|
Will there be world peace if everyone gets to have sex? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by elFreak
you can only love someone you are ing?
ok there. |
Who are you talking to?
USE YOUR WORDS. . |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Besides, world peace does not mean an absence of hatred, just an absence of starting wars over it (or anything). Pacifists can hate... I'm sure those hippies I called pussies, punched, and then laughed at hated me... they were just too big of hippie pussies to do anything about it. |
I wasn't really answering the question, because love isn't the same as ing anyone you wanted, whenever you wanted. I think the OP meant people would stop hating if they were constantly getting off though, as opposed to bottling their rage up and not acting on it.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I disagree. If you really think meaning arises from differences (how structuralist of you!), you ought to contrast love with indiference, not hate. |
But indifference is essentially a lack of feeling, so how can you identify love through comparing it to... nothing? People often talk about love and hate as binary opposites, on the same scale. Indifference would seem to be the middle ground of every scale and no scale all at once.
I suppose I am a structuralist. I tend towards deconstruction, and I certainly believe in context giving meaning to everything. We were talking in MD just the other day about how DJing and music are all about the relationships between parts as much as the parts themselves.
Think about the words you just used. "Indifferent", through its etymology, implies that a lack of difference equates to a lack of feeling. |
|
|
| elFreak |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Who are you talking to?
USE YOUR WORDS. . |
butt is a compound swear word. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I wasn't really answering the question, because love isn't the same as ing anyone you wanted, whenever you wanted. I think the OP meant people would stop hating if they were constantly getting off though, as opposed to bottling their rage up and not acting on it. |
I was pointing out that your contention on the meaning of love was erred, as way your interpretation of what the OP's intentions were.
| quote: | | But indifference is essentially a lack of feeling, so how can you identify love through comparing it to... nothing? People often talk about love and hate as binary opposites, on the same scale. Indifference would seem to be the middle ground of every scale and no scale all at once. |
The latter is true... if love and hate reside on opposite ends of a spectrum then indifference is the lack of said spectrum. That said, I would contend that love and hate are not opposite ends of the same spectrum, rather the same end of parallel spectrums. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by elFreak
butt is a compound swear word. |
Futtbuck sounds funnier. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
That said, I would contend that love and hate are not opposite ends of the same spectrum, rather the same end of parallel spectrums. |
So people's moral pathways are as linear as that? You can either be feeding your hatred or honing your love? They have nothing to do with one another and are on their own, separate lines?
=/ |
|
|
| idoru |
| quote: | The Oneida Community was a utopian commune founded by John Humphrey Noyes in 1848 in Oneida, New York. The community believed that Jesus Christ had already returned in the year 70, making it possible for them to bring about Christ's millennial kingdom themselves, and be free of sin and perfect in this world, not just Heaven (a belief called Perfectionism).
The Oneida Community practiced Communalism (in the sense of communal property and possessions), Complex Marriage, Male Continence, Mutual Criticism and Ascending Fellowship. There were smaller Noyesian communities in Wallingford, Connecticut; Newark, New Jersey; Putney, Vermont; and Cambridge, Vermont. In Putney, the authorities attempted to have Noyes arrested for his unorthodox sexual practices.[1] The community's original 87 members grew to 172 by February 1850, 208 by 1852 and 306 by 1878. The branches were closed in 1854, except for the Wallingford branch, which operated until devastated by a tornado in 1878. The Oneida Community dissolved in 1881, and eventually became the giant silverware company Oneida Limited. |
:stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: |
|
|
| Pokit |
This thread reminds me of an email I got the other day. Not sure of the accuracy of it.
- In Lebanon , men are legally allowed to have sex with animals, but the animals must be female. Having sexual relations with a male animal is punishable by death.
- In Bahrain , a male doctor may legally examine a woman's genitals, but is prohibited from looking directly at them during the examination. He may only see their reflection in a mirror.
- Muslims are banned from looking at the genitals of a corpse.. This also applies to undertakers. The sex organs of the deceased must be covered with a brick or piece of wood at all times.
- The penalty for masturbation in Indonesia is decapitation.
- There are men in Guam whose full-time job is to travel the countryside and deflower young virgins, who pay them for the privilege of having sex for the first timeReason: under Guam law, it is expressly forbidden for virgins to marry.
- In Hong Kong , a betrayed wife is legally allowed to kill her adulterous husband, but may only do so with her bare hands. The husband's illicit lover, on the other hand, may be killed in any manner desired.
- Topless saleswomen are legal in Liverpool , England - but only in tropical fish stores.
- In Cali , Colombia , a woman may only have sex with her husband, and the first time this happens, her mother must be in the room to witness the act.
- In Santa Cruz , Bolivia , it is illegal for a man to have sex with a woman and her daughter at the same time.
:wtf: |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
So people's moral pathways are as linear as that? You can either be feeding your hatred or honing your love? They have nothing to do with one another and are on their own, separate lines?
=/ |
If they were distant points on the same spectrum then it is implied that you would have to pass through a myriad of points along that spectrum to move from one to the other. This is not the evolution of feeling that I have observed and experienced. Rather then moving gradually through multiple stages from love to hate and vice versa people often move quickly between the two experiencing little or no other emotions along the way. Love can turn to hate and hate to love in an instant because they are parallels, not opposites. Both are intense and complex emotions, the only difference being the connotation one applies to them... love being positive, hate being negative. If you view the spectrum of emotional attachments as being two parallel continuums (one positively connotated, the other negatively) it fits better with the human experience of transitioning from a positive to negative emotional attachment to someone in short order without passing through other intensities of emotion, as you simply jump from the positive to the negative spectrum. |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| didn't stop bill clinton going to war... |
|
|
| Acton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Pokit
In Santa Cruz , Bolivia , it is illegal for a man to have sex with a woman and her daughter at the same time.
|
:( |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
If they were distant points on the same spectrum then it is implied that you would have to pass through a myriad of points along that spectrum to move from one to the other. This is not the evolution of feeling that I have observed and experienced. Rather then moving gradually through multiple stages from love to hate and vice versa people often move quickly between the two experiencing little or no other emotions along the way. Love can turn to hate and hate to love in an instant because they are parallels, not opposites. Both are intense and complex emotions, the only difference being the connotation one applies to them... love being positive, hate being negative. If you view the spectrum of emotional attachments as being two parallel continuums (one positively connotated, the other negatively) it fits better with the human experience of transitioning from a positive to negative emotional attachment to someone in short order without passing through other intensities of emotion, as you simply jump from the positive to the negative spectrum. |
But is the scope of human emotions qualifiable to the point of mere binary reduction? Positive/negative - light side/dark side, et cetera. In our physical and natural world, I don't see there being anything outside of the savagery and the crudeness that comes from every animal striving to survive in Mother Nature's sick playground. But metaphysically, I still do not see hate or love as competitive emotions, as they all too often serve the exact same purpose - to consume.
When I exhibit the very human sensibilities of western magnanimity, I am serving a purpose. When I exhibit socially abhorrible acts of malice and hatred, I am still serving a purpose. This purpose is always with myself in mind. Now I know that as a Christian, you would argue that not all emotional attachments are selfish, and that it is possible for people to give without any hope of receiving whatsoever, but I simply do not see this. If you love without hope of reciprocation [reward], you are still geaning your so-called 'positive' emotions from said act, or you are doing it to win the favour of some imagined[!] deity - or, most seemingly common of all, you are serving a social purpose, some 'greater good' by means of acts out of love and positivity. I see hatred as merely a more pure and honest form of this selfish dynamic - is that justification for cruelty? No, but it's certainly more individualistic to serve oneself and hope [love?] to incite this within others.
My point is that positivity and negativity are outcomes with means we have arbitrarily assigned to them when, in reality, have seemingly random repercussions we cannot possibly anticipate, yet have fabricated a culture of reactions in order to give reason and achievement to the cohesion of our species. Whilst I do agree that our notions of love and hate are not polar opposites of one, linear spectrum, I reject the notion of actual indifference as a factor, as everyone has their motivations for feeling and acting the way that they do; few of these emotions being truly quantifiable as part of any measure, and merely just memetic programming made to serve a purpose that is, for all intents and purposes, natural. |
|
|
|
|
