User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 112

  1. #61
    Dhampyr Economica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    2,054

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Man, you're cheap too That's clearly worth at least two cents.
    Call me paranoid, but is that a shot at this post?

  2. #62
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Economica View Post
    Call me paranoid, but is that a shot at this post?
    Note to self:

    Add paranoia as an INTJ trait.


  3. #63
    Dhampyr Economica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    2,054

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Note to self:

    Add paranoia as an INTJ trait.

    Actually it was just pride at having exercised Ne for once (or twice, actually). I have no problem being perceived as cheap.

  4. #64
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Economica View Post
    Actually it was just pride at having exercised Ne for once (or twice, actually). I have no problem being perceived as cheap.
    I think you did it well. You found something that wasn't related at all and managed to find a connection. Well done! You are on your way to Ne dominance!

    (AWAY! )

  5. #65
    Senior Member Langrenus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    358

    Default

    I'm going to hate myself for succumbing to the urge to respond to this post, but a few points:

    Quote Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer View Post
    It's a scientific fact that the primary purpose of sex is for pro-creation. You don't pro-create by swallowing or by anal penetration. And looking at sex as an "expression of love" is not the product of rational thought, either.
    Fixed. Also, there's no hypen in 'procreate'. Now lets take "love" out of the equation (I don't recall anyone mentioning it) and make things a lot simpler. Sex, and sexual acts, are - for most people - inherently pleasurable activities. At the most basic, physical level. If you draw a picture of the human body based on the concentration of nerves, you won't be surprised to see that the penis/clitoris suddenly swell to epic proportions. Biologists have observed certain species of primates engaging non-procreational - and occassionally homosexual - sexual activity (mutal masturbation, etc) which seems to serve no purpose other than providing sensory pleasure. Therefore sex can be seen as a vehicle for reproduction, but also as a means of inducing pleasure. This pleasure can be heightened by emotional attachment, but that's really by-the-by; if you want evidence that sex is used for non-procreational purposes, look no further than sterile adults who continue to have sex despite the fact that they will never conceive (or, alternative, at people who consciously choose not to have children yet still engage in sex).


    Quote Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer View Post
    If pedophilia is a disease, then homosexuality should still be considered one, as well. When all is said and done, homosexuality is abnormal. I'm not against gay people, but if I'm not against gay people, I don't think it's right for me to be against pedophiles, either.
    You'll have to define 'disease' more closely here; an abnormal sexual interest with children is something I would describe as a mental disorder. I also fail to see how you can equate homosexuality and paedophilia, unless the basis for the distinction (and your classification of gays as 'abnormal') is your 'non-procreationary purpose' argument above. Since I believe that argument to be groundless, the link you've made will need some re-evaluation. Furthermore, homosexual sexual acts that occur between two consenting and mature adults are not, to my mind at least, comparible with sexual acts carried out by an adult on an immature child (for reasons that Economica and others have already brought to the table).

    Quote Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer View Post
    Homosexuality and sodomy were once looked upon as acts that warrant the death penalty in certain cultures. Since then, times have changed, and people found loopholes around the more conventional thought patterns and transformed them into ideas that view the act as more acceptable. Judging by this trend, it is entirely logical that loopholes will be found to warrant acceptance of attraction to children.
    Ok, morality is a fluid concept which is not constant across cultures or time. Of course, homosexuality and sodomy were once looked upon as completely acceptable acts in certain cultures (read Plato's Symposium) so it's not true to imply that there has been a linear progression from outrage and murder to acceptance and inclusion; rather there's been something closer to a sine wave, with peaks and troughs of acceptance.

    However, as previously stated, I don't see that your attempt to paint paedophilia as (effectively) synonymous with homosexuality stands. The trend cannot simply be pasted across and presented as a fait accompli (and I notice that you carefully chose to use the 'attraction to children' definition rather than something blunter). To prove this you're going to have to present a far more coherent argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer View Post
    Why am I the only person who is noticing this stuff?
    Do yourself (and us) a massive favour, and get over yourself. These ideas of yours are not revolutionary.
    January has April's showers
    And 2 and 2 always makes a 5

  6. #66
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    11,925

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Langrenus View Post
    I'm going to hate myself for succumbing to the urge to respond to this post, but a few points:



    Fixed. Also, there's no hypen in 'procreate'. Now lets take "love" out of the equation (I don't recall anyone mentioning it) and make things a lot simpler. Sex, and sexual acts, are - for most people - inherently pleasurable activities. At the most basic, physical level. If you draw a picture of the human body based on the concentration of nerves, you won't be surprised to see that the penis/clitoris suddenly swell to epic proportions. Biologists have observed certain species of primates engaging non-procreational - and occassionally homosexual - sexual activity (mutal masturbation, etc) which seems to serve no purpose other than providing sensory pleasure. Therefore sex can be seen as a vehicle for reproduction, but also as a means of inducing pleasure. This pleasure can be heightened by emotional attachment, but that's really by-the-by; if you want evidence that sex is used for non-procreational purposes, look no further than sterile adults who continue to have sex despite the fact that they will never conceive (or, alternative, at people who consciously choose not to have children yet still engage in sex).
    Pleasure seeking is not rational. There is absolutely no intellectual merit in sex unless your purpose is to procreate. Isn't that what separates man from other animals? The ability to use intelligence to not indulge in such bestial acts?

    People who do not want children should not fuck in the first place. They should find pleasures elsewhere.

    So if pedophilia is wrong, sodomy should be wrong, because neither serves a purpose.

    As far as I'm concerned, I make perfect sense.

  7. #67
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    11,925

    Default

    Now back on topic, here's what interferes with my rationalism: When my views are seen as wrong.

  8. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer View Post
    Pleasure seeking is not rational. There is absolutely no intellectual merit in sex unless your purpose is to procreate.
    But it's equally irrational to stubbornly refuse to accept that 99% of the population DOES engage in pleasure seeking, which makes it more than an intellectual choice, it makes it a human drive. And it's also either naive or willfully disingenuous to suggest that all human behavior should or even could be driven by intellect when we are biologically proven to be social creatures. You continue to insist that you are correct and that everyone else is blinded by irrationality, but the truth is that you are the irrational exception, because if every member of the human race had your mindset, propagation of the species would cease and we'd be shortly extinct. Is extinction the ultimate prize of absolute reason?

    Quote Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer View Post
    People who do not want children should not fuck in the first place.
    I'll grant you this one. I LOVE hearing a pregnant woman crying "How could this happen?" While I understand and endorse sex for reasons other than procreation, I am constantly amused that people feel they have an innate right to sex without risking the results of the biological purpose for sex.

  9. #69
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    11,925

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FMWarner View Post
    Is extinction the ultimate prize of absolute reason?
    Well, technically, yes. Because as far as I can see, existence itself is irrational.

    My, how I have learned, today. Let us disregard all previous statements and say that rationalism is irrational.

  10. #70
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer View Post
    It's a scientific fact that the purpose of sex is for pro-creation. You don't pro-create by swallowing or by anal penetration. And looking at sex as an "expression of love" is not the product of rational thought, either.

    If pedophilia is a disease, then homosexuality should still be considered one, as well. When all is said and done, homosexuality is abnormal. I'm not against gay people, but if I'm not against gay people, I don't think it's right for me to be against pedophiles, either.

    Homosexuality and sodomy were once looked upon as acts that warrant the death penalty in certain cultures. Since then, times have changed, and people found loopholes around the more conventional thought patterns and transformed them into ideas that view the act as more acceptable. Judging by this trend, it is entirely logical that loopholes will be found to warrant acceptance of attraction to children.

    Why am I the only person who is noticing this stuff?

    EDIT: And you have contradicted yourself by saying "acceptable to me," clearly indicating your bias. I thought we were talking about being rational.

    EDIT: Apparently, Athenian is the only one who sees where I'm getting at.
    It's easy to make a moral distinction between consensual same sex couples and pedophilia. The golden rule is probably the most universal moral principal, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Pedophilia definitely breaks this rule, while consensual (same gender) sex does not.

    I am not saying that the golden rule is necessarily the only basis that you can establish moral behavior on. You might be able to argue that other standards are superior in some way, but it is difficult to find another standard that is so universally accepted. You cannot really say a person is being unreasonable if the golden rule is the basis for their morality.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

Similar Threads

  1. What to do with your down time or rest days?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-29-2016, 05:21 PM
  2. What traits associated with your type don't fit you at all?
    By Elfboy in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 04-21-2011, 03:29 PM
  3. FILL A VOID WITH YOUR INPUT (what am i game)
    By Gamine in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-27-2010, 07:36 PM
  4. [INTJ] What You Talk About With Your INTJ
    By Sunshine in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 10-28-2008, 01:25 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO