First  Prev  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next  Last
Can a meaningful romantic relationship exist between an adult and a child?
7431 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / United States
Offline
Posted 10/11/12 , edited 10/11/12


All I can say is thank god I was fortunate enough to have a liberal arts education. Am I saying there isn't any value in psychology and science that researches the workings of the human mind? No. However I find myself physically ill at the idea that our humanity can be explained and defined by a couple highlighted areas on a brain scan. I'm utterly mortified at the fact that people believe that we chose people with whom we form our bonds with based on subconscious psychological tendencies and the amount of chemical stimulants our brain decides to release at any given time.

" I started out by trying to figure out what romantic love was by looking at the last 45 years of research on -- just the psychological research -- and as it turns out, there's a very specific group of things that happen when you fall in love. The first thing that happens is what I call -- a person begins to take on what I call, "special meaning. "

Love is not some symbolic idea, it's not some chemical response, it's a tangible and intricate part of what it means to be human. Mind, body, soul; the three parts that make any person whole. It isn't something you can grasp by pouring over scientific data and simply observing other people. It is something you have to experience and embrace for yourself. Not to get religious, (actually I'm agnostic so I probably have nothing to worry about in that aspect) but there is something more to us than just the flesh and electrical impulses in our body. Something extra that nothing in modern science can even begin to comprehend. That something extra is what makes us human.

To quote Arnold Bennett "“There can be no knowledge without emotion. We may be aware of a truth, yet until we have felt its force, it is not ours. To the cognition of the brain must be added the experience of the soul.”
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 10/11/12 , edited 10/11/12

crazyfirefly wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


crazyfirefly wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


crazyfirefly wrote:

Firstly it's important to make a distinction between a romantic relationship and a sexual one. A romantic relationship involves an emotional attachment where as a sexual relationship is fueled more by what a person find physically attractive. Considering young adult (let alone children) are still developing mentally far into their mid twenties I would say it is not possible. That being said I think it is perfectly possible for someone older to fall in love with someone younger. Say the guy is 25 and the girl is 15, however there is a difference between having romantic feelings and acting on those. If someone has such strong feelings it shouldn't matter to wait three years before doing anything.

That being said Pedophiles are sexually stimulated by the physical appearance of children. It is a purely physical attraction because once the child reaches a certain age they cease to have an appeal to such people. So in short I don't think that is something that could ever be possible.


Please make that distinction, what is a romantic relationship and how is it separate from a sexual one?


See the red text above


It is a vague and meaningless defintion, please define it more clearly. If you choose to define it vaguely, then, by your defintion a sexual relationship is merely a subset of romantic relationships, guided by the emotion of Lust, so, that being the case, yes, paedophilia is both emotional and romantic .



No it isn't. Actually it's pretty strait forward. If you find it meaningless I don't know what to tell you. It's never been in my nature to use more words than necessary to get my point across, its a waste of energy, time, and clutters the original message. Also lust isn't an emotion at all but rather an urge, like a craving for chocolate or the urge to take a nap.


Yes it is. I do not care for what it is in your nature to do and not to do. In fact, judging from your previous posts, your nature seems to be inclined to obscurantism, and passing that vagueness as 'elimination of innecessities', the reasons you give for it seems nothing less than intellectual laziness. But let us look at the definition of 'Emotion':

Emotion
n.

1
a obsolete : disturbance
b : excitement

2
a : the affective aspect of consciousness : feeling
b : a state of feeling
c : a conscious mental reaction (as anger or fear) subjectively experienced as strong feeling usually directed toward a specific object and typically accompanied by physiological and behavioral changes in the body


As far as definition goes, lust is, undeniably, an emotion. If you want to characterise lust as an urge, why isn't love one as well?
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 10/11/12 , edited 10/11/12

crazyfirefly wrote:


All I can say is thank god I was fortunate enough to have a liberal arts education. Am I saying there isn't any value in psychology and science that researches the workings of the human mind? No. However I find myself physically ill at the idea that our humanity can be explained and defined by a couple highlighted areas on a brain scan. I'm utterly mortified at the fact that people believe that we chose people with whom we form our bonds with based on subconscious psychological tendencies and the amount of chemical stimulants our brain decides to release at any given time.

" I started out by trying to figure out what romantic love was by looking at the last 45 years of research on -- just the psychological research -- and as it turns out, there's a very specific group of things that happen when you fall in love. The first thing that happens is what I call -- a person begins to take on what I call, "special meaning. "

Love is not some symbolic idea, it's not some chemical response, it's a tangible and intricate part of what it means to be human. Mind, body, soul; the three parts that make any person whole. It isn't something you can grasp by pouring over scientific data and simply observing other people. It is something you have to experience and embrace for yourself. Not to get religious, (actually I'm agnostic so I probably have nothing to worry about in that aspect) but there is something more to us than just the flesh and electrical impulses in our body. Something extra that nothing in modern science can even begin to comprehend. That something extra is what makes us human.

To quote Arnold Bennett "“There can be no knowledge without emotion. We may be aware of a truth, yet until we have felt its force, it is not ours. To the cognition of the brain must be added the experience of the soul.”


Liberal Arts, as defined as all subjects, such as literature and history, distinct from science and technology. This sort of education is characterised by the sterile study of the useless, the impractical, the imbecilic, and produces the useless, the impractical, and the imbecilic. You feel ill at the idea that we may simply be automatons, that our motion, feelings, and thoughts, are run together in an elaborate, but ultimately deterministic, clockwork. All our emotions, lust, love, hatred, despair, happiness- there is nothing in it put a combination of internal processes and external stimulus, and this, to you, seems too bleak to your taste, so you decided to shrink, retreating to comforting, but ultimately false, philosophies that exault man beyond the mere natural machine that there is something called 'human' that is somehow more than natural gears, wheels, and pulleys. And, to this end, you turn to mysticism, sketchy and finicky metaphysics, to this undectable absurdity of the soul. You ask us to join you in turning from the truth because it is too bitter, it hurts too much, it doesn't conform to what you think reality should be, we should join you and retreat to willfull ignorance, to imagination, and to self-deception. You try to pass your irrationalism as an argument and attempt to convince us that the consequence of a theory, no matter how plausible, is reason enough to reject that theory- there is no reason why anyone should take you seriously, if you want to argue against the validity of a scientific theory on grounds that it does not conform to your a priori view of man and his place in the universe.
7431 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / United States
Offline
Posted 10/11/12

longfenglim wrote:


crazyfirefly wrote:


All I can say is thank god I was fortunate enough to have a liberal arts education. Am I saying there isn't any value in psychology and science that researches the workings of the human mind? No. However I find myself physically ill at the idea that our humanity can be explained and defined by a couple highlighted areas on a brain scan. I'm utterly mortified at the fact that people believe that we chose people with whom we form our bonds with based on subconscious psychological tendencies and the amount of chemical stimulants our brain decides to release at any given time.

" I started out by trying to figure out what romantic love was by looking at the last 45 years of research on -- just the psychological research -- and as it turns out, there's a very specific group of things that happen when you fall in love. The first thing that happens is what I call -- a person begins to take on what I call, "special meaning. "

Love is not some symbolic idea, it's not some chemical response, it's a tangible and intricate part of what it means to be human. Mind, body, soul; the three parts that make any person whole. It isn't something you can grasp by pouring over scientific data and simply observing other people. It is something you have to experience and embrace for yourself. Not to get religious, (actually I'm agnostic so I probably have nothing to worry about in that aspect) but there is something more to us than just the flesh and electrical impulses in our body. Something extra that nothing in modern science can even begin to comprehend. That something extra is what makes us human.

To quote Arnold Bennett "“There can be no knowledge without emotion. We may be aware of a truth, yet until we have felt its force, it is not ours. To the cognition of the brain must be added the experience of the soul.”


Liberal Arts, as defined as all subjects, such as literature and history, distinct from science and technology. This sort of education is characterised by the sterile study of the useless, the impractical, the imbecilic, and produces the useless, the impractical, and the imbecilic. You feel ill at the idea that we may simply be automatons, that our motion, feelings, and thoughts, are run together in an elaborate, but ultimately deterministic, clockwork. All our emotions, lust, love, hatred, despair, happiness- there is nothing in it put a combination of internal processes and external stimulus, and this, to you, seems too bleak to your taste, so you decided to shrink, retreating to comforting, but ultimately false, philosophies that exault man beyond the mere natural machine that there is something called 'human' that is somehow more than natural gears, wheels, and pulleys. And, to this end, you turn to mysticism, sketchy and finicky metaphysics, to this undectable absurdity of the soul. You ask us to join you in turning from the truth because it is too bitter, it hurts too much, it doesn't conform to what you think reality should be, we should join you and retreat to willfull ignorance, to imagination, and to self-deception. You try to pass your irrationalism as an argument and attempt to convince us that the consequence of a theory, no matter how plausible, is reason enough to reject that theory- there is no reason why anyone should take you seriously, if you want to argue against the validity of a scientific theory on grounds that it does not conform to your a priori view of man and his place in the universe.


Firstly a Liberal Arts education encourages the study of the quote "useless, impractical, Imbecilic" subjects in conjunction with science and technology in order to form a more clear, more well rounded understanding of the world. History is where society has come from and literature illuminates and inspires the definition of what it means to be human. Anyone who can not see the value in that is a closed minded, poor example of what it means to be an intellectual and a role model for the attitude not to have in the pursuit of knowledge. Knowledge is valuable in and of itself, to categorize the value of knowledge based on which field or subject it pertains to is, for lack of a better term, foolish

Secondly it isn't that your opinion that all emotions stem from internal biological processes that I find "too bleak for my taste", (and I do say opinion because despite all the "research" there isn't enough data to support anything more than yet another scientific theory.) but rather your entire approach and logic to this argument.

I find the idea that you believe that the "absurd" idea of the soul is somehow more comfortable than believing that human behavior always has a scientific explanation laughable. Now correct me if I'm wrong but according to your logic I find the idea that human beings are unpredictable far less frightening than knowing what people are going to do and why they do what they do? You accuse me of "retreating to willful ignorance" and "turning to mysticism" when you yourself put irrationalism in the same "breath" that you berated me for not automatically embracing scientific theory as fact.

Scientific theories are constantly shifting and changing as new advances in science and technology are made. (If you don't know this you can look to the examples scattered throughout human history which is quite ironic considering how "useless, impractical, and imbecilic" you find the subject. They are called theories because they can not be proven false, not because they are proven true. I would think that you basic sixth grade science teacher would have covered that but maybe you weren't paying attention that day.

Lastly, I did strive to, nor did I expect to convenience you to "join me to willful ignorance" or basic reason for that matter. I was expressing my opinion, which was short, simple, and to the point. Yet you somehow managed to make it complicated despite the liberty I took in bolding the key words for you. However let me say this, you can throw scientific theories, halfhearted round about insults, and completely disregard the built in spell check but what you can't do is make a logical, rational, argument of your own on this topic. As any intellectual worth their weight knows, you can't have a knowledge prejudice in the pursuit of knowledge. If you do your like a fisherman that only uses one type of bait.

As far as my place in the universe in concerned that is irrelevant since I am agnostic. I don't believe in heaven, or hell, or the idea that a person can know if those things even exist. My beliefs are solely based on the knowledge and experiences I have encountered in my lifetime. Though I do feel it's a lot easier to believe that man is nothing more than flesh and electrical impulses and that nothing is beyond our understanding and science. Perhaps that's the reason that some people are so eager to embrace scientific theory as fact, because they are frightened by the prospect that something could possibly be beyond their understanding and control.
7431 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / United States
Offline
Posted 10/11/12

longfenglim wrote:


crazyfirefly wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


crazyfirefly wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


crazyfirefly wrote:

Firstly it's important to make a distinction between a romantic relationship and a sexual one. A romantic relationship involves an emotional attachment where as a sexual relationship is fueled more by what a person find physically attractive. Considering young adult (let alone children) are still developing mentally far into their mid twenties I would say it is not possible. That being said I think it is perfectly possible for someone older to fall in love with someone younger. Say the guy is 25 and the girl is 15, however there is a difference between having romantic feelings and acting on those. If someone has such strong feelings it shouldn't matter to wait three years before doing anything.

That being said Pedophiles are sexually stimulated by the physical appearance of children. It is a purely physical attraction because once the child reaches a certain age they cease to have an appeal to such people. So in short I don't think that is something that could ever be possible.


Please make that distinction, what is a romantic relationship and how is it separate from a sexual one?


See the red text above


It is a vague and meaningless defintion, please define it more clearly. If you choose to define it vaguely, then, by your defintion a sexual relationship is merely a subset of romantic relationships, guided by the emotion of Lust, so, that being the case, yes, paedophilia is both emotional and romantic .



No it isn't. Actually it's pretty strait forward. If you find it meaningless I don't know what to tell you. It's never been in my nature to use more words than necessary to get my point across, its a waste of energy, time, and clutters the original message. Also lust isn't an emotion at all but rather an urge, like a craving for chocolate or the urge to take a nap.


Yes it is. I do not care for what it is in your nature to do and not to do. In fact, judging from your previous posts, your nature seems to be inclined to obscurantism, and passing that vagueness as 'elimination of innecessities', the reasons you give for it seems nothing less than intellectual laziness. But let us look at the definition of 'Emotion':

Emotion
n.

1
a obsolete : disturbance
b : excitement

2
a : the affective aspect of consciousness : feeling
b : a state of feeling
c : a conscious mental reaction (as anger or fear) subjectively experienced as strong feeling usually directed toward a specific object and typically accompanied by physiological and behavioral changes in the body


As far as definition goes, lust is, undeniably, an emotion. If you want to characterise lust as an urge, why isn't love one as well?


Your nature seems to be inclined to only presenting half/partial definitions and finding "vagueness" and "obscurantism" when a particular viewpoint is not to your liking. It took me all of five seconds to find these definitions of emotion.


A natural instinctive state of mind deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others.
Any of the particular feelings that characterize such a state of mind, such as joy, anger, love, hate, horror, et
lets take a look at yours.

-A state of feeling

*Why this isn't vague at all. I mean pain, hunger, arousal are all "states of feeling"

-a conscious mental reaction (as anger or fear) subjectively experienced as strong feeling usually directed toward a specific object and typically accompanied by physiological and behavioral changes in the body

*Actually there is nothing wrong with this definition which I found refreshing and surprising. However again we run into the problem that things like sexual arousal, food cravings, physical pain, and hunger can fall into these categories.

Again as I stated before my original OP was an opinion and a pretty strait forward one. I don't count lust as an emotion and I gave a very logical, rational reason why I didn't think it was. Nothing complicated, nothing vague, just plain simple English. If you didn't get it, or rather you refuse to get it from reasons unknown that's not my problem.
Posted 10/12/12 , edited 10/12/12

crazyfirefly wrote:



All I can say is thank god I was fortunate enough to have a liberal arts education. Am I saying there isn't any value in psychology and science that researches the workings of the human mind? No. However I find myself physically ill at the idea that our humanity can be explained and defined by a couple highlighted areas on a brain scan. I'm utterly mortified at the fact that people believe that we chose people with whom we form our bonds with based on subconscious psychological tendencies and the amount of chemical stimulants our brain decides to release at any given time.


I started out by trying to figure out what romantic love was by looking at the last 45 years of research on -- just the psychological research -- and as it turns out, there's a very specific group of things that happen when you fall in love. The first thing that happens is what I call -- a person begins to take on what I call, "special meaning.


Love is not some symbolic idea, it's not some chemical response, it's a tangible and intricate part of what it means to be human. Mind, body, soul; the three parts that make any person whole. It isn't something you can grasp by pouring over scientific data and simply observing other people. It is something you have to experience and embrace for yourself. Not to get religious, (actually I'm agnostic so I probably have nothing to worry about in that aspect) but there is something more to us than just the flesh and electrical impulses in our body. Something extra that nothing in modern science can even begin to comprehend. That something extra is what makes us human.

To quote Arnold Bennett "“There can be no knowledge without emotion. We may be aware of a truth, yet until we have felt its force, it is not ours. To the cognition of the brain must be added the experience of the soul.”
And yet there you are, defending something that you claimed to be "tangible" and not "symbolic", all the while you claimed it to be beyond the scientific methods.

Not only that, you'll come into the defense of reason, logic, and the scientific understanding of pedophilia, whenever it suited for your own biased worldview. For a self-proclaimed agnostic, your own superiority/god complex is unmistakeable.

It's the Second World War. A German prison camp. And this man, Archie Cochrane, is a prisoner of war and a doctor, and he has a problem. The problem is that the men under his care are suffering from an excruciating and debilitating condition that Archie doesn't really understand. The symptoms are this horrible swelling up of fluids under the skin. But he doesn't know whether it's an infection, whether it's to do with malnutrition. He doesn't know how to cure it. And he's operating in a hostile environment. And people do terrible things in wars. The German camp guards, they've got bored. They've taken to just firing into the prison camp at random for fun. On one particular occasion, one of the guards threw a grenade into the prisoners' lavatory while it was full of prisoners. He said he heard suspicious laughter. And Archie Cochrane, as the camp doctor, was one of the first men in to clear up the mess. And one more thing: Archie was suffering from this illness himself.

So the situation seemed pretty desperate. But Archie Cochrane was a resourceful person. He'd already smuggled vitamin C into the camp, and now he managed to get hold of supplies of marmite on the black market. Now some of you will be wondering what marmite is. Marmite is a breakfast spread beloved of the British. It looks like crude oil. It tastes ... zesty. And importantly, it's a rich source of vitamin B12. So Archie splits the men under his care as best he can into two equal groups. He gives half of them vitamin C. He gives half of them vitamin B12. He very carefully and meticulously notes his results in an exercise book. And after just a few days, it becomes clear that whatever is causing this illness, marmite is the cure.

So Cochrane then goes to the Germans who are running the prison camp. Now you've got to imagine at the moment -- forget this photo, imagine this guy with this long ginger beard and this shock of red hair. He hasn't been able to shave -- a sort of Billy Connolly figure. Cochrane, he starts ranting at these Germans in this Scottish accent -- in fluent German, by the way, but in a Scottish accent -- and explains to them how German culture was the culture that gave Schiller and Goethe to the world. And he can't understand how this barbarism can be tolerated, and he vents his frustrations. And then he goes back to his quarters, breaks down and weeps because he's convinced that the situation is hopeless. But a young German doctor picks up Archie Cochrane's exercise book and says to his colleagues, "This evidence is incontrovertible. If we don't supply vitamins to the prisoners, it's a war crime." And the next morning, supplies of vitamin B12 are delivered to the camp, and the prisoners begin to recover.

Now I'm not telling you this story because I think Archie Cochrane is a dude, although Archie Cochrane is a dude. I'm not even telling you the story because I think we should be running more carefully controlled randomized trials in all aspects of public policy, although I think that would also be completely awesome. I'm telling you this story because Archie Cochrane, all his life, fought against a terrible affliction, and he realized it was debilitating to individuals and it was corrosive to societies. And he had a name for it. He called it the God complex. Now I can describe the symptoms of the God complex very, very easily. So the symptoms of the complex are, no matter how complicated the problem, you have an absolutely overwhelming belief that you are infallibly right in your solution.

... But Cochrane would do that kind of thing. And the reason he would do that kind of thing is because he understood it feels so much better to stand there and say, "Here in my own little world, I am a god, I understand everything. I do not want to have my opinions challenged. I do not want to have my conclusions tested." It feels so much more comfortable simply to lay down the law. Cochrane understood that uncertainty, that fallibility, that being challenged, they hurt. And you sometimes need to be shocked out of that. Now I'm not going to pretend that this is easy. It isn't easy. It's incredibly painful.
- from Tim Harford: Trial, error and the God complex
Well your "logic" has a contradiction, and it goes like this: while you condemned pedophilia on the scientific discipline of psychology, you rejected the very same discipline that you based your condemnation, from explaining on what makes us fall in romantic love relationship. You're not thinking critically, when you're hiding behind "willful blindness" and "conflict avoidance", while you're not being truthful to the data because you didn't have any.

So for 25 years Alice Stewart had a very big fight on her hands. So, how did she know that she was right? Well, she had a fantastic model for thinking. She worked with a statistician named George Kneale, and George was pretty much everything that Alice wasn't. So, Alice was very outgoing and sociable, and George was a recluse. Alice was very warm, very empathetic with her patients. George frankly preferred numbers to people. But he said this fantastic thing about their working relationship. He said, "My job is to prove Dr. Stewart wrong." He actively sought disconfirmation. Different ways of looking at her models, at her statistics, different ways of crunching the data in order to disprove her. He saw his job as creating conflict around her theories. Because it was only by not being able to prove that she was wrong, that George could give Alice the confidence she needed to know that she was right.

It's a fantastic model of collaboration -- thinking partners who aren't echo chambers. I wonder how many of us have, or dare to have, such collaborators. Alice and George were very good at conflict. They saw it as thinking.

So what does that kind of constructive conflict require? Well, first of all, it requires that we find people who are very different from ourselves. That means we have to resist the neurobiological drive, which means that we really prefer people mostly like ourselves, and it means we have to seek out people with different backgrounds, different disciplines, different ways of thinking and different experience, and find ways to engage with them. That requires a lot of patience and a lot of energy.

And the more I've thought about this, the more I think, really, that that's a kind of love. Because you simply won't commit that kind of energy and time if you don't really care.
And it also means that we have to be prepared to change our minds. Alice's daughter told me that every time Alice went head-to-head with a fellow scientist, they made her think and think and think again. "My mother," she said, "My mother didn't enjoy a fight, but she was really good at them."

So it's one thing to do that in a one-to-one relationship. But it strikes me that the biggest problems we face, many of the biggest disasters that we've experienced, mostly haven't come from individuals, they've come from organizations, some of them bigger than countries, many of them capable of affecting hundreds, thousands, even millions of lives. So how do organizations think? Well, for the most part, they don't. And that isn't because they don't want to, it's really because they can't. And they can't because the people inside of them are too afraid of conflict.

In surveys of European and American executives, fully 85 percent of them acknowledged that they had issues or concerns at work that they were afraid to raise. Afraid of the conflict that that would provoke, afraid to get embroiled in arguments that they did not know how to manage, and felt that they were bound to lose. Eighty-five percent is a really big number. It means that organizations mostly can't do what George and Alice so triumphantly did. They can't think together. And it means that people like many of us, who have run organizations, and gone out of our way to try to find the very best people we can, mostly fail to get the best out of them.

- from Margaret Heffernan: Dare to disagree

And you were wrong through sheer sin of omission, and for someone who's into liberal art, you are hiding behind agnosticism so that you won't have to change. Because you're actually afraid of being hurt, that to you change through conflict is actually painful.
7431 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / United States
Offline
Posted 10/12/12

DomFortress And yet there you are, defending something that you claimed to be "tangible" and not "symbolic", all the while you claimed it to be beyond the scientific methods. Not only that, you'll come into the defense of reason, logic, and the scientific understanding of pedophilia, whenever it suited for your own biased worldview. For a self-proclaimed agnostic, your own superiority/god complex is unmistakable. Well your "logic" has a contradiction, and it goes like this: while you condemned pedophilia on the scientific discipline of psychology, you rejected the very same discipline that you based your condemnation, from explaining on what makes us fall in romantic love relationship. You're not thinking critically, when you're hiding behind "willful blindness" and "conflict avoidance", while you're not being truthful to the data because you didn't have any. And you were wrong through sheer sin of omission, and for someone who's into liberal art, you are hiding behind agnosticism so that you won't have to change. Because you're actually afraid of being hurt, that to you change through conflict is actually painful.



Firstly let me just say that I took the time to weed out what you actually said from the passages of books you've been copying and pasting since the beginning of the discussion. Now that that is out of the way your first point . And yet there you are, defending something that you claimed to be "tangible" and not "symbolic", all the while you claimed it to be beyond the scientific methods This would only be viable if you were living your life under the assumption that all things tangible are within the methods of science to understand which is naive at best. For instance the subject of our universe expanding. Yes there is the initial momentum of the big bang but supposedly there is another force, "dark matter" at work that makes up some 80% of the known universe. However science has yet to be able to even find such said particle. I would say that the nature of dark matter at the moment is quite out of reach of our current technology. Also lets not forget science is still trying to tackle what's on the bottom of our oceans, let alone where life began and understanding human behavior.

Secondly For a self-proclaimed agnostic, your own superiority/god complex is unmistakable yet you some how have mistaken my "complex." I find the idea of someone openly denying the existence of a higher power without any concrete evidence just as nauseating as someone who shouts from the rooftops that we either go to heaven or hell. The core to anyl agnostic's approach is that you can not know. Now you must be thinking, "How can you denounce religion and then in the same breath defend love and the human soul?" The answer to that is simple, the soul makes it's existence known. Every rule we know concerning biology tells us that humans creating art, music, and literature is not part of the basic instincts to survive. Yet we do. There is no other species on this earth that kills something for no other reason than to kill it. Yet we do. All other species on this earth adapt to the environment around them yet we adapt the environment to fit our needs. A conscience and the ability to make distinctions between what is "right" and "wrong" is an entirely human trait that has no "scientific value." How do you explain that? Yeah a lot of people like to think that society shapes morals and it does to a degree, but the "instinct" the feeling one gets when they've wrong someone is something science can't explain. (Yeah and don't give me that crap about people without a conscience, serial killers and the like because honestly this circular discussion is exhausting enough without adding criminal pathology to the mix.)

. Well your "logic" has a contradiction, and it goes like this: while you condemned pedophilia on the scientific discipline of psychology, you rejected the very same discipline that you based your condemnation, from explaining on what makes us fall in romantic love relationship.

Ok first of as I stated in a previous post I can see and recognize the value in science as well as the liberal arts due to my education however the idea that you accept all theories from any given discipline shows a very obvious lack of critical thinking on your part. Also I have no idea where you get the idea that I'm hiding behind anything, and being willfully blind considering your the one that is only looking at a view point from one particular discipline whereas I have formed my opinion after taking into consideration multiple viewpoints and opinions. As far as "conflict avoidance" is concerned I think throughout this discussion I have done anything but that. You might ask, "then why haven't you given a direct response to the countless passages I've posted that are the intellectual property of other people?" Well simply put, because they are the intellectual property of individuals and without reading the entire publication I can hardly decide whether I disagree or agree with them based on an excerpt of your choosing.

And you were wrong through sheer sin of omission, and for someone who's into liberal art, you are hiding behind agnosticism so that you won't have to change. Because you're actually afraid of being hurt, that to you change through conflict is actually painful

As far as not having any "data" is concerned I thought I covered that in one of my very first post. That love is not something you can analyze but that you must experience. Of course I could have taken five minutes on google and given you a million and one famous intellectuals that agree with me but I'm sure you already knew that. Also I have no idea where this idea of "being afraid to be hurt" is coming from. As far as conflict goes it is the only means by which we can better ourselves, progress society, and arrive at truth so I embrace it wholeheartedly. However intellectual conflicts only prevail if both parties move forward and unfortunately you have not. Instead you keep circling around science says and posting random excerpts from books instead of providing any proof of your own critical thinking. Instead your letting other people's intellectual property do it for you. So after your last post which pretty much consisted of you disregarding my viewpoint based on your assumptions that I am somehow scared of thinking any other way I would consider this intellectual discussion dead because regardless of how logical and rational my reasoning is you are undoubtedly going to come back with someone else's intellectual property sprinkled with your own assumptions of my "fear."

However I will leave you with several quotes on several quotes from people you find "valuable" that share my outlook.

"I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." -Wernher Von Braun

"Science can have a purifying effect on religion, freeing it from beliefs of a pre-scientific age and helping us to a truer conception of God. At the same time, I am far from believing that science will ever give us the answers to all our questions." -Nevill Mott

"I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experiences in a magnificently consistent order, but is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, god and eternity." -Erwin Schroedinger

"Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time" -Isaac Asimov

"Science is...a powerful way, indeed - to study the natural world. Science is not particularly effective...in making commentary about the supernatural world. Both worlds, for me, are quite real and quite important. They are investigated in different ways. They coexist. They illuminate each other." -Francis Collins



2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 10/12/12 , edited 10/12/12

crazyfirefly wrote:

Firstly a Liberal Arts education encourages the study of the quote "useless, impractical, Imbecilic" subjects in conjunction with science and technology in order to form a more clear, more well rounded understanding of the world. History is where society has come from and literature illuminates and inspires the definition of what it means to be human. Anyone who can not see the value in that is a closed minded, poor example of what it means to be an intellectual and a role model for the attitude not to have in the pursuit of knowledge. Knowledge is valuable in and of itself, to categorize the value of knowledge based on which field or subject it pertains to is, for lack of a better term, foolish

Secondly it isn't that your opinion that all emotions stem from internal biological processes that I find "too bleak for my taste", (and I do say opinion because despite all the "research" there isn't enough data to support anything more than yet another scientific theory.) but rather your entire approach and logic to this argument.

I find the idea that you believe that the "absurd" idea of the soul is somehow more comfortable than believing that human behavior always has a scientific explanation laughable. Now correct me if I'm wrong but according to your logic I find the idea that human beings are unpredictable far less frightening than knowing what people are going to do and why they do what they do? You accuse me of "retreating to willful ignorance" and "turning to mysticism" when you yourself put irrationalism in the same "breath" that you berated me for not automatically embracing scientific theory as fact.

Scientific theories are constantly shifting and changing as new advances in science and technology are made. (If you don't know this you can look to the examples scattered throughout human history which is quite ironic considering how "useless, impractical, and imbecilic" you find the subject. They are called theories because they can not be proven false, not because they are proven true. I would think that you basic sixth grade science teacher would have covered that but maybe you weren't paying attention that day.

Lastly, I did strive to, nor did I expect to convenience you to "join me to willful ignorance" or basic reason for that matter. I was expressing my opinion, which was short, simple, and to the point. Yet you somehow managed to make it complicated despite the liberty I took in bolding the key words for you. However let me say this, you can throw scientific theories, halfhearted round about insults, and completely disregard the built in spell check but what you can't do is make a logical, rational, argument of your own on this topic. As any intellectual worth their weight knows, you can't have a knowledge prejudice in the pursuit of knowledge. If you do your like a fisherman that only uses one type of bait.

As far as my place in the universe in concerned that is irrelevant since I am agnostic. I don't believe in heaven, or hell, or the idea that a person can know if those things even exist. My beliefs are solely based on the knowledge and experiences I have encountered in my lifetime. Though I do feel it's a lot easier to believe that man is nothing more than flesh and electrical impulses and that nothing is beyond our understanding and science. Perhaps that's the reason that some people are so eager to embrace scientific theory as fact, because they are frightened by the prospect that something could possibly be beyond their understanding and control.



There are two types of studies, one productive, and the other sterile- the productive studies have furthered man through the darkness, have made him wiser, have given him strength to build and destroy cities, chased away the ghosts of superstitions that haunts him in the abyss, these studies have lit the lamp and shown us bits of universe as it is. The sterile studies, however, encourages fancy, seek ever to bring back those spectres that the productive studies have chased away, to encourage ignorance, and pass it off as knowledge, it seeks to drag man back into the abyss that Science has freed him of. If science, mathematics, logic, technology, etc. are to be studied along side history, literature, poetry, and all that, those will only serve to poison the purity of the Sciences and the Maths, to taint True Knowledge with fanciful Ignorance and Stupidity. What has Arts to do with Knowledge, but that where it tries to teach us, our Noble Sciences do a much better job at it, where it pretends knowledge of the working of the human mind, our Psychologists have already chased away those pseudo-scientific theory. Philosophers, lovers of knowledge, have already acknowledge their inferiority to the Sciences, they work only within the limit of modern science, using the rigours of mathematics and logic, and never work outside of it, in this, Philosophers have admirably made their arts much more noble than those of Historians, Artists, Literary Critics, etc. Indeed, they have, as alchemists, transformed their studies into a science in and of itself.

You argue that I believe that emotions are simply internal processes, and that is a gross misrepresentation of my point, I have said that emotions are simply the results of internal processes with external stimuli, and it is not an opinion, it is a fact, and, indeed, in confirmation with our common sense- if emotions are not the result of internal processes and external stimuli, do you suppose, then, they magically appear in the frontier between the internal and external, and then magically disappear, without reason? Everything, I assume you to agree, is caused, and so, emotions too must be caused, and as emotions are 'conscious mental reactions (as anger or fear) subjectively experienced as strong feeling usually directed toward a specific object and typically accompanied by physiological and behavioural changes in the body', that is, its causes are both internal and external, by merit of the very definition. These processes can, and, undoubtedly, will be explained by the sciences, indeed, there are several theories of Emotion propounded by the Psychologist, Neuroscientist, the Biologist, etc. none of them resorting to some unfounded higher agency (and all of which are theories more well founded than your idea of your soul, and thus, more believable than that of your irrational thing of metaphysics).

The Idea of the Soul and of irrational indeterminism is, undoubtedly, comforting to the foolish, it may make man a wild thing, but it frees him and elevate him beyond the mere piece of natural machinery he is. That was my point, that you try to make man more than he is, a miserable machine amongst other machines in the great chaos of the universe, whose sole function is the biological, a mere thing of instincts, nature, run by an undoubtedly complex, but ultimately deterministic clockwork. Hence your various and vehement protestation against DomFortress and Science in general- 'Man must be more than that', 'There must be something in man that is yet undiscovered by science that makes us not a tool of instincts and chemical reactions', etc. There is nothing, Man is only an Automaton, as amply demonstrated by our current sciences. You second accusation is against science itself, specifically that, because Contemporary Science does not bear out your views, somehow, future science will, because Science is ever changing. This is undoubted, we have advance far beyond Aristotle, Newton, Le Place, Poincare, Einstein, Bohr, etc. Aristotelian Science was displaced by Galilean and Newtonian Mechanics, and we moved beyond that, to Quantum Mechanic and Relativity, from the Bible, we moved beyond the seven days of Creation to the Evolutionary Theories of Lamark and that to Darwin, and we moved on still. But, just because future Science may overturn our present beliefs, does not mean we should reject it wholesale, and, in fact, we should accept current Science, being the most accurate information of truth within our current means, and conform our ideas to it, than reject it and pray that tomorrow will bring about a new science that is somehow conformable to your own theory. The truth is science is ever marching to a more and more mechanistic explanation, it has been the general trend in the history of the Sciences, that we replace fanciful immaterials, like your soul or God, with more material and natural explanation. If anything, the future of science shall more than likely conform to a more mechanistic view of man and will nihilate the soul, reduce emotion to the chemical, and, in short, properly define man as a complex set of natural gears and clockworks.

Lastly, why argue unless you want to prove yourself right? You are wrong, and beyond wrong, you are wilfully ignorant, and trying to convince us that this is somehow reason. You say that this is gathered from your life, subjective experience have no bearing on truth, and is irrelevant, so, being experienced in the art of self deception does not impart any sort of validity to your argument.


Lo! thy dread Empire, Chaos! is restor'd;
Light dies before thy uncreating word:
Thy hand, great Anarch! lets the curtain fall;
And Universal Darkness buries All.

-Alexander Pope



crazyfirefly wrote:

Your nature seems to be inclined to only presenting half/partial definitions and finding "vagueness" and "obscurantism" when a particular viewpoint is not to your liking. It took me all of five seconds to find these definitions of emotion.


A natural instinctive state of mind deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others.
Any of the particular feelings that characterize such a state of mind, such as joy, anger, love, hate, horror, et
lets take a look at yours.

-A state of feeling

*Why this isn't vague at all. I mean pain, hunger, arousal are all "states of feeling"

-a conscious mental reaction (as anger or fear) subjectively experienced as strong feeling usually directed toward a specific object and typically accompanied by physiological and behavioral changes in the body

*Actually there is nothing wrong with this definition which I found refreshing and surprising. However again we run into the problem that things like sexual arousal, food cravings, physical pain, and hunger can fall into these categories.

Again as I stated before my original OP was an opinion and a pretty strait forward one. I don't count lust as an emotion and I gave a very logical, rational reason why I didn't think it was. Nothing complicated, nothing vague, just plain simple English. If you didn't get it, or rather you refuse to get it from reasons unknown that's not my problem.


Let's not debate nature, your nature is to be foolish and wilfully blind and ignorant, that, even, in the face of the definition gathered from a dictionary, you still insist you are right, beyond all reason, and that you are not vague. To continue debating nature would only end in your humiliation, as, I must humbly and bashfully confess, my nature is impeccable, not only logical and reasonable, but also judicious and just. You are vague, what do you mean by emotional and natural urges, you have yet to provide a definition for either that isn't obscure, that somehow justify excluding Lust and Sexual/Physical Attraction from the Romantic, you have yet to define that unknown element that somehow separate the two.

Let's us start with your definition:


A natural instinctive state of mind deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others.
Any of the particular feelings that characterize such a state of mind, such as joy, anger, love, hate, horror, etc.
-Oxford English Dictionary


Let's see, is Lust a natural, instinctive state of mind deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationship with others?

Well, Lust is natural, it is also instinctive, and it is a state of mind, just as joy, anger, love, and hate are. It is derived from one's circumstances, being a combination of natural predication and external circumstances, with mood, particularly more carnal moods, and with relationships with others, particularly the erotic. O Gué! You have just defined Lust as an Emotion! You managed to disproved yourself in five seconds flat, according to your own testimony.

Now, moving on to your Critique of Merriam Webster's Dictionary of the English language:

*Why this isn't vague at all. I mean pain, hunger, arousal are all "states of feeling"
~Congratulations, you just realised that the word 'Emotional' is vague, and so is ill suited as a criteria to separate the Romantic from the Sexual.

*Actually there is nothing wrong with this definition which I found refreshing and surprising. However again we run into the problem that things like sexual arousal, food cravings, physical pain, and hunger can fall into these categories.
~ Again, I congratulate you on discovering that the word 'Emotion' is too vague to serve as a means of separating the Romantic and the Sexual.


Since both Oxford and Webster seems to prove you wrong, and that Lust is, in fact, an emotion, and so, falls into the category of 'Romantic', how, then, is a Paedophillic lust towards a child not 'Emotional' and, thus, 'Romantic'? Of course, you were never a reasonable, or even mildly intelligent creature, confusing clarity and lucidity with vagueness and obscurantism, and folly and stupidity with reason and logic, as amply demonstrated by your war against every form of sense: from your attack on science in defence of this mystical soul, to your self-contradictory tirade on the precise meaning of emotion and why 'emotional' is not a vague attachment.


As Hannibal did to the Altars come,
Sworn by his Syre a mortal Foe to Rome;
So Cr—— swore, nor should her Vow be vain,
That she till Death true dullness would maintain
-John Dryden
70677 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Irish/German - Am...
Offline
Posted 10/12/12
dear lord these walls of text are pointless.

Romantic/sexual love between a child and an adult is disgusting.

If you're stroking some 9 year olds hair thinking "Oh I'd love to make out with you and for you to love me for doing it."
Go get your head checked.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 10/12/12

funnyginsan wrote:

dear lord these walls of text are pointless.

Romantic/sexual love between a child and an adult is disgusting.

If you're stroking some 9 year olds hair thinking "Oh I'd love to make out with you and for you to love me for doing it."
Go get your head checked.


Basically 'Why argue, I'm right and that's the long and short of it.'
70677 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Irish/German - Am...
Offline
Posted 10/12/12

longfenglim wrote:


Basically 'Why argue, I'm right and that's the long and short of it.'


So you do want to make out with a 9 year old?
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 10/12/12 , edited 10/12/12

funnyginsan wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


Basically 'Why argue, I'm right and that's the long and short of it.'


So you do want to make out with a 9 year old?


And so I am proven right. To disagree with you,it seems, amount to being a child molester.

I say that because you disagree with me, you are a fascist, like Francisco Franco and Jean Marie Le Pen. Why do you hate freedom so much?
Posted 10/12/12
Even if there is.. It will probably be disgusting and just wrong..
7431 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / United States
Offline
Posted 10/13/12

funnyginsan wrote:

dear lord these walls of text are pointless.

Romantic/sexual love between a child and an adult is disgusting.

If you're stroking some 9 year olds hair thinking "Oh I'd love to make out with you and for you to love me for doing it."
Go get your head checked.


Thank you and I agree. My reply started out simple enough but somehow I was sucked into this madness. Thanks for putting it back into perspective.
70677 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Irish/German - Am...
Offline
Posted 10/13/12 , edited 10/13/12

crazyfirefly wrote:

Thank you and I agree. My reply started out simple enough but somehow I was sucked into this madness. Thanks for putting it back into perspective. :)


IKR?? It's just such a simple concept. You shouldn't be wanting to have sex with children.

I mean there is a lot of grey areas out there in life but this certainly isn't one of them.

Love how the debate turned into a battle of semantics ROFL.

Also got a kick out of getting called close-minded for it. Some people man ....
First  Prev  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.