|
Post by DJRalpheeLou on Mar 24, 2004 11:58:33 GMT -5
teh problem is, that you wouldn't have a choice. You would just feel happy all teh time, or take a pill that will make you happy.
I think it's wrong. It is human to be in pain, to have unhappiness. To be human is to suffer all teh aflictions of teh whole spectrem of emotion. To take that away is to take away their humanity. It is just wrong. A little late to be speaking on teh topic but.. I believe that human nature is inherently bad.. not that we chose evil.. it is simply that we, by being consumers with thought, are inherently bad. taking a pill, being conditioned, or likewise could never "make" us happy nor control others. Psychologically, I imagine, that individuals make up their own happy thoughts and memories. I like drinking that makes some people really unhappy, therefore, my actions cause discontent with others.
|
|
|
Post by that's so raven! on Mar 25, 2004 7:54:38 GMT -5
I believe that human nature is inherently bad.. not that we chose evil.. it is simply that we, by being consumers with thought, are inherently bad. ...I don't understand this position. Bad according to who or what? There is no universal standard for 'badness', that I'm aware of. And if we are bad because we are 'consumers with thought' (which I fail to see teh badness in, but, *shrugs*), then we are not inherently bad but simply products of a consumer culture, because we were not ALWAYS consumers, thus any outgrowth of consumerism cannot be inherent in humanity. In my opinion, humanity is not good OR bad; it just IS. Good and bad have meaning only within teh context of a particular person's life at a particular point in time; there are no absolutes unless you assume a divine rule-writer... basically all we hafta go on is what makes us feel icky, and such notions are inevitably products of teh particular culture in which we've been raised. So unless one culture's got it 'right' and teh rest of us are bloody savages, your interpretations are as good as mine, and vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by FinnAgain on Mar 25, 2004 14:06:02 GMT -5
basically all we hafta go on is what makes us feel icky... Yeepers. Aesthetics are valid, morality and ethics are plastic and arbitrary. Humanity is a race of potential, not definition.
|
|
|
Post by porno librarian on Mar 27, 2004 23:13:55 GMT -5
A little late to be speaking on teh topic but.. I believe that human nature is inherently bad.. not that we chose evil.. it is simply that we, by being consumers with thought, are inherently bad. taking a pill, being conditioned, or likewise could never "make" us happy nor control others. Psychologically, I imagine, that individuals make up their own happy thoughts and memories. I like drinking that makes some people really unhappy, therefore, my actions cause discontent with others. outta curiousity, are you Christian, and if yes, what denomination? You are not obligated to answer, of course, if you feel it's a bit too personal.
|
|
|
Post by that's so raven! on Apr 2, 2004 2:09:49 GMT -5
*pokes last topic*
*waits*
...think it's dead, Paw.
So, here's something new to think about-- I tried this on [as], but teh swimgods were displeased and demanded my firstborn son (= it got deleted), and I'm still curious.
What do you think defines one's sexuality/orientation? [edit for clarity] Is it... who you find physically attractive/wanna have sex with? who you're willing to have monogamous relationships with? Actions? Dreams? Desires?
1(\/u-/4$|-|@?
[snickers eggs]
|
|
|
Post by FinnAgain on Apr 2, 2004 7:00:11 GMT -5
*pokes last topic* *waits* ...think it's dead, Paw. It was dead, but now walks teh earth as a shambling undead horror!So, here's something new to think about-- I tried this on [as], but teh swimgods were displeased and demanded my firstborn son (= it got deleted), and I'm still curious. What do you think defines one's sexuality/orientation? Who you find physically attractive/wanna have sex with? Who you're willing to have monogamous relationships with? Actions? Dreams? Desires? 1(\/u-/4$|-|@? [snickers eggs] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sexuality: Now... sexuality... it's not cut and dry, rather, let's say that there are points on a continuium, and we lable them. Rather, let's say there are two parallel spectra, desire and action. Then let's say that they're averaged to come up with a data point... (now, I suppose teh processing of averageing would depend on teh situation. A person might weigh their un-lived-out-desires of a higher importance than society would weigh action) So, we average together desire and action and get data points at teh extreme. One data point is Heterosexual, which means you ONLY like teh oposite sex, and only sleep with them. One is Bisexual which means you like and sleep with BOTH equally. One is Homosexual which means you ONLY like teh same sex. NOW. These are only sign posts. And who is to say that a straight woman who has one lesbian fantasy wasn't indulging in an actual and existant bi-sexuality, however brief and limited? Perfect adherance to any sign post would be impossible, by definition. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Da Hotties: Somewhat divided. teh easiest way to catch my attention is with a pair of intelligent/deep eyes. teh easiest way to catch my attention is also with full/round breasts and a hot ass. I never really notice legs all that much, but faces are very important. How someone carries themself also determines how alluring they are, to a degree. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Monogamy: Isn't about a category. Like if you meet certain requirements you're into teh club. Either it clicks on all levels, or it doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by DJRalpheeLou on Apr 2, 2004 11:31:18 GMT -5
outta curiousity, are you Christian, and if yes, what denomination? You are not obligated to answer, of course, if you feel it's a bit too personal. I believe in Christ and God.. but I refuse to be pinned down to a denomination. Actually, teh idea that human nature is inherently bad is a classical Chinese idea made popular by Mengzi. He says that.. everything on teh planet feels remorse or hurt by other individuals being hurt. Humans, although have reasonable thought and speech, unlike other beings. Being that, that is true, and humans are prone to want as soon as they are born, lends to teh idea of human nature being inherently evil. Mengzi used this idea to say that using teh idea that human nature is inherently good undermines teh rites, which was very important to him as a confucianist. You could agree with his idea if you think that people need to learn teh difference between good and evil as opposed to knowing good inherently.
|
|
|
Post by DJRalpheeLou on Apr 2, 2004 11:48:10 GMT -5
*pokes last topic* *waits* ...think it's dead, Paw. So, here's something new to think about-- I tried this on [as], but teh swimgods were displeased and demanded my firstborn son (= it got deleted), and I'm still curious. What do you think defines one's sexuality/orientation? Who you find physically attractive/wanna have sex with? Who you're willing to have monogamous relationships with? Actions? Dreams? Desires? 1(\/u-/4$|-|@? [snickers egg juice] Sexuality/orientation: I have no idea. My friend and I had a conversation about gay marriages. We tried to pinpoint reasons why it should and should not be allowed. We couldn't come up with a real answer because we have no idea what makes a gay person gay. We only could agree that we like boobs. Which could suggest that it is genetic.. but my friend explained that if it was a genetic trait.. being gay would have gayed itself outta exsistance, because of darwinism. It seems like a reasonable theory. Point being, I have no clue, and would need to have a serious talk with a gay person to understand sexuality as a whole. Physical attractiveness: Hahaha.. It's a personal thing. I know people who like brunnets, skinny chicks, ethnic types, a whole bunch of stuff. It all boils down to boobs and conversational ability. I don't know why, but if I sense fakeness I am more than turned off. OK.. yeah I might be a bit shallow. Monogamous relationships: I am a stickler for morality with relationships.. so mostly every relationship I have had was monogamous. It is my girlfriend and myself's 1 year aniversary and everything has been great, although we are long distance, we are still happy. I put a lot of emphasis on not being fake and having a strong hold on feelings. That is really hard to get from women since they rely strongly on emotions, so sometimes I let that slide.
|
|
|
Post by porno librarian on Apr 2, 2004 12:59:49 GMT -5
I believe in Christ and God.. but I refuse to be pinned down to a denomination. Actually, teh idea that human nature is inherently bad is a classical Chinese idea made popular by Mengzi. He says that.. everything on teh planet feels remorse or hurt by other individuals being hurt. Humans, although have reasonable thought and speech, unlike other beings. Being that, that is true, and humans are prone to want as soon as they are born, lends to teh idea of human nature being inherently evil. Mengzi used this idea to say that using teh idea that human nature is inherently good undermines teh rites, which was very important to him as a confucianist. You could agree with his idea if you think that people need to learn teh difference between good and evil as opposed to knowing good inherently. er....I think you have your Chinese philosophers mixed up. Mencius (or Mengzi) believed human nature was inherently good. I believe you're thinking of Xunzi (another follower of Confucius) believed human nature was evil and to not follow teh rites as described by Confucius would undermind society, because it is teh act of ritual that controls human nature. And, I asked simply because several Christians seem to believe that all people are born evil, and in my experience, more likely to...base their philosophies around that.
|
|
|
Post by porno librarian on Apr 2, 2004 13:13:42 GMT -5
As for sexuality...
A definition is hard to come by, because some people who would describe themselves as "heterosexual" or "homosexual" have absolutely no sense of their own sexuality. They are uncomfortable with their own bodies and definitely uncomfortable with others'.
I think sexuality is less of "who you sleep with" and more of "how well you know yourself". I feel my sexuality and revel in it, a lot of people aren't aware it exists.
Physically attractive: In guys, I like 'em big. Tall. Smart & funny. That's about all I "require".
In girls, I like proportion. Playboy bunnys who are big on top but have no hips are funny lookin' to me. If you're little, you're little, you can still be pretty. If you're big, you're big, you're still pretty.
As for monogamy, well, I'm willing to have monogamy with anyone I think I have a good relationship with (and who are willing to give me teh same). *L* I think that's teh way it works for most people, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by that's so raven! on Apr 2, 2004 21:02:40 GMT -5
Y'all are all nuts. Or following Finn's example...(amounts to teh same thing) I wasn't asking three separate questions (how to define sexuality, who you're attracted to, & who you're willing to have a monogamous relationship with), but rather presenting everything after teh initial question as a possible answer to it. Jeez, thought *I* was teh stoner here... XD
So, as for sexuality... I agree emphatically that it's much more useful to think of it in terms of a spectrum; an argument of teh beard rather than any of these three prepackaged, oversimplified conventions people like to try & stuff things into.
It's often a lot more complicated than just liking boys or girls or both... there are people who are attracted to both but will only have sex with one, attracted to & will have sex with both but will only be committed to one... there are as many different variants of this as points on a line, and there’s no way that each one could be done justice by being grouped into one of only three categories. Defining sexuality in terms of any one of teh factors listed, in my opinion, only allows people to escape acknowledging that all of them (and probably more) play a significant role.
That said, though, sexuality is still a pretty big mystery to me (hence this question). I couldn’t even begin to define my OWN, much less others’, but I do think that any attempt to classify it robs it of a great deal of its natural complexity, which is something that should be embraced & never ignored for teh sake of teh convenience of existing paradigms.
[snickers egg smoothie]
|
|
|
Post by DJRalpheeLou on Apr 6, 2004 12:35:40 GMT -5
er....I think you have your Chinese philosophers mixed up. Mencius (or Mengzi) believed human nature was inherently good. I believe you're thinking of Xunzi (another follower of Confucius) believed human nature was evil and to not follow teh rites as described by Confucius would undermind society, because it is teh act of ritual that controls human nature. And, I asked simply because several Christians seem to believe that all people are born evil, and in my experience, more likely to...base their philosophies around that. Your right.. I am totally a dousche bag. My girlfriend thinks that people are good and she is way more hardcore christian than I am. I think Xunzi presents more of an argument than Mengzi. Hence, my belief in human nature being evil. I don't really care too much about original sin or ideas behind teh christian concept of people being evil. It is simply a fact that people hafta be taught teh difference or they will be creatures of want. If you think about it in a social paridigm, that is one of teh reasons communism failed. People working for other people is too utopian of an idea. Some one is always gonna want more than what they got, thats why humans by nature are explorers.
|
|
|
Post by that's so raven! on Apr 7, 2004 3:23:27 GMT -5
It is simply a fact that people hafta be taught teh difference or they will be creatures of want. I think this statement overlooks teh fact that 'wanting' is a learned behavior as well. Surely we are all programmed to want what we must hafta survive, but teh desire for things beyond that is a consequence of civilization, because this is where we are able to observe teh benefits of having more than what one needs. Alternatively, suppose you are right, and humans are inherently greedy and selfish and will happily stockpile unnecessary things without any cultural direction or example. Could this not conceivably be a (sub- or even un-conscious) manifestation of concern for future generations, built into our genes? teh more stuff we have, teh better we are able to provide for our hypothetical children... thus it would be to teh advantage of our species to select for genes that would encourage selfishness in teh individual. Would this still count as evil?
|
|
|
Post by DJRalpheeLou on Apr 12, 2004 11:05:04 GMT -5
I think this statement overlooks teh fact that 'wanting' is a learned behavior as well. Surely we are all programmed to want what we must hafta survive, but teh desire for things beyond that is a consequence of civilization, because this is where we are able to observe teh benefits of having more than what one needs. Alternatively, suppose you are right, and humans are inherently greedy and selfish and will happily stockpile unnecessary things without any cultural direction or example. Could this not conceivably be a (sub- or even un-conscious) manifestation of concern for future generations, built into our genes? teh more stuff we have, teh better we are able to provide for our hypothetical children... thus it would be to teh advantage of our species to select for genes that would encourage selfishness in teh individual. Would this still count as evil? If I were a robot.. my head would have exploded. I will hafta think about that for a bit of time, because there is really no clear cut answer to any of it.
|
|
|
Post by that's so raven! on Apr 12, 2004 20:13:51 GMT -5
If I were a robot.. my head would have exploded. I will hafta think about that for a bit of time, because there is really no clear cut answer to any of it. Oh sure man. Uh-huh. Whatever you say, chief.
|
|