Circle of Life

If your added point is at all true then these people aren't deserving of your wisdom and or are only denying themselves the bounty of your years. I'm sorry there seems to be such insecurity about this subject for you, as I'm sorry for people's ignorant prejudices.

Idiocy and greatness come in all ages, respect yourself and others may come to as well. Let them smell your fear and they may justify them.

"The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is Not Ignorance, It is the ILLUSION of Knowledge. Stephen Hawking"

The choice of reproduction is irrelevant to the point of the existance of pleasure and inherent desires to have sex. Sex, which only exists for the sake of reproduction.

The pleasure is simply meant to encourage more, instinctually guide to the act, many people don't want to get pregnant, but they still tend to want to have sex, and often get pregnant anyway, that's the whole point. Many who don't want to have sex feel that way for a few reasons, but they tend to still have the desire to. Even people that are sexually abused tend to have dramatic increases in sexual activity.

When a person actually stops desiring to have sex its usually because of biochemistry, changes in hormone levels and production.

Sex is accomplished with reproductive organs, this you cannot argue.

And if you still feel that this is simply not the case, then what do you think the point or origin of sexual desire is? And what do you gain by thinking that?

If you already feel life has no point, which reproduction isn't a purpose by our generalized definition or desired idea, then what kind of purpose are you trying to attach to sexual desire other than what seems to make the most sense.

So far you have not presented a better or more sensible alternative, please do for the sake of knowledge and argument.

"The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is Not Ignorance, It is the ILLUSION of Knowledge. Stephen Hawking"
[  Edited by Ironwood at   ]

"I'm glad to see you finally realized it's o.k. to be on here in spite of your age. By the way, I'm not 0 years either."

Too bad you don't feel the same way.

"The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is Not Ignorance, It is the ILLUSION of Knowledge. Stephen Hawking"

Uh, ok but that does nothing to support your dissagreement with me, which I'm quite curious about.

People of all ages face agist discrimination of some sort. Don't run from it, don't deny people like me who appreciate and respect knowledge and differing and more experienced perspectives.

I don't believe in respecting elders just because they are older, I respect all untill they disrespect me, I may say something offensive to them but that doesn't necessarily mean I disrespect them either (and they tend not to be too shy about offending me so.....). And I don't avoid offending people when in search or defense of truth, if that offense is unavoidable given a point or circumstance, because there are usually different and "better" ways to say things without offending, this I'm not too good at however.

Oh, and I added something to an earlier post you may have missed while posting.

"The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is Not Ignorance, It is the ILLUSION of Knowledge. Stephen Hawking"

(in reply to a deleted post by mystic... you make us look like we talk to ourselves!!!)

lol, that happens to me when i am about to post something i have second thoughts on...

my suggestion is to always copy the matterial you are attempting to post.

better safe than sorry (and frustrated to no end)

"as i see it the only "variable" in the equation is THOUGHT. you are capable of changing this and this alone."

Yes, I've recently given up Christianity. It seemed odd to me that Christians thought of Adolph Hitler as such a cruel and evil person when their own god does the very thing that makes them think of Hitler as such an evil person. He sends people who aren't Christians to a place worse than concentration camp and for that reason too. The only reason that most people are the religion that they are is because they were born with it, and they're too scared that if they think something different then they'll go to Hell. It is true too that people think that they're supreme in this world. That's why when they invented the concept of God, they invented a person. They think that God is this man in the sky that grants wishes like a genie. I believe in God, but I don't believe that it’s a person or something tangible at all. I believe that it’s the way that things happen to make other things happen to make the thing happen that's supposed to. I'm still working on my own system of beliefs. I'll probably make a new board to post it on.

oops, when I posted that last one, I didn't know abou this second page and I thought that the last message of the first page was the last message that I go because I'd forgotton about that one. Strangly though, it seems to fit in there. That also supports my theory of God, so it works out just perfectly, doesn't it?

Mystic, I can't speak for others but I seriously wish you would stop worrying about whether your comments have a place here, they do just as much as anyone else's.

If I am persistent about a point its probably because I don't understand a point someone is making, or where they are coming from at the moment and or they aren't seeming to quite get mine.

You say you have the urge to have sex, but no urge to reproduce, and I said that makes perfect sense in the point I'm making.

You also say you are skeptical of a grand design, which is acceptable in the point I'm making, but you too quickly refer the idea of a design to notions of man made gods which has nothing to do with what I'm saying and is just a possibility which is kind of irrelevant in the context.

So again, you say you have urges that you do not conciously choose to have, regardless of whether you act on these desires on not. That notion is indicative of a natural instinct which is as grand of a design as my point incorporates. Now if you are arguing as to whether we or animals have pre-hardwired instincts, that would be relevant to my point.

And dealing with instinct and unconcious desires, I can make close to truth claims based on both personal experience and time tested displays and studying of human behaviors and their consistencies.

So if you say you have a seemingly natural, or considered even unnatural, urges and desires that you cannot explain yet they work the same way as any desire for food or emotional contact, would it then be safe to say that the likelyhood of these sexual desires are instinctually based? Yes no?

And all I'm saying is that natural animalistic instincts are all simply survival based intstincts, and these instincts incorporate the survival of the species, not just the self or individual. Hence a natural instinct and physically and chemically (even socially) encouraged act of reproduction.

Before you say you don't know why you have sexual desires, first remember that your personal desires regarding reproduction are irrelevant, we are talking about your body's hard wired desire and cultural and physiological design and influence.

Then, stop and think, and tell me what you think and feel when you have these desires, are you seeking pleasure? Emotional connection? Obviously not kids.

Then think about what you actually gain from sexual activity, and what your body stands to gain, keeping in mind that it may very well be wanting to reproduce even if you don't.

You still have (had) reproductive organs right? Do you think you were born with them just because you might want to have sex someday or because your body is designed to make babies?

The basis and ultimate point I'm making is that you wouldn't even have the desire for sex if you didn't have sexual organs which you only have for reproduction. The pleasure and casual encounters just the marketing, part of the whole process of reproduction.

Do you see what I'm getting at at all? You are not wrong to think you can have sexual desire independant of a personal desire for having kids. This though is actually encouraged by and a benefit to the natural reproductive instinct.

The point of a specific creator to such instincts and designs is irrelevant in the sense of what we see and "know" from our current life experience and scientific study of human and animal behavior which is determined through experimentally obtained consistent and reliable information indepedant of any knowledge of a god or a grand design.

Thats the same thing as, yes, for all I know reality doesn't actually exist or some shit, but I get a pretty convincing reminder on a daily basis when I appear to wake up in the same environment and understood reality. This knowledge exists independant of any knowledge I do or don't have about any grand designs or designers.

So I'll conclude with a reiteration, I'm just saying that your body wants to reproduce independant of your desire to and that that is why you have sexual desires, along with most social desires.

To extend regardless of my supposed conclusion I will add that to try to extend further meaning to such instinctual desires, such as destiny and love (love as anything more than another natural instinct to coppulate and work towards the survival AND maintenance of the species) is what is truly speculative and generally irrational.

Hoepfully this cleared something up.

"The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is Not Ignorance, It is the ILLUSION of Knowledge. Stephen Hawking"
[  Edited by Ironwood at   ]

No I don't necessarily mean just those extra organs but any hormonal implications are worth looking into. Because the pleasure factory as well as the social inclination, and perhaps any particularly strong sexual traits you may either have in your genes or backround still have their combined effects, nature has backups too.

"The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is Not Ignorance, It is the ILLUSION of Knowledge. Stephen Hawking"

I keep it in the microwave (between trips to the gutter and never never land)

"The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is Not Ignorance, It is the ILLUSION of Knowledge. Stephen Hawking"

I'm curious about what you mean by social inclination, Leftwood. That seems interesting to me. It also scares me to a nauseating extent. Do you remember what I said about love? That fits in because raising a child works better as a two person job. Even though you said that it was irrelevant, the idea of grand designers interests me. When people think of grand designers, they probably think of human-like creatures in the sky that feel human emotions and stuff, but I think that the only reason that they think that is because they think that they're the supreme being, and the only thing that could be higher than them must be just a higher extent of what they are. I think that the way that things fit together (sometimes more literally than others) would be defined as "God". Also, there could be things that were created by a higher "god" and them themselves as "gods" created other things. This is similar to the belief of the Rielians (however that's spelled. It a French cult how believes that humans were created by aliens.) Think about ants, and how the only thing that they know as "gods" are the thinks that are bigger than them. For example, a little kid deciding whether the ants live or die with a magnifying glass.
Leftwood, you have a way of thinking that I could relate to more than anyone's before.

"I'm curious about what you mean by social inclination, Leftwood."

I'm not sure what question you have on the idea, or even what context you pulled it from, but I will gladly display my ignorance for you if you can specify your desires or questions.

Offhand, a mob mentality is a big point I would be referring to with such a phrase. Besides already established base instincts that drive the masses to particular behaviors and acts. There is a social power of influence. The ability to convince or pursuade.

The desire to fit in and be accepted go hand in hand with these thoughts. Allowing for such grand influence.

Here's a scenario, if you walk up to a large argument or fight with two obviously different looking groups, depending on anyones personal willingness and desire to even get involved, many things will generally happen.

Conciously or otherwise you will immediately notice who looks more like you. And be inclined to side with them, then you might hear what they are saying, this will further your decisions on who is "right or wrong".

If you are like me you would see the situation itself as a problem and the idea of who is right and wrong secondary to the "wrongs" being commited by people willing to fight in the first place.

The danger of my posistion is in such an irrational state, people see you as siding with people as they have done, and you can easily just be sided against instead of listened to.

Shit, both sides could even see me as a threat and side together before pitting against one another all over again.

But like I said, I'm not sure exactly what you were wondering so feel free to ask or let me know.

"The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is Not Ignorance, It is the ILLUSION of Knowledge. Stephen Hawking"

Did you know, the only other animal known to feel pleasure from sex is the pig?

"Milk, almonds and pistachios."

Do you know how many different animals masturbate? I don't but I do know primates do and that dogs hump innanimate objects.

To say an animal does not recieve pleasure through sex, would seem to be saying that that physical senses are removed from the organs. What we know of human sexual pleasure is partially from our sex organs being packed with nerves, sensory inputs. Try grabbing some other animal genitals in what is generally percieved as a painful way, and see what happens.

Other ideas of what human pleasure is or is derived from are also important here.

I've never seen it done but I bet the animals act a little like it hurts when they get their balls chopped off.

"The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is Not Ignorance, It is the ILLUSION of Knowledge. Stephen Hawking"

.

.

"Life is such sweet sorrow."