|
*sigh*
You're starting to irritate me this. You want to talk logic? Fine.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
The vast majority of species do not, even if one restricts the analysis to the Animal Kingdom. |
You have just made a gross generalization here, far more than any generalizations I've made. I would have to say that the burden of proof is on you to prove that the "vast majority" don't create monogamous relationships.
After you've just finished talking about how emotions are just based on biology/chemistry, you proceed to say that these aren't emotional phenomena? Okay, fine, they're not emotional, they're biological, what difference does that make?
Obviously we can't study whether or not it's "emotional", because we can't communicate with animals on an intellectual level. Honestly, what kind of claptrap is all this? Just because the animals (particularly mammals) don't have a language to describe it does not mean they don't "feel" the same things we do, since emotions, as you so succinctly put it, are a purely neurological phenomenon.
| quote: | | The definition of “friend” in the context of the question posed by Sand Leaper shouldn’t require a monumental intellect to recognize. |
Well that's interesting, because I asked for a concrete definition of "friend" and nobody was able to give me one. Would you like to try it?
My point is that this entire argument depends on how you define "friend." The definition from one person to the next is as unique as their fingerprint. I only "pulled the definition out of my ass" to the same extent that you and Sand Leaper did. Are you trying to prove that my definition is wrong and yours isn't? Or just that yours is perhaps closer to Sand Leaper's, thus making your opinion more valid than mine?
You don't have to link me to the fallacy page - I was the one that posted the link about fallacies earlier, remember? I hardly consider anything I said to be a straw man argument, because a straw man argument implies that I'm actually trying to prove one side of the argument! Besides which, there's a difference between distorting the original argument (as in the case of a straw man) and exposing the subjectivity of it.
| quote: | | Emotional attachment, on the other hand, is a purely objective neurological phenomenon. |
So here you say it. I'd very much like to see where the proof is that this "neurological phenomenon" is unique to humans. Do you think that just because animals can't express emotion through words, they therefore don't have any?
Perhaps I was incorrect in the phrasing - the feelings themselves are chemical/neurological. The categorization of them into linguistic terms is highly subjective. I think you may find that not all cultures use the same sort of language to describe their emotions - although it's hardly necessary to look at other cultures, since every single person defines their own emotions differently.
| quote: | | ...in the context of the topic of this discussion the only relevant question is whether or not either individuals experience this neurological phenomenon to such an extent as to interfere with their ability to maintain the same relationship they had prior to engaging in intercourse. Either it does, or it does not. There’s no room for interpretation. |
You don't think the term "the same relationship they had prior to engaging in intercourse" leaves room for interpretation?
Okay then. I choose to take your quote completely literally, and I will say no, it's absolutely impossible to maintain the same relationship they had prior to engaging in intercourse, because the relationship they had prior to engaging in intercourse included a relative ignorance of each other's sexuality. If nothing else has changed, their respective knowledge of each other's bodies has changed. So going by your logic, it isn't possible to maintain the "same" relationship. Things cannot possibly be exactly the same with that added knowledge.
| quote: | | ...you have yet to provide a single piece of evidence as to why the act of sexual intercourse must necessarily produce this effect in one or more party. |
In fact, I wasn't trying to - I was arguing toward the invalidity of the question itself, not a yes or no answer to it.
I haven't provided very much solid evidence, no - I'm not trying to prove a theory here, just the illogicality of the question - then again, I don't see your evidence either.
| quote: | | I don’t need to point out an alternative cause any more than I need to construct an alternative cosmology in order to dismiss the notion that God created the universe. It’s non sequitur because you aren’t providing any evidence of exclusive causality whatsoever, and are merely stating an appeal to ignorance that if no one can provide an alternate explanation, then your theory must be the only one. |
Once again, you seem to be drawing the inferrence that I'm trying to prove a "no" answer to the question at hand, whereas I'm only trying to disclaim the question as a valid one. I don't have any theory to prove. Even if I did, and even if your logic conclusively disproved my "theory", you still have not proven the contrary! This is no different from the religious nuts trying to prove creationism by disproving evolution.
| quote: | | Yes, your girlfriend or wife is a “friend.” In the context of Sand Leaper’s question, however, they are implicitly excluded. |
Well in the context of my definition, every girl you've had sex with is excluded.
Does that logic make sense? No, not really, but neither does yours.
It's really very intriguing how you manage to blow all this smoke toward me while still ignoring the obvious subjectivity of words like "friend" and "relationship." If you can define them in a conrete enough way so as to make the answer to the question meaningful, then by all means, be my guest. Right now, I think you've left a few loopholes in your descriptions.
___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here
|
