Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#69365 Dec 31, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
You have GOT to be kidding me!!
<young me sitting on a bench at the mall. old gnarly guy walks up and sits down>
him: Wanna suck?
me: What?!
him: Wanna suck?
me: <stands up, startled>
him: <stands up>
me: <sits down>
him:<sits down>
me: <gets up, walks away quickly>
him: <gets up and walks away in the other direction, blending into the crowd>
That's how it goes when you've got witnesses. When you don't, a lot more chances are taken.
Clueless!
Well.

At least THAT didn't suck.

.

It didn't, right?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#69366 Dec 31, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you referring to intellectual intercourse? So you think the brain is a sexual organ?
As the epicentre of all things hubba hubba, YEAH!
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69367 Dec 31, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't think that my conclusions are not based on empirical evidence? I am newtral. You know like newt gingrich
I prefer the Monty Python Newt.

"She's a witch! She turned me into a newt!

...."I got better!"
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69368 Dec 31, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Well.
At least THAT didn't suck.
.
It didn't, right?
I think Queen Victoria might have said:

"We are not amused!"

“Pancakes and eggs...”

Level 4

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#69369 Dec 31, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I don't believe it ever happened. There are just too many holes and inconsistencies in the whole God thing, and to be honest I really doubt the Jesus story. What with knowing that the Adam and Eve story is just a myth and they didn't exist...what need was there for him. No 'Original Sin' equals no need for a 'human' sacrifice to atone for non-existent 'Original Sin'.
But 'you' happened...so what makes you think 'God' could not have 'happened' also?

“Pancakes and eggs...”

Level 4

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#69370 Dec 31, 2012
'God' simply being used as a generic term for higher beings...for the sake of this discussion...

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#69371 Dec 31, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
My point is that marriage should not be a government function. The government should not endorse one behavior over another and civil unions and marriage should carry the same legal status but no legal or economic privilege, period.
So no need for laws?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#69372 Dec 31, 2012
I think Science will become the new religion of future generations. That's the only way to save the evolution of our species.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69373 Dec 31, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
So no need for laws?
Well, that escalated quickly!

I think marriage is an oath that is best enforced by the religious community, not the state. Let the state deal with the legal complications, whether in a civil union or a marriage. Let the state stay out of the morality issue and the religious endorsement of the conditions of a marriage.

The gays can't tell the church to marry them. The state can't wave a wand, demanding that churches recognize state marriages. Nobody gets tax breaks or inheritance breaks for marriage and no legal segue for turning gay marriage into affirmative action or hate crime laws. Makes sense yet?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#69374 Dec 31, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but is that actually a biological phenomena, or is it an attempt to communicate something that one fears rejection of?
I only take Freud in bits and pieces. Same defense mechanism, different judgement from the outside world. Just trying to be fair and balanced.
It's a different matter entirely. The wiki gives a pretty good description so I won't repeat that part.

Let's take something we all know on here well enough, I will refrain from referencing specific persons or posts though:

Take someone who is overly sexual, either because that's how they are or because they have been brainwashed into thinking that's how they should be. The brainwashing version is actually quite typical of women in the US, they like to fill our heads with this "women should be sensual" bull and give us "baby" dolls as young girls to enforce it.

So they become overly sexual and deep down feel shame for that as well, a side effect of religious doctrine. Thus they over sexualize everything, to them everything has to be about sex because that's all they believe they should think about, but they struggle with the "teaching" that it's wrong to think about it so they feel guilty in some way.

Along comes someone who shows no sexual urges, no drive at all, so they try to find anything they can to call sexual, even when there is nothing sexual about it, as a way to say, in their mind, "that person likes sex a lot so I must be 'normal'." Even though outwardly they'll say things like "that's a sin and you should be ashamed of it." I also call it "forced common ground," because they are trying to bridge a gap that's not even there by using their own traits completely ignoring any possibility that the other person has different traits.

I hope I explained it well and didn't ramble too much. Psychology is a fascinating subject, and seeing such a strong case of any psychological trait in a single person spikes my interest in them.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#69375 Dec 31, 2012
Time and Space wrote:
'God' simply being used as a generic term for higher beings...for the sake of this discussion...
Then you shouldn't use the christian colloquial in the conversation.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#69376 Dec 31, 2012
Time and Space wrote:
<quoted text>
But 'you' happened...so what makes you think 'God' could not have 'happened' also?
Here's what you missed, it's not the possibility of a god existing that is the problem, it's the claims of specific gods existing that are fallacious. Until evidence is provided the only sane, and intelligent, thing to do is to dismiss it until evidence is provided. Believing in something without evidence is called delusion.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#69377 Dec 31, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>Well, that escalated quickly!
I think marriage is an oath that is best enforced by the religious community, not the state. Let the state deal with the legal complications, whether in a civil union or a marriage. Let the state stay out of the morality issue and the religious endorsement of the conditions of a marriage.
The gays can't tell the church to marry them. The state can't wave a wand, demanding that churches recognize state marriages. Nobody gets tax breaks or inheritance breaks for marriage and no legal segue for turning gay marriage into affirmative action or hate crime laws. Makes sense yet?
I don't believe in marriage. period. I don't know why women fantasize about this fairy tale of meeting their prince charles. I'm not into that thing.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#69378 Dec 31, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
My point is that marriage should not be a government function. The government should not endorse one behavior over another and civil unions and marriage should carry the same legal status but no legal or economic privilege, period.
I actually agree here, I say get marriage out of the laws completely, no more regulation, no more messy and stupid laws, bans, or regulations needed. Straight or gay, if they want to get married, great, have at it. Without the laws it doesn't matter.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#69379 Dec 31, 2012
One of those sexual organs is the human brain, which determines whether we're attracted to members of the same sex or members of the opposite sex.
Cybele wrote:
Are you referring to intellectual intercourse?
No.
Cybele wrote:
So you think the brain is a sexual organ?
I do indeed.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#69380 Dec 31, 2012
anonymous wrote:
I think marriage is an oath that is best enforced by the religious community, not the state.
Even atheists marry.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69381 Dec 31, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a different matter entirely. The wiki gives a pretty good description so I won't repeat that part.
Let's take something we all know on here well enough, I will refrain from referencing specific persons or posts though:
Take someone who is overly sexual, either because that's how they are or because they have been brainwashed into thinking that's how they should be. The brainwashing version is actually quite typical of women in the US, they like to fill our heads with this "women should be sensual" bull and give us "baby" dolls as young girls to enforce it.
So they become overly sexual and deep down feel shame for that as well, a side effect of religious doctrine. Thus they over sexualize everything, to them everything has to be about sex because that's all they believe they should think about, but they struggle with the "teaching" that it's wrong to think about it so they feel guilty in some way.
Along comes someone who shows no sexual urges, no drive at all, so they try to find anything they can to call sexual, even when there is nothing sexual about it, as a way to say, in their mind, "that person likes sex a lot so I must be 'normal'." Even though outwardly they'll say things like "that's a sin and you should be ashamed of it." I also call it "forced common ground," because they are trying to bridge a gap that's not even there by using their own traits completely ignoring any possibility that the other person has different traits.
I hope I explained it well and didn't ramble too much. Psychology is a fascinating subject, and seeing such a strong case of any psychological trait in a single person spikes my interest in them.
Well, I'll be honest, I think the sexual aspect you're describing is overly presumptive. People want to "belong" more than anything. If sexuality gets them attention, that's good enough for most people. Losing control of the subject causes them to reject sexuality as quickly as they embraced it.

Personally, I think you'll have different permutations of sexuality and evolutionary strategy, kind of like the Vulcan story where the logic of the species only increases the actual sexuality, which is kept suppressed as much as possible. The only real tangible variable is whether or not a species requires long term parental involvement in raising their young. That would limit the individual's will to keep procreating beyond their means to care for the young.

I tend to think that bible types are usually non-sexual people, but under stress, they can be forced to focus on sex, then kind of erupt in bizarre ways. Others can so easily achieve gratification that they have almost no interest in the idea of fantasy. All they really need is a lack of distraction and a quiet moment of privacy.

The Freudian idea of projection is muddled, as is most of Freud's work. There's something to be derived from it, but sexuality in his world is far more about accumulated experience than it is biology. I resist all of the Timothy Leerys and others who think drug use is part of a self-healing process. That's the mindset of aristocrats who just decide to change their "attitude" but have ABSOLUTELY no fear of the consequences.

The problem is that our current world is full of experimental drug users who either screwed themselves up worse, or cleared their minds through drugs, but most of us have no idea how they get from point A to point B. Heck, they barely remember!

We don't know how close to our own hard-wiring is to media-friendly know-it-alls to begin with. We don't know if they've experienced the same fears or were rewarded for their efforts in any way close to we were in our own efforts. For our own sakes, it's largely healthy to maintain a self-help point of view but we like to use someone else's feedback to assure ourselves that we aren't off course.
<cont>
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69382 Dec 31, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a different matter entirely. The wiki gives a pretty good description so I won't repeat that part.
Let's take something we all know on here well enough, I will refrain from referencing specific persons or posts though:
Take someone who is overly sexual, either because that's how they are or because they have been brainwashed into thinking that's how they should be. The brainwashing version is actually quite typical of women in the US, they like to fill our heads with this "women should be sensual" bull and give us "baby" dolls as young girls to enforce it.
So they become overly sexual and deep down feel shame for that as well, a side effect of religious doctrine. Thus they over sexualize everything, to them everything has to be about sex because that's all they believe they should think about, but they struggle with the "teaching" that it's wrong to think about it so they feel guilty in some way.
Along comes someone who shows no sexual urges, no drive at all, so they try to find anything they can to call sexual, even when there is nothing sexual about it, as a way to say, in their mind, "that person likes sex a lot so I must be 'normal'." Even though outwardly they'll say things like "that's a sin and you should be ashamed of it." I also call it "forced common ground," because they are trying to bridge a gap that's not even there by using their own traits completely ignoring any possibility that the other person has different traits.
I hope I explained it well and didn't ramble too much. Psychology is a fascinating subject, and seeing such a strong case of any psychological trait in a single person spikes my interest in them.
Well, I'll be honest, I think the sexual aspect you're describing is overly presumptive. People want to "belong" more than anything. If sexuality gets them attention, that's good enough for most people. Losing control of the subject causes them to reject sexuality as quickly as they embraced it.

Personally, I think you'll have different permutations of sexuality and evolutionary strategy, kind of like the Vulcan story where the logic of the species only increases the actual sexuality, which is kept suppressed as much as possible. The only real tangible variable is whether or not a species requires long term parental involvement in raising their young. That would limit the individual's will to keep procreating beyond their means to care for the young.

I tend to think that bible types are usually non-sexual people, but under stress, they can be forced to focus on sex, then kind of erupt in bizarre ways. Others can so easily achieve gratification that they have almost no interest in the idea of fantasy. All they really need is a lack of distraction and a quiet moment of privacy.

The Freudian idea of projection is muddled, as is most of Freud's work. There's something to be derived from it, but sexuality in his world is far more about accumulated experience than it is biology. I resist all of the Timothy Leerys and others who think drug use is part of a self-healing process. That's the mindset of aristocrats who just decide to change their "attitude" but have ABSOLUTELY no fear of the consequences.

The problem is that our current world is full of experimental drug users who either screwed themselves up worse, or cleared their minds through drugs, but most of us have no idea how they get from point A to point B. Heck, they barely remember!

We don't know how close to our own hard-wiring is to media-friendly know-it-alls to begin with. We don't know if they've experienced the same fears or were rewarded for their efforts in any way close to we were in our own efforts. For our own sakes, it's largely healthy to maintain a self-help point of view but we like to use someone else's feedback to assure ourselves that we aren't off course.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69383 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Even atheists marry.
Or they can have a civil union.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69384 Dec 31, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe in marriage. period. I don't know why women fantasize about this fairy tale of meeting their prince charles. I'm not into that thing.
Me neither, but some people seem to think marriage is part of the American dream. Whatever!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 2 min Mega Monster 6,691
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 20 min -Lea- 23,929
If you had a theme song every time you walked i... (Jan '14) 25 min Capn Greg 113
The Letter "S" (Nov '08) 27 min 40ish 9,480
The letter H (Jun '13) 29 min 40ish 618
**4 Syllable Word A-Z** (Jul '12) 33 min 40ish 601
**3 Syllable Word Game - A-Z** (Jun '12) 37 min 40ish 784
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 45 min Mega Monster 37,479
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 1 hr Dont Think So 7,958
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr Candy4Me 150,960
Bill Cosby 2 hr Dr Wu 147

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE