The point of sex is procreation.
Then you are doing it wrong.
Whereas recreational sex is essentially pointlessly going through the motions.
It may be pointless, but as far as pointless activities go, it's the best one.
Just being held to ransom by internal systems that do not require intellectual input.
Human beings simply are not "reducible" to something that the words intellectual, logical or rational can circumscribe, we are much more than that, those words are essential, but they are by no means exhaustive. We are not just rational beings; we are also sensate, emotional, and spiritual beings. Because of the uniquely human way that we experience reality, we live in a universe imbued with values, meaning and purpose.
Consequently, a strictly intellectual, logical, rational, or scientific "worldview" is in principle impossible, it just isn’t comprehensive enough. The worldview that is "natural" to Man is one that includes everything that it means to be human, one that gives full expression to the complete range of human sensitivities. It is a worldview that speaks not just to what we are or what we have been, but also to what we ought to be, and most importantly, to what we could become.
Though being human we will always exaggeratedly overthink the issue.
"There are two things you can count on people to do, 1) take a good idea and run it into the ground, 2) take a bad idea and run it into the ground." _ George Carlin
Such is progress.
"“A man needs a little madness, or else... he never dares cut the rope and be free." - Alexi Zorba
Morality and moral responsibility are concepts relative to concepts relative to the evolution of the organic processing unit...Which is to say, that morality and moral responsibility are made up for a reason....So one assumes that they are necessary, if one assumes that everything is necessary...But of course, there is no way of knowing if everything is necessary...Nonetheless, as an intelligent species we seem compelled to run with it.
And for sure, cause and effect.
Effect and cause?...Nah...Doesn't work, does it?
We have been graced with a mind that can grasp the intellectual constructs of relativity and quantum theory and the proper response to possessing minds like ours is to use them. I just don’t think a mind capable of comprehending the counterintuitive world of subatomic physics and the cosmic realms of curved spacetime, should find something like morality as so incomprehensible that we should throw up our hands and declare that we just don’t have any real basis upon which we can figure out what we “ought” to do. That’s just nonsense.
Do you think free will requires that you could have done otherwise under the same conditions, or is it enough that the decision comes from your internal processes, even if those are fully determined?
It is overly simplistic to define Free Will as the ability to have chosen differently under the same conditions, that is abstract and completely hypothetical. To meaningfully address the topic requires a deeper and more concrete understanding of what Free Will entails.
The real free will debate should be about whether we have the cognitive ability to conceive of future courses of action, deliberate about various reasons for choosing among them, determine our actions on the basis of such deliberation, and control our actions despite the presence of competing desires. If we do have these abilities, and we can exercise these cognitive abilities to act without our actions being unreasonably compromised by external pressure, then we possess free will and human beings are morally responsible causal agents.
Are our choices fully determined by prior causes/environment/biology, and if so, how should we define morility/moral responsibility?
Consciousness has causal influence due to its content, not solely because of the physical aspects of its material correlates. A conscious state includes a desire or intention, it includes the ability to envision a future state and establish a strategy for attaining that state, it includes the ability to foresee the consequences of one's decisions, evaluate and choose among alternatives, and then act upon those choices. That makes it more than a purely physical state, it is a conscious state with reference to a future possibility, and no such reference is part of any purely physical state. Such conscious states can have causal effect to bring about further states for the sake of values and purposes, and intents. Values, purposes, and intents are not reducible to the purely physical state of the determinism argument.
If determinism is true, then every choice you make comes from causes you did not choose. Your biology, your environment, and your past experiences shape every decision.
Almost every argument against Free Will presupposes determinism without establishing determinism as a fact. Determinism is not a conclusion of science, on the contrary, it is directly contradicted by our two most successful scientific theories, Quantum Physics and Relativity Theory resoundingly refute the idea of "determinism".
The philosophical doctrine of determinism is nothing more than an archaic and failed concept that is unscientific and completely faith based. Initially it was nothing but a “thought experiment”, and in the two hundred years since, it has never made any credible advance beyond being an abstract theoretical “thought experiment”. By “any credible advance” I mean evidence, evidence that it is something more than a thought experiment, and there has been none whatsoever.
Two centuries ago, what Laplace proposed was, IF reality is completely circumscribed by Newtonian mechanics (and it isn’t), AND the motion of every particle in the universe can in principle be predicted from exact knowledge of its position, momentum, and the forces acting on it (and it can’t), AND everything occurred within a single, universal reference frame where an absolute Euclidean space and an absolute time that passes uniformly (it doesn’t), AND that as such, time and space are autonomous and independent aspects of reality (and they aren’t), THEN “theoretically”, all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by purely physical causes such that, there is one and only one possible effect for a particular cause or set of causes, (there isn’t).
The attempt to deny the self-evident experiential reality of human consciousness and the associated fact that we are morally responsible causal agents is a very extraordinary claim and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the unfounded and completely faith-based belief in determinism doesn’t constitute extraordinary evidence by any stretch of the imagination. It follows that there is no logical or scientific reason to think determinism is true.
If all of those factors were exactly the same, you would make the same choice every time. That means you could not have done otherwise in any real sense.
The strongest argument for the existence of free will is that we all observe it during every conscious moment, it is always a fundamental and significant part of our experiential reality, hence it is self-evident. Consequently, the denial of free will is necessarily a rejection of the very concept of empirical evidence, and the argument against Free Will becomes a rejection without “proof”, which eliminates induction as valid. These two aspects of the approach clearly reject the very basis of science and scientific knowledge, leaving nothing but detached abstractions that have nothing whatsoever to do with the real world.
Philosophy is concerned with saying something which is true or significant, science with doing something which is effective. Science is about the real world, grounded in perceiving and doing, the argument against Free Will is completely abstract and invalidates both perception and doing, it is a complete rejection of science as valid, and philosophically it amounts to a rejection of the very basis of truth and significance.
In the end, there is no valid basis upon which the rejection of Free Will can be said to be true of reality.
If that is the case, then moral responsibility has to be redefined. Instead of saying people deserve blame or praise, we should focus on outcomes. Punishment should be about preventing harm and shaping behavior, not retribution. The goal becomes managing causes, not judging people as if they created themselves.
On the contrary, “If that is the case”, then there would be no reason to redefine moral responsibility, in fact, there would be no reasoning at all. The very idea of scientific or judicial objectivity, as well as of ever reaching philosophical truth, requires human beings to be free and responsible causal agents. Thus, if we're engaged in this enterprise of learning about truth and distinguishing it from falsehood, we are committed to the idea that human beings have the associated mental freedom to choose among options. Determinism renders a devotion to intellectual integrity meaningless, it renders morality, science, philosophy, truth as meaningless concepts. Reasoning and logic require freedom to choose among alternatives; determinism is just not compatible with objective truth seeking. If all beliefs are predetermined, then there is absolutely no justification for claiming that anything is true.
said nothing about that Goddess that I would see as a negative thing
OK, good, just be careful when you are on such a sacred subject.
We have an unstable and unpredictable situation in the Middle East because we have an unstable and unpredictable President.
The unpredictable situation is currently in the USA....Commanded by their Jewish overlords...And a need for control of Earth resources.
Who told you about our Jewish Overlords?
Damn it, that was supposed to be a secret.
I haven't insulted Alyssa outside of a Mafia game where I was scum and had some incentive for making her think less rationally than she should.
I was talking about Salma Hayek.
Be respectful wylted, you are talking about the woman I love.
The Holocaust is one of the most well documented and widely testified events in history
Believing this depends on trusting the sources saying it's true. Most people aren't going to go around interviewing all Holocaust survivors. The issue isn't the primary sources and evidence, it's the secondary sources claiming the evidence exists and is so abundant. I trust those sources, but only because people are allowed to challenge them and they can withstand scrutiny.
Yeah yeah, and believing the Earth is not flat depends on trusting the sources saying it isn’t. Most people aren’t going to go around interviewing astronauts, The issue isn’t the primary sources and evidence, it’s the secondary sources claiming the evidence exists and is so abundant. Blah blah blah.
We have all seen this argument hundreds of times, it’s an argument that fits any agenda, and it’s always presented as something new and to the point, if you think “conspiracy” is new, or in any way constitutes a valid argument, you are totally out of touch with the real world.
Free speech is not an absolute right, there are contextual limitations, and a responsibility for consequences. There are moral and legal restrictions regarding obscenity, threats, fraud and misrepresentation, defamation, and incitement to violence. If Germany legally restricts holocaust denial, it’s because in context, they have seen the violence that the antisemitic agenda can produce, ISIS recruitment is illegal in many countries, there is good reason for that too, RemyJones’ advocating rape and violence against women has consequences, SatanLucy advocating pedophilia has consequences, they need to be held accountable, and “freedom of speech” is not an absolute right, it’s not a justification, and it’s not a tactic for silencing disapproval or opposition.
There is nothing to be learned from a discussion about the “reliability of the evidence”, the discussion unavoidably becomes “why” do you question the reliability of the evidence, in the end, the only relevant question is “what is your agenda”?
The fact that no discussion is being had makes the evidence less reliable. Claims of evidence and documentation can be fabricated. An organization could pay a dozen people to claim they are experts who thoroughly studied the issue and then lie about it. For experts to be reliable, I have to believe there is a cost to lying (i.e. that people would be able to call them out).
The fact that you mix “conspiracy” with the huge lie that “no discussion is being had” about one of the internet’s most virally discussed topics is absurd, I really don’t think there is anyone here dumb enough to actually buy that slop, sure, it works with those who share the agenda, but so what. That isn’t an argument, it’s just a tired old tactic.
“Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses -because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened.” ― Dwight D. Eisenhower
There are plenty of fake quotes on the internet.
There is plenty of holocaust denial on the internet too, and a mountain of discussion about the evidence, and of course antisemitism is invested in denying that reality, but again, that is a matter of agenda, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the facts.
This one is real, but the point is that your argument here isn't using primary evidence, it's using secondary and tertiary sources talking about the evidence. I have to trust those before I can consider the evidence, and free speech is important for that.
Yes, free speech is important to antisemitism, along with fascism, pedophilia, racism, misogyny, ISIS recruitment, etc. Many in these groups see free speech as a tool that can be used to suppress dissent. I have a right to express my disapproval of these things, and despite the incessant accusations that disapproval amounts to suppression of free speech, no it doesn’t. that is simply a tactic of those with an agenda. I don’t disapprove of free speech, I disapprove of antisemitism, and I will continue to exercise my right to free speech no matter how many times people try to use “free speech” as a weapon to silence that opposition.
I have a right to express my opinion; you should stop trying to destroy free speech.
I don't think Lucy was saying you don't have a right to your opinion, just saying they disagreed with it.
Of course he was, typically attacking an opposing opinion with the accusation of "destroying free speech", that's his MO. What he said in response to my post was "What a good excuse to destroy free speech, by saying that your opinion cannot be challenged because you say so".
I said nothing even close to that deliberate misrepresentation, I gave my opinion and I expect it to be challenged, and Lucy’s lame ass tactic of claiming I am “destroying free speech” by having an opinion that disagrees with him, is both dishonest and illogical.
Please show me where I said, or even vaguely implied, that “my opinion cannot be challenged because I say so”, you can’t, because it is a stupid lie, a stereotypical and childish attempt to discredit an opposing point of view.
What a good excuse to destroy free speech, by saying that your opinion cannot be challenged because you say so.
I have a right to express my opinion; you should stop trying to destroy free speech.
The Holocaust is one of the most well documented and widely testified events in history, no rational person without an agenda of antisemitic prejudice could reasonably deny, or even question, the veracity of the evidence. Much like the situation with flat earther’s, there is no logical reason to discuss the referenced facts, it’s an exercise in gullible stupidity to debate whether or not the Eart is flat, when the question comes up, the inquiry necessarily turns to the psychology and associated motivations of the individual. There simply isn’t a sincere questioning of the facts of the holocaust at work, there is only an agenda.
There is nothing to be learned from a discussion about the “reliability of the evidence”, the discussion unavoidably becomes “why” do you question the reliability of the evidence, in the end, the only relevant question is “what is your agenda”?
“Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses -because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened.” ― Dwight D. Eisenhower
Documenting History: Eisenhower and the Holocaust (U.S. National Park Service)
Evidence and documentation for the Holocaust - Wikipedia
OK, OK, so Fauxlaw didn't actually watch the Oscars, but he did receive the vicious motherhood slur against Trump on his headset.
In other words be a punching bag.
Crush them with a seven second pause, it's almost cruel.
Ooohhh, you so logical.
Yes. I used to think smoking was bad, but now I know its actually good and probably the reason I am different from other people is that I was second hand smoker since birth.
Sugar and cigarettes, breakfast of champions.
I read that nicotine is a brain stimulant, so I decided to become smoker. I need my brain well stimulated, and living a healthy life eating vegetables doesnt achieve that.
Ooohhh, you so logical.
RemyBrown changed his mind on many issues in past 2 years.
So you are saying RemyBrown is unstable?
Thanks, but everyone already knew that he is unstable.
You are literally an idiot
thats not a good thing to say just because someone disagrees with you.
It's a good thing to say if the person you are talking to is literally an idiot.
They want you to guess what they saw last night.
He saw "motherhood" as a sign if TDS, I don't see how anyone could guess that.
As always, I think we are just supposed to say "WTF" when we read his posts.
If you filter out the stereotypical "us/them" hate rhetoric, this OP says two things:
1) this is what I saw on the Oscars last night.
2) I didn't watch the Oscars last night.
I suppose it makes MAGA sense.
I simply say people need to accept that pedophiles are big part of society, and then maybe some solution can be found which benefits all.
So far spreading hate and violence didn't seem to benefit anyone much.
This is why I recommend using a less emotional term "map" instead of pedophile.
So that people can get their emotions under control, and then try to logically solve the problem, maybe talk about it in a more calm way for a start.
Because angry words aren't going to solve anything.
There simply must be a solution beneficial to all, and what people did so far benefited mostly no one.
I say solution beneficial to all, because map people are simply too big part of society, much bigger than LGBT, and if the only solution is to harm them, well, then the big part of society is harmed for not much benefit.
And going with Draconian punishments didn't really seem to work for USA.
So something else must be tried, maybe a bit of more balanced approach instead of whatever nonsense people did so far.
We elected a pedophile president, what more do you want freak?
So based on your analysis America has the highest pedophila cases.
It's hard to get accurate statistics because sometimes American pedophiles pretend to be from Bosnia.
Not from the women. Are you prepared to forgo their vote?
Yeah, good point, I'll have to let SatanLucy live for likes, that's all he's got.
I'll just have to sit back and watch SatanLucy and RemyBrown battle it out for King of the Creeps.
If being an incel means, "get angry at women for choosing the bear", then we need more incels. Do better Skywalker; become an incel.
Will that get me "likes", that's all that's important.
'm married, have three sons, two grandsons, and more friends than I have the time for, career, hobbies, volunteer work, adventures, and a broad range of human relationships to be had through "social interaction"
It is great that you achieved all those goals, even tho you failed to get likes online or even be appreciated online.
Oh no, if I don't get likes my life is not worth living, boo hoo.
His post got 2 likes, while yours got 0.
He is more likeable.
Believe it or not, there's more to life than the likes you get online, a lot more.
I'm married, have three sons, two grandsons, and more friends than I have the time for, career, hobbies, volunteer work, adventures, and a broad range of human relationships to be had through "social interaction", it goes on and one, every day is a new day. It may seem alien as hell to you, but to the rest of us, it's called being a normal, well-adjusted human being.
To find out what I'm talking about, you will need to put down the bag of Cheetos, get up off the couch. leave your mom's basement and actually go outside.
Out there you will find what the rest of us call the real world; you should try it sometime.
But if you do put down the Cheetos, get off mom's couch, and actually go outside to try it out, while you are out there at least, try not to be so damn creepy.
So Remy, can you be precise as to where this event took place...It would be helpful to know the facts of the issue.
Many thanks.
If like all of his so called events, it took place in his own imagined psychodrama...does that make it "the facts of the issue".
I really don't think you can refer to any product of his delusional state as a "fact".
But as I said, I have no logical interest in women.
Well, certainly not in women over the age of nine or ten.