|
| quote: |
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.
|
It’s accepted scientific dogma.
| quote: | | Male-female pair bonds occur in a small percentage of mammals. |
Ref: http://www.wam.umd.edu/~south/
| quote: |
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?
|
The issue of emotional vs. non-emotional causes was raised here:
| quote: |
Theres no way that could work. If someone is having sex with a person for a prolonged period of time, emotion/feelings/attachment form big time. And when one of the two decides, hey, I want to stop this, the other will agree, because he/she has to because of the arrangment, but fact is, they will still be upset. |
The premise of the above stated argument is that a sexual relationship inevitably leads to emotional attachment, and that therefore the termination of that relationship will result in emotional suffering for at least one of the individuals involved.
In order to demonstrate the weakness of this assertion, I interjected the fact that innumerable examples exist of sexual relationships which do not lead to emotional attachment.
| quote: |
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?
|
In the context of this question, “friend” quite clearly denotes the set of friends (according to the dictionary definition “one attached to another by affection or esteem”), minus the set of girlfriends/wives (which are distinguished by varying degrees of commitment).
| quote: |
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? |
When responding to a query, the first step in formulating a coherent response is to understand as precisely as possible what is being asked. That is, the question as it exists in the mind of the inquirer, untainted by linguistic limitations. If the first definition of a term that comes to mind when you read the question is one that makes the question self-contradictory, then that definition probably isn’t one you want to use to the end of understanding the question. That’s just common sense.
That the lexicon “friend” carries some additional meaning to a particular interpreter of the question has no bearing on the true nature of the question itself.
| quote: |
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.
|
It is a straw man. Rather than interpreting Sand Leaper’s question as it quite obviously was intended, you imposed a distortion upon it by imposing your own definition of “friend”, then positing the claim that the question was incoherent or self-contradictory.
| quote: |
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.
|
The extent to which animal possess emotion is the subject of a large amount of scientific inquiry. Contemporary research indicates that many animals, especially higher-order mammals possess a much higher degree of emotional cognition than previously hypothesized. The leap from animals “having” emotions to sexual relationships necessarily invoking those emotions, however, is one that’s certainly not supported by any research that I’m aware of.
| quote: |
You don't think the term "the same relationship they had prior to engaging in intercourse" leaves room for interpretation?
|
Allow me to clarify, then. The relevant question is whether or not either of the individuals experience this neurological phenomenon to such an extent as to preclude membership in each other’s set of “friends” defined above.
| quote: |
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.
|
Yes, I’m well aware of that. However, the argument that the question is invalid is so inane that it really doesn’t warrant any sort of response, as it amounts to little more than vociferous trolling.
| quote: |
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.
|
I’m not trying to prove anything with regards to this completely irrelevant side-issue of whether or not the cessation of the so-called “friends with benefits” relationship when one person starts a new relationship is caused by the new person being somehow “better” or by something else. It has absolutely no bearing on the topic of this thread.
| quote: |
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.
|
Sorry to rain on your parade, but you aren’t the center of the universe, and your definitions are no more valid than anyone else’s. If you’re interested in understanding and producing a coherent response to a question, then you try to understand the meaning of the terms as intended by the inquirer. If you aren’t interested in understanding and producing a coherent response to a question, the answer is simple: don’t respond.
| quote: |
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. |
I’m not here to baby-sit you. If you have such severe problems with reading comprehension that you can’t decipher the definitions of words like “friend” and “relationship” in the context of this discussion, I suggest you seek an education in the subject. Now if you want to offer the slightest bit of evidence to suggest that you might actually have something intelligent to contribute to the discussion then perhaps you’d be worth my while, but as it stands, I have neither the time nor the desire to re-invent the wheel to compensate for your personal ineptitude.
|
). Better late than never tho, so basically what I'm looking for (I'll use your list for now) is people who have 4 and no 5. The rest of it is really not up to me to set the boundaries for, since I can't know for sure how high or low 1-3 are in each instance, nor how much it matters to each of the individuals involved. The examples in this thread seem to give their definition of it by themselves though, so I guess I'll just have to interpret them accordingly and see if they fit the question I had in mind when I posted this thread. If anyone else has a better definition, post away.
