Dwalin2010
-
Posts
277 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Dwalin2010
-
-
quote me wherever i have dismissed your beliefs.
i'm having issues figuring out exactly what you're trying to say--you think it is primitive to have sex without some romantic attachments, and to succumb to our more primal ways is to be immoral?
i don't think i can agree with that. humans are animals too. though we are far more intelligent that any other animal, we still have primitive instincts that are important to our survival.
That was just an assumption, that you would dismiss beforehand what I say.
As for morality, I can only say what I already said. I am a romantic type and classify as "immoral" whatever would provoke remorse and a feeling of guilt in me if I did that. You may think this logic is flawed, but that's the only reason I can give you for my ideals. I understand this is not enough for you, but I didn't want to join the argument initially at all, I just was offended how Dondon151 called "conservative nonsense" what FionordeQuester said, who explains those things far better than me.
EDIT: I really don't want to offend anyone or transform this into a war, but please understand that I have grown up in a setting where people love each other and never consider the possibility to just use each other for sex or whatever else.
-
Here's an easy way to determine whether casual sex is immoral or not:
Imagine an Earth in which people only have sex during marriage. And imagine another Earth in which people only have casual sex. That's how they make babies and keep the species going. They are the same in every other respect.
Which world is more valuable?
I personally would feel comfortable only at the planet from the first example. The other one would horrify me and I am happy I am not born on such an earth. It somehow reminds me of some anti-utopian fiction.
But, concerning the first example, I am not saying that sex should be only during marriage. I am not bothered at all if people have it before marrying, if they love each other.
-
why do you think that non-romantic sex is immoral?
Because I believe that there should be at least a slightest difference between humans and animals. We have been given feelings by the nature, not just the body. Ignoring feelings at advantage of the body makes such a relationship incomplete.
Anyway, I don't see what's the point of saying anything on my part, since you and Dondon151 have already decided to dismiss whatever I say as "inconsistent" even before hearing it.
-
it never fails to amaze how easily those who are defensive manage to contrive condescension out of a plain factual statement. we already explained to you that the null hypothesis is not an opinion, but an integral component of statistical inference. your response did nothing more than reiterate your position on the definition of morality, with all of the vocabulary of one who is not committed to an argument.
Ok, whatever. Just the last thing I am asking, before I am out of here: is you statement about this not being an opinion really change anything? Are more people going to agree with you just because you said that? This may increase your self confidence, but if somebody is used to interpret morality in a different way, they (not just me) are not going to change their opinions, especially in front of such uncompromising statements.
-
Dondon151, you are saying "rambling non sequitur". Maybe, if you are so convinced to be in the right, it's not really the case to be condescending and self-admiring in your way of talking? Insults won't change anything in this world.
-
Dondon151, I don't concede the point of null hypothesis because in my opinion this answer was enough to explain my point of view:
I don't know about "unhealthy", I would rather say "immoral". Morality to me is just an interior feeling that prevents me from doing certain things and provokes remorse if I do that. I would feel the same way, even though to very different degrees, if I had sex without love, if I killed someone, if I stole something, if I slandered someone etc. Since I have similar feeling against all this, I put it in the same category.
Whatever this is a bad or good explanation (in your opinion), this is what motivates me.
-
When some people feel strongly about something, they don't let it lie. Especially if they view the other opinion as something that could be potentially detrimental.
(example: gun rights)
Well, then we disagree even more than I initially thought. When I defend an ideal, I usually don't allow myself to be belligerent (with the exception of cases when murder of innocents is justified for any alleged reason) because this would put me automatically on the wrong side even when what I say is logical . I have met many people on internet who disagreed with me but whose opinions I would still respect, had they not been rude, oppressive, and constantly stating their opinion is the only one worthy of existence because the opponent didn't provide logical reasons for their opinion (even this is subjective, because things that are "logical proof" for somebody may well be "not good enough" for others).
I am not saying anyone was rude or belligerent here, I was just remembering some discussions on another forum that degenerated after starting normally.
But what do you think about gun rights? Are you for it or against it?
-
How is casual sex with protection unhealthy?
I don't know about "unhealthy", I would rather say "immoral". Morality to me is just an interior feeling that prevents me from doing certain things and provokes remorse if I do that. I would feel the same way, even though to very different degrees, if I had sex without love, if I killed someone, if I stole something, if I slandered someone etc. Since I have similar feeling against all this, I put it in the same category.
I am not imposing this mentality to anybody though. If some people act differently, I think it's their right (except in cases of breaking the law). However, I got the impression (maybe wrong, I don't know) that you don't concede the same to people disagreeing with you.
-
this is not his opinion, this is simply a fact. unless you have evidence to the contrary--as dondon and now myself have requested--there is no reason to reject it.
Everybody can say their opinion is a fact. I can say so too. Does this make my opinion more valuable? No, it doesn't. Same with yours and Dondon's.
EDIT: I am not saying that opinions aren't open for discussion, just that the existence of opinions different from yours is normal, and even if you disagree, you theoretically (in my opinion) should accept that there are always going to be people who won't change their opinion no matter how many times you will repeat to them and yourself how wrong they are.
I am perfectly ok with people discussing and disagreeing, what bothers me is when somebody just states or implies their opinion is superior by default.
-
There are plenty of topics where people will absolutely not agree to disagree.
But why not? Maybe I am just tired of seeing discussions that started as normal debates degenerating into banal fights (don't mean this discussion is a banal fight, yet), but still, respecting each other's opinions all while disagreeing is pretty natural. If you don't agree even with my statement that a peaceful discussion with mutual respect is always better than a belligerent one, then I retreat, because that would mean our mentalities are too different.
-
Sorry for returning to earlier posts, I had forgotten about this quote:
it's not just my opinion, it's the null hypothesis. unless you can prove to me non-romantic sexual interactions are necessarily unhealthy, then i will not reject the null hypothesis.
That this is the null hypothesis is, again, an expression of your OPINION. You have your opinion like everybody else, and that's natural, but you can't just claim that what you say is the only truth possible, because there is no way to prove that.
Anyway, I think that, of everything that has been said in this thread, the phrase that makes the most sense is "agree to disagree". How can anyone disagree with that?
-
Conservative views are actually very harmful.
So do you actually mean that if a person thinks pornography is immoral and is disappointed when sex and romance are separated, then this is a harmful view? When the shock I am actually in has passed, then I am just going to say that I guess that I prefer harmful views then and that everyone should agree to disagree, like several people have already said there, a statement that has been disagreed with more than once in this thread. However, no matter what, I still have a hard time to believe you are serious. I hope you are not one of the people who justify the existence of certain things and tendencies because of the allegedly required concept of "freedom" to do everything physically possible in this world. I mean, freedom is a good concept that I used to like a lot, but in the modern world it has become so extremely abused that it is used to justify virtually EVERYTHING that doesn't involve violence. I really hope I just interpreted what you said wrongly.
-
Considering how you put things about this argument, I can't say anything that would make you change your opinion as you can't change mine. If we really go by logic and logic only, then there is no supreme objective truth that smashes all the counter-arguments. If I were born in a society where pornography would be considered normal and romance wouldn't, then I would likely reason in a different way. But I happen to live in a setting where traditional family values are important. People don't just have the body, they have their emotions, their mind, things that in religions are called "soul". If romance isn't necessary anymore, and pure sex is considered as something good enough by itself, then we would be elevating the "cult of the body" and reducing the importance of everything else. In this case we would sink lower than animals, because even some animals have rudimentary bases of concepts of romantic love: look at some species of eagles or albatrosses who form such strong bonds that don't even form new pairings after one partner dies.
I concede that you may be better than me at talking and explaining, I didn't want to discuss this in first place, I just thought that dismissing FionordeQuester's arguments as "conservative nonsense" is too extreme. Every opinion that doesn't harm others deserves to be respected.
-
if you wish to imply that my way of thinking is immoral, then you must provide the reasons for why that is. otherwise, i demand an apology.
In this case, before I say anything, can I at least be sure you haven't already formed an intention to dismiss whatever I can say as "invalid" before you hear that? As for apologies, I apologize IF you do in fact care about morality and honestly feel that what you say is consistent with it. I was honestly thinking you were one of those people who think morality is an outdated concept of scarce importance.
-
this is a funny accusation, and also a spurious one, on several levels.
first is your insinuation that a physical relationship with a sexual partner based on anything but a narrow definition of romance is robotic. emotions such as mutual lust are anything but robotic.
second is your eagerness to duck out of responsibility for defending your argument on the same grounds that it was originally made. the argument against pornography is based (one hopes) on reason. when confronted with the counterargument, you bewilderingly state that reason is outside the realm of relationships.
last is your retreat to a position where rationality is a negative. by doing so, you've conceded that you're not actually interested in substantive discussion.
What can I say, if this makes you feel like the "winner" in the discussion, suit yourself. I just think some things are based on personal preferences and feelings, not computer-like analysis. To me, asking why sex shouldn't exist without romance makes as much sense as asking a religious person to provide scientific proof of existence of a god. If you don't just feel morality inside you, you don't. Nobody forces you, on the other hand, I just think the concept of a moral life deserves more respect and shouldn't be dismissed as nonsense just because you don't think it's important.
-
that's a consequence of selective reading on your part, and not in any way a fault of mine.
I read everything you said, and I rarely disagree with somebody more than I do with you in this case. That part of my mentality that concerns sexual matters is wholly built on the concept of "non-accepting anything that has to do with sex without love". Cynism in romantic and sexual matters is something that has a worse effect on me than cyanide.
Not that you should care about all this, I just wanted to point out that I agree with everything FionordeQuester says.
EDIT: I may not be able to bring you calculated and logical facts, but I am not a droid and and don't build love and bonds with people on cold reasoning. If there are aspects of life where logic isn't necessary, it's in the matters that concern love.
Feel free to disagree of course, I just don't think you can feel superior to "moralist" people just because you dismiss emotions in favor of logic.
-
spoken like a true social conservative who believes in his own nonsense.
It's easy to just dismiss someone else's ideals as nonsense. That's childish.
Also, I think that people accepting sex without romance and being belligerent when contradicted is something very sad. I hope I will die of old age (can't bring myself to suicide) far before this becomes a model of life all over the world.
-
In my opinion, choosing the nation as "a political entity" or as "its people and their lives" are 2 different things. It may be understandable if the ruler sacrifices the lives of a few to save millions, but it's in no way justifiable if he sacrifices somebody to increase the political power of the nation, especially if this nation is already well-off and not in ruins.
-
A difficult question: all famous historical leaders have blood of a certain number of innocents on their hands. It can't be otherwise: even completely non-violent characters like Gandhi (whom I respect) indirectly provoked the situation that is now in India with Hindus and Muslims killing each other. If you asked: "which historical figure doesn't get enough hate?", that would be easy, since plenty of crazy butchers are considered heroes by their countries, usually because they were the ones who won at the end. There is a saying that, while a death of one person is a tragedy, the death of millions is just statistics.
-
What the...? I cant even...!
Well, you can. There are different points of view in this world, you know, even those you can't understand.
-
It seems like imagining yourself as one of the people having sex is way too next level for you
Not in public for sure. Only behind closed doors.
-
Pornography is BORING. I never understood how people could get sexually excited by watching it. I can be excited by a beautiful woman, but if I see her publicly undress and have sex while others are watching, I would be completely disappointed by her personality and would consider the scene as something no more exciting than 2 dogs mating. Public sex is completely unaesthetic, the sight of it kills sexual desire in my opinion.
-
I personally would like it to happen more often in games, so it does bring a sense of closure and a happy ending to the story and doesn't leave me wondering whether the characters will stay together or not. This is one of the reasons I like the game Dragon Quest V so much: you can get married halfway through the game, then continue to travel with the wife and later with the children.
-
You can insult Christmas all day if you desire, because it's just a fraud holiday that is extremely poisoned and even more so thanks to Companies wanting your money and people sucking into greed, stress, paranoia, anger, loss of sleep. and even close Family or Friends deaths.
What's wrong with Christmas, even if we don't consider it from the religious point of view? I mean, all the happy spirit, the trees, decorations, presents, holiday movies, famlilies celebrating together etc. I am not Catholic, therefore to me the 25th of December isn't really a religious holiday, but I still like the general atmosphere of those holidays, what's wrong if people select some days to celebrate and be happy?
Pornography. Shameful Pleasure, or Perfectly Natural?
in Serious Discussion
Posted
Ok, I surrender. If feeling superior compared to me and people who think like me in this case increases your self-confidence and makes you happy, good for you. I have nothing else to say apart from that I will continue to lead my life following the "spurious" arguments and "flawed" logic, but this shouldn't matter to you I think.