I just prayed to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and She said She don’t care about cheating, and that atheists are the best people in the world.
Thoughts, Cisco?
This has nothing to do with suppressing sexual desire. You’re so off topic here in hopes of straw-manning the discussion it’s not even funny. But I must ask… do you honestly think you’re going to come across as credible saying that Humans have no sex desire at all? SIr, you defy not only eons of evolutionary progress on this planet and the entirety of scientific discovery with regard to mankind, but also logic and common sense all at the same time.
There is absolutely no question that Sexual activity is heavily entrenched within our nature as Humans. Testosterone within males and Estrogen within females. Their functions and effects within the brains of our species is well documented within any scientific community of any reputability.
How am I strawmanning, you’re the one that’s saying these things
That said, where did I say humans have no sex desire? In fact, I’m saying the opposite…that it seems many people (particularly cheaters but not just them) have an uncontrollable desire for sex that is irrational and I feel like it is some kind of mental disorder.
I don’t have a problem with sex, YOU DO! How does a person GET a family without sex? That’s the framework in which the family came about in the first place!
As for the sexual urge and it’s place in a relationship… yeah, genius, go ahead and solve that one for us. Females have fallen off in sexual urges before their male partners for a long long long, well documented time! It’s not new! Men are driven by a primordial need to procreate while women are driven towards prolonging the results of that union. This is what science has told us for a long time! It is completely of social consequence that monogamy is enforced so fiercely, and for good reason because without it, we might not have progressed to the point of forming family-centric social structures such as villages, towns and eventually the world as we know it today.
This is all well documented in archaeology, anthropology and history. If only you’d vary your reading materials more broadly you’d see that for yourself.
But please, tell me more about how all woman are derivative from the rib bone of a single male.
I am not he. I remember during your early days where people would be telling you “you need jesus more than I do” and i was completely disgusted as to how you just made yourself into a lesser version of the Greatest poster. You could not build your own material. its disgusting, stop it.
I’m done with thread, i can’t claim to have won the belt since the greatest poster still currently holds it. I’m sorry for making a mess… hopefully some body can clean up the blood of Shoguts and Odin and return to talking about the issue of infidelity.
I think you know very well that the majority of times people have sex, it is not for a desire to procreate. Rather, they do it like they are possessed, with no sense of self control or care for the consequences of their actions.
This:
That right there is a straw man. You 1. attack the subject that I brought up, all the while 2. contending that it does not exist, and finally 3. that anyone who doesn’t admit both of those points must be mentally inept. So excuse me. Not only have you set up a strawman, you see fit also to prop it up with an incredulous argument as well.
You seem to be saying both, as it suits your argument. There either is or isn’t a strong sexual drive present within Human beings. Which is it? That drive, if indeed present (it is), must therefore be either easily suppressible, suppressible with great difficulty, or not at all. Which is it?
Science and observable data, historical, empirical and personal, suggests highly that the answers to them both is that Humans do indeed, on average, have a significantly strong sexual desire that is not easily suppressible. To argue against that, as you so far have so poorly done, is to deny reality itself.
You must be young.
Your assumption (like pretty much everything else you have said so far in this thread) that just because I enjoy mocking you for your stupidity, means that I don’t intend to correct it is wrong.
I imagine you were hoping for that, looking for the easy way out. You could just continue your bravado and not have to acknowledge that you don’t understand what the fuck you’re even saying. If that was your plan…
Today, ain’t your day.
First of all, you didn’t specify which imaginary friend that you specifically believe created everything. You could not follow simple directions. That’s already strike one. Perhaps you were too distracted thinking of unfunny, unclever ways to say that you were besting me in our exchange.
Right out of the gate you are using your limited human experience to attempt to explain something far more complicated and profound. You’re comparing unlike things. Machines that are built by human beings have an intended purpose (for the most part). A television, for instance, features components for displaying picture, sound, transmitting signal. There is little to no redundancy in something DESIGNED by an intelligent source, even if the source is only moderately intelligent.
The system, as you put it, whether we are referring to human beings on the small scale or galaxies on the macro scale, are full of redundancies. There are so many entirely worthless and completely superfluous “components” to life, it is nonsensical to correlate it with intelligence.
Also, you are either being really vague or you are just diarrhea-ing words. So, um, wtf is “systematical mechanisms” supposed to be, anyway? I don’t speak pseudo intellect.
Be more specific, and coherent please and we can continue lodging my foot up your ass.
They might not be thinking it… but that’s where it is drawn from. Let me ask you… When you eat, do you do it only with the viewpoint that it is going to physically sustain you?
Please… continue eating soylent green if it pleases you.
Manx, after reading your reply to me and to emil you certainly do not understand anything that we are saying to you because your replies are completely out of context to what is being talked to you. Next, you bible bash in your arguments allot, i have no idea why the whole Rib thing just came out but it is already striking me that your stance is just out of pure anti-religious reasons… which means you just want to stand by any issue that you know religion has a problem with.
Now on to this post, and hopefully you actually apply reading comprehension to this. No one is saying that sex is not important, we are saying that it should be moderated/controlled and not ruling the persons psyche. If a person can’t deny sex over his loved ones; if that person cares more for sex then the feelings of the people he is hurting then that is not acceptable. What reading material is there to show that sexual urges should not be kept in moderation? I’ve read allot of books and even the medical ones claim that uncontrolled sex is not only abnormal but actually dangerous, that is the reason why they have counseling and rehabs for sex addiction because being completely dependent on it, to the point that it overshadows the other needs/obligations of people, is wrong. You are making all these false claims about science and random academics again just to apply weight for your arguments again. please be honest and stop involving religion in your debates.
I think I’ll tag in here for a moment and remind everyone (and inform the new-comers…) that Cisco (or, more recently advocateofgreat) is a well-known religious troll on this site. Take him with a grain of salt. He exists merely to infuriate you. I hope.
Regarding eating…I first think to myself “I’m hungry - I need to eat”. After that, I think “what is something tasty I can eat (that fits my diet)”. I eat first because I feel hungry, on the basis that my body says that I need food to physically sustain me, not because there is an uncontrollable addiction to eat something tasty. People that eat for the latter reasons, are typically people suffering from eating disorders and are either overweight or bulimic.
No it was definitely a She. Can you imagine a MALE Flying Spaghetti Monster? That would be pure lunacy.
The only thing I need Jesus to do is help me fuck more fat broads. Or hook me up with Santa Claus’ email, since we are discussing imagination.
Who then should control it? To what degree? What should be the consequences of not controlling it?
How is this relevant to anything? I merely contend that sexual urges are at the root of a person’s sexual activity, which sometimes includes infidelity. The entirety of the subject is so complex that to simply narrow it down immediately to a lack of control over those urges is a bit… knee-jerk, don’t you think?
Try a biology book. High school should suffice, as it covers puberty, testosterone and estrogen quite thoroughly. Be careful though! Some of them omit various bits of data in the hopes of “protecting” young people…
In this country (USA) the standard for diagnosing mental disorders is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). It makes no effort to define sexual addiction as a mental disorder. Hyperactive sexual activity is only diagnosed as a mental disorder when it is attributed as a symptom of a general medical condition. Simply liking sex a whole lot is not a mental disorder any more than liking video games a whole lot is. Please show me the criteria for any sort of sexual addiction as a general (that means ‘all by itself’) mental disorder
And now we’re into dependency. That word carries a very specific scientific and medical meaning and they way you are using it implies ignorance. I have no need to weigh my arguments because they are well documented a mere Google search away. Forgive me, though, if your usual channels of information are lacking on the subject.
Why do you have to do this man? Why do you have to force my hand to stain this thread with your blood?
I was hoping you would supply something to prove me wrong but if there is nothing you can supply then you stfu and gtfo.
I don’t need to specify the specifics, the “which god” was never my argument. You are altering this to that type of debate because you know you lost this one so trying to go a different route is your strategy. You know i am proving that the universe was not accident because you have not shown any counter why it is, so now you are going “tell me what god exists so i have a chance at getting something over you”. The “universe being birthed out by accident is what is senseless and evident-less” is my argument and i will not jump to your strategy, take the defeat like a man.
I am a man and because of being a man i base my stance on observation. I maybe limited to human experiences but it’s still belief based on observation/experience nonetheless and i can clearly say that the reason why i am “limited to human experiences” is because there is NOTHING out there that shows that systematical mechanisms can just birth itself. Why should i believe with out any example or observation to give me that reason?
Until you show me something that i can observe or experience then i have no reason to believe that the universe just made itself. AUsing machines or any form of technology are not unlike things, these are examples of systematical order and mechanisms. Machines have components that are all placed in specific order, and this all allows the systems it holds to work, Machines all were produced and still contain a language that allowed it to be engineered (it can be accessed).I can give more, look at all the books that contain it’s own worlds, the video games (rpg’s), tv, comics, and movies that contain their own “universes”… we can see those needed a mind to exist. Now we look at ours, our universe is much more brilliant than any machine or fictional universe made by a man… the ecosystem, evolution, our nervous system, our blood system, etc etc. All of these systems are able to run because of how the elements in our solar system is placed. If the earth was further than just the third planet, we would not be able to evolve the way we did, nor would our ecosystem function… in short all life will crash because of the systems being messed up.
I’m going to bed now and i really don’t want to continue bathing this thread with your blood. I know I will wake up and read your posts containing nothing but insults and possibly other atheists who will attack me, but i hope you will have the consideration to just PM me instead of tempting me to shit all over you in front of everybody.
Ah, but here we draw away from the analogy of food. So, let’s put sex into a reference that is relevant to our point.
First, you must have a person of the opposite sex with whom to become sexually attracted… modern society takes care of that for us rather thoroughly. My first sexual attractions were directed towards Brooke Shields and other fashion models relevant to the time. They were on television in scantily clad display at the same time that I was undergoing puberty.
Already we have met two criteria for the “food” analogy. Hunger, or a compulsion to eat, and a preference for “tasty” food. In this case, our “hunger” represents our natural sexual desire as Human beings, and the preferences for tasty food is a preference for that which is sexually attractive (let’s ignore the MASSIVE undertakings within the modern Human brain that account for this point).
Now there is the “Feel” which drives you to eat. You eat because you “feel hungry.” That urge is tantamount sexually to whatever feelings a person has when they are sexually stimulated. Here is a picture which you can use for personal reference if necessary (forgive me for presuming that you are a hetero sexual male. See how complicated this can quickly become?).
And it’s there that the analogy ceases to be useful, for food and sex are not equivalent. Without either, the Human race would not be here, but yet they are tow completely different functions, derivative of two completely different parts of a very, very complex Human brain. Still, the similarities are there, and while those do not completely equate it is evident enough that sexual desire is as least as instinctual as the desire to eat.
Finally, you have again engaged a fallacy by equating a desire to eat because eating is pleasurable to being a mental disorder. Are you aware of the scientific evidence that suggests that many eating disorders regarding over eating are merely symptoms of completely different disorders? This is still with regard to the fact that eating for pleasure is completely normal, acceptable, and not at all indicative of an eating disorder all on it’s own.
As is engaging in sexual activities merely because they are pleasurable. You have tinted your entire argument with the hue of your morality, and it is a morality which I do not share. What I can share are facts, since they are not subject to morality (at least not within a healthy mind). Please share some of these. You do not even have to reference them, as I am perfectly capable of researching them myself.
(temptation to just close this rhread continues to rise)
I hate having to go out of my way to moderate things when I really shouldn’t have to, but in this case, stepping in is the only way to keep you guys from dragging this thread into another religious abyss.
Now, in attempting to get back on the actual topic, I’ll talk about actual developments with regards to this hack, though first I should reply to Infernoman I guess:
You act like I don’t know all of this already. I’m well aware that humans don’t do what they “should” do. You should “know” me well enough by now on that front really.
To paraphrase Rashomon, it’s not as if I ever expect people to actually be rational.
I’d say that was quick, but in both instances, it really isn’t given how public the information has apparently been made.
We really should, but then this bullshit should happened.
Granted, even by acknowledging that, there’s unfortunately not much we can do about such draconian, discriminatory and unfair laws, at least in countries foreign to us and ones that don’t even maintain the illusion of democracy. At least with the current religious “discussion”, there’s the illusion that of potentially convincing someone of your position or at least giving yourself moral-masturbatory fodder.
Come on, Damned. There are perfectly secular reasons for formally executing someone for cheating on their spouse.
Note that I said “formally.” That excludes disemboweling them with a plastic spork, unfortunately.
(The only secular reasons for formal execution are usually if they kill said spouse though and even then, that’s usually not the case with women killing their spouses.
EDIT: Also, I was more talking about the people [read: men] on the website who would looking for same-sex encounters being likely to face [formal] execution in certain countries, to say nothing of vigilantism.)
Now, with that bait taken, I’ll say it’s not that I want to prevent you guys from being able to talk about religion. I’m just tired of discussions about religion effectively going nowhere while simultaneously often hi-jacking threads, especially when it’s clear that certain people are clearly being trolls, in this case “Not Cisco”. That’s all.
Have to admit, the hackers hit gold with this site.