that some scientists do unethical things is irrelevant to the strength of science as a process.
Oh, I'd forgotten about that. The fundamental basis of science is the idea that the questions you ask can be answered. Which my physics professor once said is basically an article of faith, without which everything would collapse....Uh, what kind of questions would you mean by ones which can't be answered? I mean, religion certainly doesn't tend to deal with them since they're mostly about providing answers.
Post by: Vector on October 06, 2011, 04:40:58 pm
Is that circular, though, to say that I use empirical methods because it succeeds by empirical standards?
Yes :D
Leafsnail, I'm thinking on your questions. I'll try to get back to you eventually, but I've realized I've probably misspoken. In any case, I didn't intend any ad hominem attacks.
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on October 06, 2011, 04:44:52 pm
In fact, on the fundamental levels of Ontology, the two are both on the same exact end of the spectrum, which are Objectivists. They both see the universe in terms of absolutes: True/false, on/off, 0/1, and typically I'm right/you're wrong.
The opposite of both would be Subjectivism, in which reality is defined by your perspective or how you look at things. That truth cannot ever truly be known, because it's all shades of grey depending on how you approach reality.
Most people fall into varying degrees of these spectrums, and construct their worldviews according to their experiences and methodologies.
EDIT: But yes, get a bunch of religious/scientific objectivists in an online discussion and they'll pick each other to pieces for ages.
Post by: Vester on October 06, 2011, 04:45:34 pm
Oh, I'd forgotten about that. The fundamental basis of science is the idea that the questions you ask can be answered. Which my physics professor once said is basically an article of faith, without which everything would collapse....Uh, what kind of questions would you mean by ones which can't be answered? I mean, religion certainly doesn't tend to deal with them since they're mostly about providing answers.
My bad. Let me amend that to can be answered empirically. All questions can be answered.
Post by: Vector on October 06, 2011, 04:52:19 pm
Post by: kaijyuu on October 06, 2011, 04:52:40 pm
Weird tangent to go on, considering the original topic.
Post by: Leafsnail on October 06, 2011, 04:59:47 pm
As a side note, stuff like the Matrix wouldn't be at all compelling if empiricism didn't have holes. We can only experience the world, empirically, through our 5 senses; what's to say nothing is beyond that?Certainly not mainstream science, which is currently looking into particles that you cannot see, hear, smell, touch or taste (such as neutrinos).
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on October 06, 2011, 05:09:50 pm
Kael, the assumption both make is that truth must be univalent, eternal, and present itself in the same way to everyone, and so on. People can experience Truth in different ways (just think about the blind men and the elephant story), all partaking of the same entity, without it being false.Yes. There's something I have found that is important is that whether you're objectivist or subjectivist or whatever: you're going to learn much more about the nature of reality if you are not attached to one dogma or paradigm - and open yourself up to the fact that you might simply be mistaken, seeing things differently, and realise that we are unable to encounter a vast majority of the human experiences in this short life - then this opens oneself up to a lifetime of learning and beauty.
Post by: kaijyuu on October 06, 2011, 05:20:55 pm
???
The tools we use to detect those convert what they see into one of our five senses. They do not directly send signals to our brains. Using a tool does not somehow mean we're using something other than sight, taste, etc to experience the world.
Think a little. :P
Post by: Bauglir on October 06, 2011, 05:24:19 pm
All of which must be measured with instruments whose output can be read by our senses, and which must be designed according to principles derived from sensory information. It's entirely possible that these senses are incomplete and there is some additional aspect to reality that is utterly undetectable. Of course, my response to that is, "So what difference does it make?" so ultimately I still come back to empiricism for pretty much everything it's applicable to.As a side note, stuff like the Matrix wouldn't be at all compelling if empiricism didn't have holes. We can only experience the world, empirically, through our 5 senses; what's to say nothing is beyond that?Certainly not mainstream science, which is currently looking into particles that you cannot see, hear, smell, touch or taste (such as neutrinos).
Still, I'm not aware of any aspect of science that's succeeded at measuring qualia in anything that could be described as an effective manner, and I'm skeptical that it's possible. I cannot imagine how any amount of knowledge about the structure of the components of apple pie could lead to an effective way of conveying the sensation of its smell - what you'd need is near-perfect knowledge of the nervous system of the person you're trying to communicate to. Neurobiology has certainly made progress in quantifying phenomena associated with sensations, but that's hardly the same thing. As anyone who's tried to do tech support over the phone (on either end) can probably tell you, there's a lot your senses pick up on that's difficult to put into words, or even realize you need to put into words.
Post by: Leafsnail on October 06, 2011, 05:36:46 pm
The tools we use to detect those convert what they see into one of our five senses. They do not directly send signals to our brains. Using a tool does not somehow mean we're using something other than sight, taste, etc to experience the world.We can directly send signals to brains via electrodes, but I guess that isn't your point. I didn't realise quite how far I was meant to interpret your words.
Think a little. :P
It's entirely possible that these sense are incomplete and there is some additional aspect to reality that is utterly undetectable. Of course, my response to that is, "So what difference does it make?" so ultimately I still come back to empiricism for pretty much everything it's applicable to.Yeah. As far as I'm concerned, if something cannot ever be detected in any way at all, it doesn't exist in my world and I don't care about it (and to be honest, I'm don't see how faith would help me in this area at all). Maybe I could speculate if I were some kind of extremely clever being who could simply deduce those kind of things, but I'm not, so I'll stick to things that can be detected in my world.
Post by: Tack on October 06, 2011, 06:55:26 pm
In the end, you'll either be ignoring sections of your faith so that you can continue to believe that the god you're defying loves you, or you'll hold strong to all of it - deny the world, trust in your book and become the Westboro Baptist Church.
So... Back to Sex and Marriage.
I actually do believe that Classical conditioning can play a small part in what a person does, though. We all know that people who watch pornography tend to have way less conservative, and far more specific wants and needs during sex.
But, I'm not sure that a whole bunch of short term relationships will tie you only into doing that for life. A lot of people slept around until finding the right girl, just as a lot of people got out of a divorce and immediately began hitting the town. People are good at changing. It's what we do.
Post by: Vector on October 06, 2011, 06:57:16 pm
Post by: Tack on October 06, 2011, 07:11:38 pm
But if you'd like to find a text from an ancient religion that does not contain at least one contradiction/outdated theory/crude social bias, then be sure to tell me.
Post by: Vector on October 06, 2011, 07:12:47 pm
Post by: Bauglir on October 06, 2011, 09:08:18 pm
>____________________________________>
Post by: Urist Imiknorris on October 06, 2011, 09:10:37 pm
Post by: Vector on October 06, 2011, 09:12:56 pm
Actually, I recently proved reincarnation wrong, although this relies on the assumption that aluminum foil is impermeable to souls (I assume foil hats exist for exactly this reason).
>____________________________________>
. . .
<____________________________________<
Post by: Bauglir on October 06, 2011, 09:18:30 pm
I would love to hear the proof of that.You'll have to wait for my paper to be published in Totally Legit Experimental Theology, to be published in early 2013.
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on October 06, 2011, 10:21:26 pm
Likewise, most people's idea of reincarnation is totally bunk when compared to the actual theory. Think constant changes in the idea of a "self", of which there is no actual self other than one's conception of it and this is mentally and spiritually reborn at any given moment - dies and then is renewed. Most people just think of physical death, because their concept of reality is only what they can sense. Likewise these labels and preconceptions of the self are passed on through thoughts, actions, and social norms. It's the point where this realisation of the not-self occurs that enlightenment and understanding of the nature of happiness and reality is reached.
Nirvana, or Nibbana in the Buddha's language, literally means "extinguishing of the flame" - and has to do with the metaphysics behind how the ancient Indians viewed what happened to a fire once it goes out. What could be called a flame is now gone, but the energy is still there, dispersed, all around us. Just the fuel, the agitation, the desires we have that keep the fire burning - those have been put out.
That being said, it's all phenomenology. We pay way too much attention and lip-service to external forms. Those aren't so important in the scheme of things.
Post by: Vector on October 06, 2011, 10:25:18 pm
(It's been slated to 35 because some other languages, including Polish and Mandarin Chinese, have priority >_> <_<)
Post by: Descan on October 06, 2011, 10:26:38 pm
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on October 06, 2011, 10:32:07 pm
Good man. I can see that when I'm 35 or so I'm going to need to approach Thai, because the English translations are apparently ruddy terrible.Allow me to introduce you to Abhayagiri Forest Monastery and some of Thanissaro Bhikkhu's English translations from the original Pali sometime. I have some books I can give you that are much better than the stuff you'd normally find. >.>
(It's been slated to 35 because some other languages, including Polish and Mandarin Chinese, have priority >_> <_<)
Post by: Tack on October 06, 2011, 10:46:38 pm
I see what you did there... Kudos for sly humorI would love to hear the proof of that.You'll have to wait for my paper to be published in Totally Legit Experimental Theology, to be published in early 2013.
Post by: Pnx on October 07, 2011, 12:31:43 am
She told me that souls renter the world time and again until they reach their final state of enlightenment.
Every life a soul lives brings it experience, and it continues to experience life again and again until it finally experiences all it needs to. Then it is released, and dissipates into the world to be remade.
She told me this as an explanation to her saying that I sounded like an old soul.
I'm young, but at times I feel a hundred years old. I've felt much older than I actually am for as long as I can remember, people often commented when I was 10 years old it was like talking to someone that was 20.
So maybe she was onto something.
I can't shake the feeling life doesn't have anything more to give me.
I know I shouldn't think that way, but new experiences just don't really mean anything to me.
But life goes on, whether I like it or not.
Post by: Virex on October 07, 2011, 02:21:02 am
Post by: Vester on October 07, 2011, 03:11:40 am
Nah, it probably just means you're seeing yourself as a special snowflake for some reason.
Everyone is a special snowflake.
The problem is snowflakes melt.
Post by: Bauglir on October 07, 2011, 07:26:55 am
Books, you say? I will almost certainly never meet you, myself, so borrowing them directly is difficult. However, a Kael-originating endorsement is good enough for me! Is there any information in addition to that post that would be required to find similar copies of the same works?Good man. I can see that when I'm 35 or so I'm going to need to approach Thai, because the English translations are apparently ruddy terrible.Allow me to introduce you to Abhayagiri Forest Monastery and some of Thanissaro Bhikkhu's English translations from the original Pali sometime. I have some books I can give you that are much better than the stuff you'd normally find. >.>
(It's been slated to 35 because some other languages, including Polish and Mandarin Chinese, have priority >_> <_<)
I need to revise my methodology, apparently, you see. >__>
Post by: Rose on October 07, 2011, 07:35:09 am
Nah, it probably just means you're seeing yourself as a special snowflake for some reason.
Everyone is a special snowflake.
The problem is snowflakes melt.
the other problem is that while you can see differences between two different snowflakes, really, you've seen one, you've seen em all.
Post by: kaijyuu on October 07, 2011, 08:58:36 am
Post by: Rose on October 07, 2011, 08:59:07 am
Post by: kaijyuu on October 07, 2011, 09:01:56 am
Post by: Vester on October 07, 2011, 09:30:07 am
Until you get to the tiny details.
But then they melt.
Post by: kaijyuu on October 07, 2011, 09:33:39 am
Post by: Leafsnail on October 07, 2011, 09:40:25 am
There's also... you know... Buddhism...Surely lack of contradiction isn't sufficient to imply something is correct, though.
Post by: Vector on October 07, 2011, 09:48:12 am
It's how we do it over here in math-land. It's consistent with it, it's consistent without it, might as well add it and find out what happens.
Post by: Leafsnail on October 07, 2011, 10:12:28 am
Post by: kaijyuu on October 07, 2011, 10:15:02 am
Or just abstain from making any assumptions at all, like me (agnosticism go!).
EDIT: Assuming we're still talking about religion here. Dunno about math land :X
Post by: Leafsnail on October 07, 2011, 10:25:41 am
Err, it should be pretty obvious as to "how." Choose something to believe (or not) and see what happens in the afterlife (if your choice has an afterlife).This isn't an answer, it's just restating the question. My question is how do you decide which "consistent" things you bolt on to your view of the world, considering that there are a virtually infinite number of them and many of them will be mutually exclusive or directly contradictory to others?
Post by: Tack on October 07, 2011, 10:26:55 am
But, High school maths isn't enough knowledge base to pull off a decent math-uendo. Or Math-entendre?
Post by: TheBronzePickle on October 07, 2011, 11:07:05 am
Of course, as a counter to that, the more bigoted a person of faith is, the lower their happiness and quality of life appears to be. Thankfully, my faith as it stands (Christianity focusing heavily on the teachings of Jesus above other parts of the Bible) specifically asks me to avoid bigotry.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 07, 2011, 12:47:52 pm
I actually base my "faith" off of scientific testing. My studies have found that I tend to get better results from my actions by praying to God beforehand than when I try to do the actions on my own.That is not a legitimate scientific test. First, you are only testing yourself. For a scientific inquiry, you need a large test group. Secondly, you are allowing your bias to effect you through your participation. You want God to exist, so you are subconsciously (or depending on your level of ethics, consciously) effecting your results.
More scientifically legitimate studies on prayer also contradict you. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567)
Post by: TheBronzePickle on October 07, 2011, 01:59:23 pm
I wish I could see more about that study you're showing me. If prayer does nothing, people shouldn't be having worse incidents from it.
Post by: Virex on October 07, 2011, 02:04:06 pm
Post by: TheBronzePickle on October 07, 2011, 02:30:27 pm
The only reason I have faith at all is because I've made too many observations that point toward some kind of higher power offering blessings to those who dare to ask. I choose to follow Christianity because of all the religions I've looked at, Christianity fits in with my observations the best.
...anyway, um, wasn't this thread about sex before marriage or something? Getting back to that topic somewhat, the church I'm at teaches abstinence because it's an outreach program that tries to get into the kinds of areas with teen pregnancy issues and STI problems. When it comes to areas like that, saying to wait a while is pretty good advice.
Post by: Lord Shonus on October 07, 2011, 02:43:13 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 07, 2011, 02:43:40 pm
I have an answer for the bias part, in that I've performed tests where the factors involved that would decrease the chances of me getting an advantage (like being nervous before a test) have been amplified in the times that I do pray.Not good enough. You cannot be involved. Bias will always leak through even if you are actively planning against it, so you have to be separate from participation in the experiment.
Quote
I can also say that I have observed many people who seem to legitimately benefit from prayer.
The only reason I have faith at all is because I've made too many observations that point toward some kind of higher power offering blessings to those who dare to ask.Just like that lady with terminal breast cancer who was miraculously cured by god at a healing.
Alright, so it was more of non-terminal breast cancer.
Well, it wasn't actually diagnosed by a doctor, but she knew it was cancer.
I'm just saying, it was a very strange looking lump that went away after she prayed, and you can't prove that it wasn't cancer and that God didn't heal her because he totally exists.
You cannot trust your personal anecdotes as evidence.
Quote
I wish I could see more about that study you're showing me. If prayer does nothing, people shouldn't be having worse incidents from it.The outlier was the group that knew they were being prayed for, so that's what must be looked at. The actual act of prayer disconnected from the subject seems to do nothing, as the groups that weren't being prayed for and being secretly prayed for got effectively the same amount of complications. From that we can deduce that the knowledge that people are praying for your recovery was the cause of the outlier, as this was the only difference between the two groups being prayed for. Cardiac bypass (the surgery of those involved in the prayer study) is obviously a very serious event, and even slight things can have major consequences. The most likely explanation is that the complications are developing from stress. Knowing that people are expecting you to make a supernatural recovery handed down by God Himself is a massive performance to lead up to. So much so that your heart rate might go up, testing your newly bypassed artery to its limit...
Quote
...anyway, um, wasn't this thread about sex before marriage or something? Getting back to that topic somewhat, the church I'm at teaches abstinence because it's an outreach program that tries to get into the kinds of areas with teen pregnancy issues and STI problems. When it comes to areas like that, saying to wait a while is pretty good advice.Good advice in theory, not in practice. You can't expect people to wait because they aren't going to listen to you. Teenagers live in a haze of sex hormones and social anxiety that makes any chance of intimacy with another human being a very attractive proposition. Some may not pursue that, but most will and won't listen to a word you say if you try to stop them. To them, people who preach abstinence only are just a bunch of asshole adults (or fellow asshole teenagers, they won't make a distinction) who "Don't know what I'm going through, man!". Simply put, you cannot stop them and by trying you are making your position invalid to them. By advocating safe sex you are allowing them to fulfill their urges, and the only small limits you are trying to get them to practice are there for very good, completely obvious reasons. Through that, you come off as legitimately caring about their well being instead of just trying to keep them down, and as such they will listen to you far more often.
Post by: TheBronzePickle on October 07, 2011, 03:45:16 pm
Good advice in theory, not in practice. You can't expect people to wait because they aren't going to listen to you. Teenagers live in a haze of sex hormones and social anxiety that makes any chance of intimacy with another human being a very attractive proposition. Some may not pursue that, but most will and won't listen to a word you say if you try to stop them. To them, people who preach abstinence only are just a bunch of asshole adults (or fellow asshole teenagers, they won't make a distinction) who "Don't know what I'm going through, man!". Simply put, you cannot stop them and by trying you are making your position invalid to them. By advocating safe sex you are allowing them to fulfill their urges, and the only small limits you are trying to get them to practice are there for very good, completely obvious reasons. Through that, you come off as legitimately caring about their well being instead of just trying to keep them down, and as such they will listen to you far more often.
We don't say "you should do this because blah," we say "we recommend you do this" and give them a bunch of good reasons, most of them bounded in science, as to why they should probably listen. This only after we've gotten them to listen to us in the first place by showing them the benefits of, if not following God, then being in a community of people who actively care about each other's welfare and follow a doctrine that teaches love and tolerance (not that half the misguided bigots in my church are actually tolerant, but the ones that are make all the difference from any other group they could get into).
Post by: Vector on October 07, 2011, 05:33:10 pm
This isn't an answer, it's just restating the question. My question is how do you decide which "consistent" things you bolt on to your view of the world, considering that there are a virtually infinite number of them and many of them will be mutually exclusive or directly contradictory to others?
Bolt them on one at a time, checking for contradictions, and when you find contradictions, rework things.
This is not that novel of a concept. It's like "Do you want the axiom of choice or not? You get to decide!"
Post by: Vester on October 07, 2011, 05:38:31 pm
You cannot trust your personal anecdotes as evidence.
Trusting everyone else's personal anecdotes, however, is perfectly alright. I mean, as long as they're peer reviewed.
Post by: Vector on October 07, 2011, 05:41:39 pm
Post by: Virex on October 07, 2011, 05:45:15 pm
Post by: Leafsnail on October 07, 2011, 06:05:12 pm
Bolt them on one at a time, checking for contradictions, and when you find contradictions, rework things....That doesn't really answer my question. What I was driving at was where in the near-infinite phase space of possible things do you even start? You could start with, for instance, "There is a benevolent god watching over me who will reward me if I do good things", but why is that any more valid than "There is an evil god watching over me who will reward me if I do bad things"? Is there any point in speculating in this way when a) there is inherently never going to be way to test the things you are speculating about (this is why the comparison to maths is not really valid - there is always going to be at least a possibility that you can test a mathematical conjecture at some point) and b) there is an equal chance that you are catastrophically wrong as that you are correct?
This is not that novel of a concept. It's like "Do you want the axiom of choice or not? You get to decide!"
Really, I just don't see anything to gain in speculating about things that are almost infinitely unlikely, which cannot be tested and which can never affect my life. In a way I find the belief in an active deity easier to understand.
I guess I'll also point everyone to the shockingly large number of religious mathematicians. Does "God created the natural numbers--all else is the work of man" ring a bell for anyone?...Is this relevant? The fact that some mathematicians (as far as I can tell a lower proportion than in the general population, though) are religious is surely irrelevant to the merit of religious ideas.
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 07, 2011, 06:19:56 pm
No you can't. Scientific studies are peer reviewed. Other people's personal anecdotes are also not evidence, and are not peer reviewed or repeatedly tested under laboratory conditions.You cannot trust your personal anecdotes as evidence.
Trusting everyone else's personal anecdotes, however, is perfectly alright. I mean, as long as they're peer reviewed.
Post by: TheBronzePickle on October 07, 2011, 06:21:08 pm
Post by: Syreniac on October 07, 2011, 06:31:52 pm
Meh. Religious debate. Neither side wins because pro-religion is adaptive enough to find away around anything anti-religion provides, or the more zealous or bigoted ones might just call "blasphemy" and irrelevate the whole argument. Anti-religion will never give up since science is founded in the search for truth, and so far our science has given no proof of the existence of a god or gods.
And both sides complain because the other side tries to force their viewpoints on each other.
Post by: kaijyuu on October 07, 2011, 06:50:47 pm
Quote
What I was driving at was where in the near-infinite phase space of possible things do you even start?Wherever you want.
Quote
You could start with, for instance, "There is a benevolent god watching over me who will reward me if I do good things", but why is that any more valid than "There is an evil god watching over me who will reward me if I do bad things"?It isn't.
Quote
Is there any point in speculating in this way when a) there is inherently never going to be way to test the things you are speculating about (this is why the comparison to maths is not really valid - there is always going to be at least a possibility that you can test a mathematical conjecture at some point) and b) there is an equal chance that you are catastrophically wrong as that you are correct?It won't matter to anything empirical, which has already been established. However, it would matter to anything not; this includes concepts such as the afterlife. It also includes things like mental well being, if you believe there's more to the mind than the brain (such as a soul or whatever).
Quote
Really, I just don't see anything to gain in speculating about things that are almost infinitely unlikely, which cannot be tested and which can never affect my life.This is ultimately why I'm agnostic, as I agree. I abstain from making any assumptions whatsoever, as if there is anything beyond the empirical, it's beyond my control.
The point being made in this thread (I think) is that any religious opinion relies on non-empirical theory, and thus science has no place when discussing them. They rely on two different schools of philosophical thought.
Post by: jc6036 on October 07, 2011, 06:54:28 pm
Post by: Bauglir on October 07, 2011, 08:00:25 pm
Post by: jc6036 on October 07, 2011, 08:09:16 pm
Post by: TheBronzePickle on October 07, 2011, 08:14:08 pm
Post by: jc6036 on October 07, 2011, 08:37:04 pm
Post by: TheBronzePickle on October 07, 2011, 08:39:43 pm
Post by: Vector on October 07, 2011, 08:43:54 pm
We're stuck with deciding what's a priori no matter what. You can't sweep it under the rug by saying "experimental data." Say you're schizophrenic... then what?
You choose to believe in your senses. You choose to believe in a lot of things. And to demean those choices, as though they were nothing, just because you think the evidence is very strong... now, that's foolish.
Post by: Bauglir on October 07, 2011, 09:16:29 pm
Now, I don't feel spiritual, really. I look at a world composed of waves of something I don't even begin to understand entwining with one another and building into atoms into molecules into every diverse form those take, some of which grow together into neurons, which once again grow together into a mind that can conceptualize things, and all I can think is, "Holy crap, I'm that thing, and everything I recognize as a thing is just like me - a beautiful pattern, made of smaller patterns and making a greater." It's just amazing to think about how everything emerges from lesser levels of emergence, but now I'm just waxing crazy about my own beliefs that are kind of wholly irrelevant here since they don't deal in morality at all.
Post by: SalmonGod on October 07, 2011, 10:12:16 pm
Maybe people should love for the sake of loving, and not with all of these optimization conditions.
Best quote. It reminds me of the poem read at my wedding ceremony.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Have I mentioned I've been in a committed relationship longer than anyone else I know under the age of 40-ish?... with someone who is my opposite in almost every way, even. I firmly believe it's because we made a decided commitment, rather than declaring "This person is the one, because they have the qualities I'm looking for." People blame high divorce rates on a lot of things, but I don't hear mention of that mistake as often as I should...
Not that our relationship is ideal. In some ways we're even harmful to each other... but through each other we've also grown immensely as human beings, and of all the people we know with children, ours are the only ones who enjoy a stable home...
This thread has been pretty great. Most mature, thoughtful, and diversified discussion of the topic I've ever seen.
For my part, I'll just say that I'm 28 and have only been intimate with one person in my entire life. I have never even kissed anyone other than my spouse. I recognize that this may work out great for some people, but I can not personally recommend it. All the reasons have already been mentioned. I'm not going to get into any more details, or I'll be tempted to tell embarrassing stories about myself that might get me in trouble.
On the religion vs science thing:
Science gives us information. It doesn't give that information meaning or use. That takes subjective interpretation and creativity. That's where spirituality comes on. I personally disfavor the term religion, because I equate that with worship of/subservience to a supposedly higher being... which I find to be an overly simplified and psychologically unhealthy approach to spirituality, but that's just my personal belief.
The thing is, everything can be interpreted in so many ways. Let me just share some of my own musings.
I'm sure many are aware of the concept that a whole is great than the sum of its parts. For instance, a car is just a bunch of materials shaped and put together in a certain way, but that's what makes it what it more than just those materials. It has capabilities that a collection of those exact same materials in a random pile would not have.
The idea that we are just a collection of chemical reactions has been mentioned a lot in this thread. We are the most powerful example of a whole being greater than the sum of its parts. My question is why do we not apply this concept on a tier higher than ourselves. Many of the chemical reactions we are made of are living beings unto themselves, after all. We're full of cells and microscopic organisms that have their own cycles of life and death. Imagine, just for thought experiment, that all of those cells that make up our body have a sense of individuality the same as we do. They're just living their lives doing what cells do, aware of their own impending mortality as they go about interacting with other cells. What could they think of us? Would it be possible for them to be aware of their participation in a consciousness independent of their own?
So what about us? Is it possible for us to be one component of another consciousness, that is too abstract for us to conceive? What about multiples, even? Think of all the systems in which you could be defined as one particle; all these groupings that have their own dynamics. Your family/city/county/state/nation/planet. How about the internet? Could our activities here be comparable in some way to the synapses of a brain interacting to process information? That's all we're doing, right? Interacting with each other to compile and process information. Our interactions are burned into this non-space like a memory, for other synapses to stumble across and consider as they process their own problems that are interconnected with the problems of every other synapse that differ only in slight shifts of context. Does this have implications as to the possible nature of something like a higher being?
And what of this whole idea of various things being definable as separate from other things? My favorite TED talk (http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html) is on exactly this subject. This neurochemist had a stroke where the entire logic side of her brain shut down, and she survived to tell of the experience of being suddenly unable to process language or distinguish her own body from its surroundings. Her description of that was incredibly powerful to me... to imagine looking at my own arm, and then finding not an arm but a continuous field of stuff. The whole universe is a swirling expanse of particle systems made of particle systems made of particle systems, without any indication that there is an upper or lower limit to the tiers of scale. It seems to me that the way we perceive objects (including ourselves) as being separate from one another is completely an incidental feature of our perspective from a single tier of scale, and if this were altered somehow we may end up with completely different definitions of where things begin and end, including our own consciousness.
These are questions that I can't imagine science being able to answer, because they're a product of the subjective nature of our being. I see these as spiritual questions, or religious if you prefer.
And then there's the issue of the origin of the universe. I personally cannot conceive of infinite, but I also cannot conceive of an original cause or effect. I think the answer is likely a notion abstract enough that empirical observation can never approach an answer, and it will always be the subject of conjecture between self-contained systems of definitions such as math, which I see as purely logical but also not exactly a science.
And yeah, you can say that this is all naval-gazing rubbish with no purpose, but that's also a subjective value assessment. To me, it's of fundamental importance to understanding the nature of my own being and its part in the broader scope of existence.
Edit: And as I was typing this, it looks like Bauglir started heading in roughly the same direction :D
Post by: TheBronzePickle on October 07, 2011, 10:25:49 pm
This is the awesomest forum in the universe.
Post by: Bauglir on October 07, 2011, 10:42:26 pm
The concept of a "chair" does not have physical meaning, as far as I'm aware - what a chair is is a particular pattern, information. But it has meaning, and not in the purely abstract sense of the word (which is something concepts like "freedom" or "happiness" seem to have). The distinction I make in the second sentence is a thought I literally just had, though, so I'm going to need to think on that for a while to see if it really means anything or if it just sounds like it.
EDIT: Oh, fuck, I'm Plato now, aren't I? Something something ideal forms something something. Well, on looking it up, not exactly - I don't ascribe them quite the same level of significance or anything like that, but maybe a similar principle.
Post by: MaximumZero on October 07, 2011, 10:49:58 pm
Post by: Bauglir on October 07, 2011, 10:54:23 pm
Post by: Descan on October 07, 2011, 10:57:06 pm
Before I go, I'm just going to say everything is subjective, but you can get semi-objectivity if you define what your goals are when you say something is the "best" at a thing.
Now, what those goals are is also subjective, so it's really a house of cards. But then again, so is everything.
This message brought to you by the phrase, "Sleep Deprivation."
Post by: kaijyuu on October 07, 2011, 11:08:33 pm
Not that there's anything wrong with metaphysics, it's just that it's... a bit crazy when you really dive into it.
Post by: SalmonGod on October 07, 2011, 11:10:49 pm
And shift that same line of thought slightly to the nature of our consciousness. From a purely material perspective, we see it as something generated by our brain... but the processes in our brain can be directly compared to processes we participate in. It seems to me like consciousness shouldn't have the limitations that we take for granted in order to define our existence as individuals, but that we could be part of greater consciousness that we simply cannot conceive of because we are but one part of a whole that from our point of perspective is incredibly abstract.
Post by: Vector on October 07, 2011, 11:16:46 pm
Kind of like Truth or Law.
Post by: Bauglir on October 07, 2011, 11:31:47 pm
Anyway, I will say that I don't trouble too much about higher levels of consciousness of which I'm a component since, by definition, I'd never be able to be cognizant of them. It's interesting to try to think about, certainly, and it might be interesting in some kind of hyperfuture to try and map out the equivalent of neural pathways, but I think that even success there would tell you about as much about what this hypothetical overmind is thinking as mapping scent pathways in a human brain tells you about what that person thinks apple pie smells like[/old example].
The Platonic form idea is that there's this idea, chair, which we understand, and from which all experiences of chairs partake, even if the chairs are different in shape, feel, etc., whatever.Yeah, I shouldn't have even brought it up, it wasn't really relevant.
Kind of like Truth or Law.
Post by: SalmonGod on October 07, 2011, 11:43:47 pm
Anyway, it was all just a big overly elaborate comment on the whole science vs religion thing.
Post by: Vector on October 07, 2011, 11:45:19 pm
Post by: Bauglir on October 07, 2011, 11:47:01 pm
Post by: Vector on October 07, 2011, 11:49:10 pm
Post by: SalmonGod on October 07, 2011, 11:51:24 pm
Post by: Bauglir on October 07, 2011, 11:53:47 pm
Post by: Solifuge on October 07, 2011, 11:56:48 pm
Post by: Vector on October 07, 2011, 11:57:42 pm
They are great.
Post by: Solifuge on October 08, 2011, 12:12:16 am
Post by: Pnx on October 08, 2011, 01:10:53 am
I suppose I should shut up and add it to my reading list already.
Personally the only religion I've ever proscribed to is Terry Pratchett.
He has something like 20 novels and I've read and loved every one of them. He manages to pull off something unique every time.
It's probably growing up with them that does it, I must have a Terry Pratchett quotes memorised by now.
Anyway, since we're on the subject, "Small Gods" is... religion themed, and makes for a good introduction into the Discworld books.
He did also do some scifi books, but I've always felt they're a little "meh".
The "Truckers", "Diggers", and "Wings", series is, I think, when he's at his worst. Although that's probably because they're really childrens books, I found the fact that he talks down to you to be kind of annoying.
"Carpet People" is interesting though. It's a fun little world, although the scale of it always struck me as being a little off...
Anyway, I should stop myself before this turns into an essay on why I like Terry Pratchett.
Post by: Rose on October 08, 2011, 01:34:37 am
Personally the only religion I've ever proscribed to is Terry Pratchett.
He has something like 40 novels
Fixed that for you.
Post by: Leafsnail on October 08, 2011, 05:44:25 am
We're stuck with deciding what's a priori no matter what. You can't sweep it under the rug by saying "experimental data." Say you're schizophrenic... then what?If I am somehow schizophrenic in an extremely specific and consistent way then I will roll with examining the consistent schizophrenic world in which I reside. You appear to be dismissing the idea of testable predictions (which you can perform with the senses, since they generally give consistent information about the world) being proved right time and time again for no reason.
I can see there is a slight chance that I am delusional in this way, but a) there's no reason at all to think that over the alternative and b) it's not relevant to me whether or not it's true since I think you're proposing me being delusional in such a way I'd never be able to tell I was.
You choose to believe in your senses. You choose to believe in a lot of things. And to demean those choices, as though they were nothing, just because you think the evidence is very strong... now, that's foolish.If you're gonna be insulting at least be it directly to me rather than to the world in general.
Post by: Africa on October 08, 2011, 08:12:47 am
Post by: Il Palazzo on October 08, 2011, 08:45:14 am
Post by: Vester on October 08, 2011, 09:03:32 am
I read those "A Wrinkle in Time" books in third grade or so and loved them, but they're one of those ones that you really have to read in third grade. I reread the first one as an adult and it was pretty grueling. It's a kids' book and nothing is wrong with that, but it's not a kids' book that also makes good adult reading, like Harry Potter or His Dark Materials.
A Swiftly Tilting Planet is still good, but A Wrinkle in Time itself really does read as though it's meant for a young audience.
Post by: Tack on October 08, 2011, 10:25:50 am
But yeah, when you brought up the concept of defining a chair, all I could think of was Piaget and his theory regarding the concrete operations stage of development, in which children will over-define or under-define an object - for instance, they'll see a chair, and say 'chair', and then see a table, which is also made of wood, and say 'chair' - or the opposite, where they won't accept that another chair is a 'chair', because the object they know as 'chair' is the one with the knot-work in the backboard - etc.
Just makes you think that we spend our childhood learning not to do that, and then we get to adulthood and begin having reasonable discussions about why we should revert back to it.
But then again, I'm so sleep-deprived right now that my theory-linking is a little odd.
Post by: Vector on October 08, 2011, 11:54:10 am
If you're gonna be insulting at least be it directly to me rather than to the world in general.
I didn't realize that the idea of questioning everything was so insulting, or that if one has a general complaint with the conduct of the human race, one should hold one's tongue until one manages to assemble a majority.
I'll just say now that I've been bit in the ass by rationality, science, careful planning, and all those good things more times than I can count. Scientifically that leads me to the conclusion that I need to consider other things for the situations in which science no longer functions well. It doesn't work. My observations of the world lead me to the secondary conclusion that what we're doing doesn't work for most of us.
I'm not saying "blah blah blah religion! <3," I'm saying "Clinging to the scientific method like this isn't even good science. It doesn't make philosophical sense, it doesn't make scientific sense, it doesn't make an ethical world. This goes double for anything and everything attached to game theory."
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 08, 2011, 12:10:58 pm
I'm saying "Clinging to the scientific method like this isn't even good science. It doesn't make philosophical sense, it doesn't make scientific sense, it doesn't make an ethical world."What. The scientific method is the very essence of science itself. And science has nothing to do with ethics! It can help to inform ethical choices, but science has always been about what is true, not what is right.
I'll just say now that I've been bit in the ass by rationality, science, careful planning, and all those good things more times than I can count.Scientifically that leads me to the conclusion that I need to consider other things for the situations in which science no longer functions well. It doesn't work. My observations of the world lead me to the secondary conclusion that what we're doing doesn't work for most of us.Then name a situation in which this has happened, and your proposed alternative.
The scientific method isn't perfect, but it is close, and furthermore it is the best and only methodology available to us for the monumental task of defining our reality.
Post by: Vector on October 08, 2011, 12:26:56 pm
And why is the best world thought to be the most efficient and least flexible? This notion is fundamentally destructive. When speaking to things, yes, it is good. But what we end up doing is treating human beings like a chorus of exchangeable parts on the factory line, often in the name of "fairness." Equivalence is, as I have said, not equality. But this idea is the root of so much pain in the world, so many "isms," that we all end up running our self-optimization projects rather than paying attention to who we really are.
You don't get double-blind objective scientific laboratory trials when it comes to knowing yourself. You get one chance, and every moment--every subjective moment--you live is another moment in which you can grow to see yourself better. Who you are, what you need, what you should become.
Or, rather: why should the collective statistical information of a bunch of people who have never known you tell you what your telos (http://www.iep.utm.edu/aris-pol/#H5) is?
The experience of sitting in a chair isn't scientific. Sure, you can write down all the force diagrams, and draw pictures of your spine doing x or y, or get a bunch of volunteers to write out what it's like, rate the experience from 1 to 10, etc. And you can make a big fancy report of all this, and issue it to people right before they're going to sit in a chair for the very first time. You can write down all sorts of things in this report--where the materials come from, who made that particular chair, diagrams of the factory, history of the chair in human society, every single piece of scientific information we could possibly manage.
But would you know the chair better from all that objective information, or from how it feels to sit for the first time?
Post by: Leafsnail on October 08, 2011, 12:40:08 pm
I didn't realize that the idea of questioning everything was so insulting, or that if one has a general complaint with the conduct of the human race, one should hold one's tongue until one manages to assemble a majority.It was quite obviously the "foolish" part. If you think I'm foolish, I'd rather you say that to me rather than make a general statement to that effect (which is clearly intended to implicitly insult me).
I'll just say now that I've been bit in the ass by rationality, science, careful planning, and all those good things more times than I can count. Scientifically that leads me to the conclusion that I need to consider other things for the situations in which science no longer functions well. It doesn't work. My observations of the world lead me to the secondary conclusion that what we're doing doesn't work for most of us.This is fair - I suppose if you thought I was saying that you have to be scientific about everything that would be a pretty bad viewpoint. I think I should stress at this point that I'm not, though. It's not that you have to be rational all the time, or scientific all the time, it's more that I have trouble understanding how/ why faith (rather than the other possibilities) is supposed to work as an alternative.
And why is the best world thought to be the most efficient and least flexible?It's a good question, but it's surely not intrisically necessary to the scientific process. Indeed, you are making an argument based on the scientific process why it shouldn't be.
Post by: Vector on October 08, 2011, 12:52:03 pm
As for faith, maybe there's some confusion as to what I meant by that word. I meant "the existence of questions that are not satisfiably answered via scientific proof/evidence/theory." So, in this instance, I'm not talking about religion so much as experiences outside of scientific inquiry and proof, which are still held as/known as true... and furthermore, not as an alternative so much as a supplement.
I'm not at all saying "Throw out science!" I'm saying "Add to science! It has seriously damaging limitations!"
It's a good question, but it's surely not intrisically necessary to the scientific process. Indeed, you are making an argument based on the scientific process why it shouldn't be.
... True, it's more of an offshoot of game theory and our usual optimization schematics than science proper. Still, there should be no trouble with discovering the limitations of science with meta-science. If it worked with mathematics, then...
Post by: Il Palazzo on October 08, 2011, 01:24:12 pm
Post by: SalmonGod on October 08, 2011, 01:45:46 pm
There's the fools who rely overmuch on science, nearly deifying it, and there's the fools who rely overmuch on faith and do evil by it.
I think in both cases it has less to do with the limitations of one style of thinking vs the other and more to do with people becoming so obsessed with a methodology that they become incapable of recognizing when they're failing the original goals of contributing to human well-being. People need to learn to let go instead of clinging when it becomes clear that the ideas and processes they hold dear are becoming harmful when they were meant to be helpful. This stubbornness is what I attribute the majority of the world's problems to. The larger the grouping of people, the larger the inclination to stuff everyone's identities and values into a rigid structure. Ironically, this also means that the larger the grouping of people, the larger the membership of that group whose needs are going to be forsaken... and when you point out this failing the common response will be roughly "this is just the way it is", which is just an appeal to the rigidity of the structure rather than saying anything for its worth to humanity.
The prime example is The Law. Anyone with the slightest bit of critical thinking ability is aware that the law isn't always right... yet we cling to this belief that adhering to the law even when it isn't right is fundamental to the integrity of society. I see this as contradictory. How can it be right to value this abstract concept of society or any of its facets over any human being, when society is supposed to be a collection of social structures that facilitate mutual cooperation and support by and for all human participants. Yet it seems to me like people are constantly abandoning each other over these abstract ideals, forgetting that those ideals were invented in the first place to help them benefit each other.
I wrote the following on an MBTI forum, and I think it's also pretty relevant to this issue.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Post by: KaelGotDwarves on October 08, 2011, 05:38:08 pm
The simple truth of it is that there's no humanity, ethics, morality, values and such in science and the universe unless we put it there. In the past, not just religion has done evil, science has as well. It's a simple thing to do to forget about, morality towards your fellow humans, when you're interested in the best, most functional people and societies. Think Nazi Aryanism and experiments on people, Chinese Great Leap Forward, the Khmer Rouge Cambodian Genocide, past liquidations of the mentally infirm and disabled. You may argue that these are not sound applications of science, but it certainly made sense to the people doing it. It's the same with religious bigots, organised religion is supposed to serve and protect people in a co-beneficial relationship, not have people toiling under oppression.
So we should look more in our similarities than our differences. Otherwise we forget that we're all human.
Humanity's enemy is dogmaticism.
Post by: Vector on October 08, 2011, 07:09:01 pm
I'm quite aware that all these modes of thought can be used for evil. For me, there's no debate there. Science can be evil, religion can be evil, just about anything can be. Similarly, they can be used for good.
However, I'm not sure that we don't know the difference between good and evil within ourselves--something inherited, innate.
Post by: Tack on October 08, 2011, 07:13:29 pm
Post by: Vector on October 08, 2011, 07:14:13 pm
Dolphin-like...
Yeah, I think there's some orange taffeta involved, too!
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 08, 2011, 07:28:07 pm
However, I'm not sure that we don't know the difference between good and evil within ourselves--something inherited, innate.Aspects of evolutionary morality are hardly a revelation. If the vast majority of people considered killing other humans a solution to conflicts below a certain level of severity and rarity, we as a species would go extinct. It's just not something that would evolve for very long, because it doesn't lend to a stable population. Theft is similar, in that a society in which you can steal without penalty is one where everyone spends all their time trying to steal what they want and need from everyone else and everyone ends up starving to death when the consumable goods run out. Community and altruism, on the other hand, both assist a stable population. If you have a lone hunter who fails to get a kill one week, they die. If you have ten hunters who fail to get a kill half of the time, the ones who succeed through averages alone feed everyone and the group can continue surviving. The evolutionary benefits of morality are fairly clear.
Post by: SalmonGod on October 08, 2011, 07:30:25 pm
When everyone looks out for each other, no one needs to look out for themselves.
Post by: Tack on October 08, 2011, 07:37:39 pm
It's funny, because the major thing we have keeping down the human population at the moment is war.
Yet unlike survival of the fittest, in which the weakest die and the strongest breed, instead we take our strongest (physically, anyway), and kill them off.
Hilarious.
Post by: Vector on October 08, 2011, 07:38:25 pm
To be sure, morality exists only with self-consciousness and intent--"ensoulment," if you like, but that doesn't mean it had to be posited by us.
Post by: Bauglir on October 08, 2011, 07:40:39 pm
Going back to the scientific thought vs religious thought thing, it seems a classic case of overemphasis. Maybe I'm oversimplifying things myself, but it seems like nearly every time somebody has a good insight ("Holy shit guys, science is effective!" "Holy shit guys, language can impact our perception of the world!" etc), most of the people who hear about it understand on some level that there's a valuable tool here, and immediately abandon every other tool because this one is good, and don't make an effort to actually understand what the insight really was. So you get people who insist that science proves there is no God, people who insist that the Bible is the literal truth of history, people who insist that reality and consciousness are illusions, and so on. All of which seem, to me, to be such fundamental misunderstandings of the original insight as to be in direct opposition with them, but eh.
Anyway, I'm off to assume this explains all of human history kthxbai.
Post by: Phmcw on October 09, 2011, 11:32:16 am
A lot of Buddhist (including the Dalai lamas) rely more on empirical evidence than faith, and he literally said that if Science disprove a Buddhist belief, then he would abandon that particular belief. Buddhism is therefore, in my book, a philosophy.
Let's stretch things a bit : the communist party, in USSR and China, will try to make himself pass as a perfect tool of rational governance and will bury any evidence that prove other-way. They inoculate their followers with the absolute supremacy of their beliefs and the perfection of their leaders (complete with little shrine to Mao) and are therefore based on religious thinking.
Denying there is anything but empirical evidence is lacking of imagination. Dramatically.
I don't think the things you criticised came from over-relying on Science because you may empirically disprove them.
Considering that anything that hasn't been proved to exist doesn't exist is no science either.
Post by: Siquo on October 10, 2011, 09:01:59 am
Yet unlike survival of the fittest, in which the weakest die and the strongest breed, instead we take our strongest (physically, anyway), and kill them off.Well, theres something to say for ridding the world of those willing to fight.
Hilarious.
Post by: MaximumZero on October 10, 2011, 10:10:20 am
Yet unlike survival of the fittest, in which the weakest die and the strongest breed, instead we take our strongest (physically, anyway), and kill them off.Well, theres something to say for ridding the world of those willing to fight.
Hilarious.
I say we bring back gladitorial arenas and use the fighters as entertainment. Think UFC, but on a much larger scale.
Post by: Vester on October 10, 2011, 10:11:28 am
Yet unlike survival of the fittest, in which the weakest die and the strongest breed, instead we take our strongest (physically, anyway), and kill them off.Well, theres something to say for ridding the world of those willing to fight.
Hilarious.
I say we bring back gladitorial arenas and use the fighters as entertainment. Think UFC, but on a much larger scale.
Mortal Kombat, with Real Asian Mentm instead of strangely accented mustachioed Orientals?
Post by: MaximumZero on October 10, 2011, 01:34:35 pm
Post by: Tack on October 10, 2011, 08:36:51 pm
Post by: Vester on October 10, 2011, 08:39:06 pm
Post by: Bauglir on October 10, 2011, 08:42:20 pm
Post by: kaijyuu on October 10, 2011, 08:45:04 pm
I want my friggin' jetpack already. I thought we were living in the future.
Post by: MaximumZero on October 10, 2011, 09:45:30 pm
Post by: MetalSlimeHunt on October 10, 2011, 09:48:43 pm
Society decided that fake boobs were more important to research than jetpacks, so we blew all the money on them.Alright, I'm just brainstorming here, but what if....we took the fuel supply for the jetpacks.......and put it inside the fake boobs. Thoughts? It solves the fuel storage problem, but not the coolant problem...
Post by: Vester on October 10, 2011, 09:55:14 pm
Society decided that fake boobs were more important to research than jetpacks, so we blew all the money on them.Alright, I'm just brainstorming here, but what if....we took the fuel supply for the jetpacks.......and put it inside the fake boobs. Thoughts? It solves the fuel storage problem, but not the coolant problem...
Hmm, what are the insulatory properties of silicon? Maybe we could make the jetpacks, themselves, out of fake breasts.
Post by: Solifuge on October 10, 2011, 09:56:21 pm
Society decided that fake boobs were more important to research than jetpacks, so we blew all the money on them.Alright, I'm just brainstorming here, but what if....we took the fuel supply for the jetpacks.......and put it inside the fake boobs. Thoughts? It solves the fuel storage problem, but not the coolant problem...
You do realize that this would give a whole new meaning to the phrase "Blonde Bombshell".
Post by: Lord Shonus on October 10, 2011, 09:56:32 pm
Post by: kaijyuu on October 10, 2011, 10:01:55 pm
I like it.
Post by: Tack on October 11, 2011, 03:07:34 am
Post by: Starver on October 11, 2011, 04:33:13 am
Anyway, since we're on the subject, "Small Gods" is... religion themed, and makes for a good introduction into the Discworld books.YMMV, since I tend to recommend a variety of starer-books, depending upon the interests of the person. (If I think they can survive it, I'll at least encourage them to try out TCOM/TLF, with the promise that "this prototype idea grows into something beautifully thought out". Even PTerry doesn't think they're a particularly good start, in hindsight although I think he was happy with the recent adaptation (which, amongst other things, conflated Hrun and Cohen.) But Small Gods has the advantage of being very standalone. Only uses the Discworld concept insofar as a ready base (although his Gaiman novel and Nation were Roundworld-based, so not sure how necessary that is) and gives an interesting inversion to the "everybody knows/believes" idea.
Quote
He did also do some scifi books, but I've always felt they're a little "meh".Dark Side Of The Sun and of course the one with the proto-discworld (tech-based, masquarading as magic, instead of the inverse) were early creations too. They'd be different these days. And the Truckers Trilogy is a children's series from his early days. As, indeed was TCP, albeit written when he was... 16? and revised when he was older... Original "just the teenage author" versions are valuable for their rarity, though not necessarily for their writing style.
Look to his more recent "children's" books (I consider them mainstream canon, plus TAMAHER, though YMMV), and the way the Tiffany Aching series has led. Dark. Approaching the darkness of Thud, in places, with the I Shall Wear Midnight one. We're talking teenage pregnancy and... more. Which leads us, quite unexpectedly, back on topic.
It would be too broad a church to say that I agree with everything Pratchett expounds, but when it comes to some of the key issues in this thread, I think I agree with the way he portrays things. (Ok, so not literally in the case of the gods, but certainly the lifecycle of any given god 'meme' and, on the whole, I'd prefer the practicality of the Witches (ranging all the way from Granny to Tiffany) and their communities to the way many Roundworld communities dictate things, when it comes to this thread's subject.
Quote
Anyway, I should stop myself before this turns into an essay on why I like Terry Pratchett.Ditto. :)
Post by: RedKing on October 11, 2011, 06:13:14 am
Society decided that fake boobs were more important to research than jetpacks, so we blew all the money on them.Alright, I'm just brainstorming here, but what if....we took the fuel supply for the jetpacks.......and put it inside the fake boobs. Thoughts? It solves the fuel storage problem, but not the coolant problem...
Spoiler: Japan is *way* ahead of you. (click to show/hide)
Post by: Starver on October 11, 2011, 08:03:31 am
(Ok, so not technically bazookas or bazooka rounds...)
Post by: Bohandas on October 14, 2011, 11:28:04 am
the point of a "blank canvas" being preferable is on page 1.
I claim that the appeal of that idea come from the fact that a virgin is seen as more pure
That's a different way of phrasing it, but essentially yes. However, I'm approaching it from a Pavlovian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning) sense, rather than a religious one. If a girl's first orgasm is all with a 200lb weight lifter, she's likely to develop a preference for muscular guys. If a guy's first time is in his girlfriend's house watching the door because her parents might come in at any moment, he's likely to develop a preference for risky sex in places he might get caught. And the more consistently one engages in any particular activity while in a highly pleasured state, the more strongly those cues will come to be associated with pleasure in the mind.
Waiting for sex doesn't really help in this respect as much as you imply. I know from personal experience that if you wait to have sex for the first time you just wind up imprinting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinting_%28psychology%29#Sexual_imprinting) on objects in your bedroom or bathroom or wherever you masturbate. And then you wind up with paraphilia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia).
Post by: Vector on October 14, 2011, 12:12:01 pm
Post by: freeformschooler on October 14, 2011, 01:04:00 pm
Post by: kaijyuu on October 14, 2011, 03:40:40 pm
Then don't masturbate, no doy.We all know that's unreasonable :D
Post by: Leafsnail on October 14, 2011, 03:41:36 pm
Waiting for sex doesn't really help in this respect as much as you imply. I know from personal experience that if you wait to have sex for the first time you just wind up imprinting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinting_%28psychology%29#Sexual_imprinting) on objects in your bedroom or bathroom or wherever you masturbate. And then you wind up with paraphilia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia).I, uh... what. Apart from the complete lack of evidence for this claim, surely more is required for sexual imprinting than you happening to be near something while masturbating.
Post by: Bauglir on October 14, 2011, 03:42:04 pm
Post by: G-Flex on October 16, 2011, 09:05:27 am
Waiting for sex doesn't really help in this respect as much as you imply. I know from personal experience that if you wait to have sex for the first time you just wind up imprinting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinting_%28psychology%29#Sexual_imprinting) on objects in your bedroom or bathroom or wherever you masturbate. And then you wind up with paraphilia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia).
I echo Bauglir's sentiments. This experience is not universal. Do not assume that your own weird sex problems are in any way similar to anyone else's.