zedvictor4

@Theweakeredge

An "asexual person" might want to have sex, because they are not asexual.

They naturally want to contradict their assumed identity.

Trying to conceptually override primary drive is futile.

One is not suggesting that physiological aberrations do not naturally occur.

But nonetheless, some people do lie for effect.....Notably, an "asexual person" who is obviously a sexual person.

And calling me "homophobic" is just plain childish.....As is blocking.

@Theweakeredge

Nuance for nuances sake.

@Theweakeredge.

Serious question:

Dot you think that State Funded Multi-disciplined Brothels would have a huge impact on rape statistics?

Is addressing the issue as simple as providing a free (safe) and available, means to a necessary end?

Interestingly.

What is abstinence, especially in a modern context.

Do we just mean abstinence from the act of procreation.

Or do we mean total abstinence from acts of recreational sex, and also acts of physiologically necessary sexual fulfilment.

Where does the buck stop as it were, and excuse the pun.

Me fears, that ideological moralism is lurking just under the surface somewhere.

Well...It's 08.15 here and time to go do other things.

Au revoir.

Is that what is known as cross-referencing.

And I was thinking the same thing........I'm up for the day......And you're about, at a time most Americans aren't.

Doesn't consent or the age of, imply abstinence.

It's that age old battle of trying to get kids not to do, what they are programmed to do.

Though.

If it's kids you want to reach.

Them Papa don't preach 

Use them devices.

That's where their eyes is.

Certainly.

But that's all part of an interactive system.

Nonetheless and to conclude:

As I see it.....Individualism is at best, individuality within a collection of individuals.

So if the vote eventually came down to Scott or Biden, how much would having to make that choice tax your principles?

And begorrah....Scott or Harris.

Perhaps you prefer Limericks.

Sure.

And I previously agreed that we can be an individual within a group.

However, my contention was and still is,  that we are never wholly separate from the group......Namely, society, and it's provisions.

And you did state that Sermonism is a four member party of individuals.

And I'm not certain that financially contributing to something or not, really makes a difference.

@Theweakeredge

Nonetheless:

The first two lines of your opening statement referred directly and appropriately to asexuality.....However, the latter part  was a pointless and inappropriate ramble, supposedly aimed at "clearing up misunderstandings"....... Which only succeeded in creating misunderstanding, of something that is very easily understood anyway.

For some reason, you're grinding an axe, but only succeeding in making it blunter.

I wrote you a poem Doc.

Did you like it?

Is it his energy that you're really worried about Doc?

And Trump energetic?....Must have been all those burgers and viagra.

What you actually need Doc, is younger, intellectual and eloquent. (Tim Scott)......All three sadly missing last time.

Tim Scott.....Good old school ring to it, but with a refreshing twist....What say you Doc?

Sounds like a nasty stomach upset one might develop from over exposure at Chernobyl.

@Theweakeredge

The topic was "asexual" people.

Ramblings about sexuality and attraction are relative but unnecessary.

"Asexual people" are not affected either way by sexuality.

And in terms of defining/labelling the asexual person, the correct label would be "asexual". 

I get that.

But the Man is still an individual part, of a collection of parts.....And undoubtedly contributed to the crowd.

And if we boil it everything down to particles. 

Wise move.

@Tim

Meeting in secret, in groups of greater than two, always strikes me as being a tad contradictory.

Though in terms of real accountability the Bible is inevitably, always going to be one big secret.

Such is integrity hey?

@Theweakeredge.

Individualism is individual with ism on the end.

Such is the human (philosophical) necessity to stick ism on the end of things.

Nonetheless:

Individuals are singular parts of a collection of parts (society)

Therefore, individualism is inevitably a part of collectivism (see what I did there?)

Such is contradictionism (see what I did there too?)

And such is the faff of philosophy.....Faffism

This was a Zedism.

WMD....Bad intel or propaganda (no intel)?

No intel, me thinks.

But they eventually found a dishevelled old guy, down a hole..........Result!

In your biased and conditioned opinion.

Whereas, I would observantly suggest, that in terms of manipulation and gullibility, Christian ideology is no more or less cultish than Scientology.

There is undoubtedly some real evidence in the NT....... People places etc......Such is myth.

Though myth also has a tendency to include super-nature, and then leave it to the imagination.

And as I always say:

GOD principle sound....But not a floaty about Caucasian bloke of Arabian descent.

And for sure, Scientology is nonsense....But nonetheless it hooks, manipulates and is able to control the gullible......Ring any bells?

@Theweakeredge.

Online Oxford dictionaries:

ADJECTIVE.

1. Not involving sexual activity, feelings, or associations; non-sexual.

  

 . (of a person) having no sexual feelings or desires, or not sexually attracted to anyone.

2. Biology

    (of reproduction) not involving the fusion of gametes

NOUN.

1. A person who has no sexual feelings or desires, or who is not sexually attracted to anyone.

@Theweakeredge.

Nope.

I'm being intellectually honest.

This particular thread of yours, is 99% nonsense.

For some reason or another, you are badly attempting to redefine "asexual".

Sexual and sexuality are obviously relative, but are not the specific issue.

Have a clear read of the dictionary.

@Theweakeredge.

For goodness sake, either hit the nail on the head, or give it up.

Is asexual, asexual or not?

Right and wrong are only concepts, and GODS are only an assumption.

And self righteousness, is only what it is.

So who made up that primary audience?.....Anyone who was gullible enough to listen, maybe. 

In terms of manipulation and gullibility , the Church of Scientology provides a good comparison.

@RatMan

That's what is known as a contradiction.

@Theweakeredge

Sorry to be critical Weaker.

But if anything needs mopping up, it's all those grammatical errors, typo's and contradictions.

Quite frankly, your opening statement was nonsense.

So that people understand.....I would suggest that they refer to a dictionary, for a simple and accurate definition of "asexual".

@RatMan

Yep. Hieroglyph whispers certainly......What's it say....Dunno....Have a guess then.....Yeah that'll do.

And, left right, centre and solipsistic......I'm a meist and not ashamed to admit it.....Though, if I've got a bit of loose change, I will put it in a charity box if there's one handy.

And the RatMan blocks but does not ignore.....Sort of counterintuitive really.

Theology as defined is debateable and questionable by all.....That is the nature of theology.

And accusations of  "strawman" is a tactic I tend not to employ.  Strawman has too much of a tendency to be it's own strawman.

Label wise, I prefer no labels, because labels tend to be specific and sticky.....I simply attempt to be realistic and apply common sense to contentious issues. From that stand point, I find theism both logical and illogical in it's development. As a naive creation hypothesis, deism and theism were probably inevitable, though the intricacies of  associated rhetoric and mythology are assumptive, and also have a tendency to develop into systems of social control.....A GOD created everything, so you must do as we say.

And holy is a specifically programmed database and operating system.....For the most part formatively developed, though there will be exceptions to this rule.

In short, some were/are conditioned to not question..... Whereas others, such as ourselves, were allowed to be sceptical.

For some unknown reason we are a sentient organic mass with a highly developed onboard computer....Why, is a big part the profound question that religion naively attempted to address....And still does.

I have no beliefs in regards to why, but I enjoy speculating and discussing.....And I do speculate and often suggest ,that perhaps religion is actually a good metaphor for the answer we are looking for, though over-dramatised with humanness.....Humans had and do have an inevitable tendency to create GODS in recognisable images, and then assume to know what their imaginary GODS are thinking.

Thanks.

And Goodnight from the U.K.

Are rape victims alleged or do rape victims allege?

Unless there is a third party witness, one would assume that it is the victim who is making the claim.

Nonetheless, and in all seriousness..... One must accept at face value and adjudicate later.

Not sure what that means either.

Did you like my poem?

Hi Tim.

Religion is neither a question nor profound.

Religion is a response to a profound question.

Same question in....Same process...Variable output relative to conditioning.....Label if you will.

And you're very good at codswallop and attempting to insult.

But I just don't do insulted.

I can discuss this sort of BS with you, all day long.

And if you've read my stuff, you will see that I run with the idea of a GOD principle, but not one of the Arabian floaty about blokes.

So how would you label me?

And stop being a jerk and discuss if you are serious.

Though I have my doubts.

Not sure who or what might be a "libtard cultist"

I'm a bit of a custard cultist myself.....Though I am also fond of other dairy based dessert accompaniments.

Do you not think, that you might worry unduly about what others get up to?

Problems are negative perceptions, measured against expectancy, and blame is a coping strategy.

At the end of the proverbial day, there is One World and One People....All full of expectancy, and all feeling let down and blaming others.

I'm not referring to people controlling budgets.

I'm referring to money controlling society.

The people that you mention are just cogs in the system

Big cogs, little cogs........ All moving together to make the system function.

Money is both the lubricant and the impetus.....Remove it and everything would grind to a halt.

For sure...I've never done drugs....And I wasn't suggesting drugs.

Quite simply if you believe or expect that a certain place or event will induce a feeling/mood of spirituality, then it probably will.

And if something is a positive experience for you then it is also probably beneficial.

I am probably pseudo spiritual about certain things that I do, which physiologically benefit me.

I just don't read so much into those experiences, as you might do.

Either way, I would suggest that our experiences are all self induced, rather than externally influenced.

And I would say that money is the opiate of the people.

Religion is a Sunday morning social event for most participants.

Of course, there are always a few mad zealots in every aspect of society.

Sure...It's a good rationale for a lot of things.

Theology by definition is wholly debateable , by anyone that wishes to debate/discuss theology.

Theist and atheist are merely labels we apply to each other,  and in no way affect ones ability to output data relative to theology.

The difference between someone that assumes an existent GOD and someone that doesn't, all boils down to a slight variation in how individuals, input, assimilate and output similar data.

There, but for the grace of a GOD, goes an atheist. Ha Ha.

TV reporting is a "celebrity" job that some people do.

Both, success and celebrity culture, evoke either adulation, animosity or indifference.

I'm indifferent......The switch is usually off.

@Theweakeredge.

Spirits, Ghosts and Paranormal as existent entities/forces.

Some of many things that we assume but never actually prove.

However, the self is internally responsive to and motivated by, external stimuli.

So the juries always out.

I personally side with spiritualty etc, as  being internal constructs.....Imagination as it were.....The more affective the stimulus is,  the more affected the mind will be, so the more vivid the response will also be.

If the mass does have an embodied, physiological spirit, it hasn't been scientifically discovered yet.....So I will remain sceptical until such times.

I will also mention, as I have on previous occasions, that it is very easy to induce spiritual experiences/moods.

That's the interesting thing.

Are there actually controllers, or is everyone a part of a system.

Those at the top of the system are just as reliant on a functioning system as all else are.

I think that we often create a false animosity, towards faceless entities.

Trouble is.......What is there to scrutinize.

I do not see or hear any 3000 year old Hebrew songs.

All that I see is Chinese whispers.

Nonetheless:

Do prophecies foretell events.....Or do events  befit prophecies?

Exactly.

But .1% of germs always survive.......If one believes the statistics.

I think that 99.9% is somewhat arbtirary.

Plus..... You could just as easily put 100 people into 100 categories as you could put them into 3.

Sure, I don't disagree...But a successfully functioning system must be controlled.

So, to control, there needs to be a functioning system that everyone is a willing part of, and sees benefit in.

Trade and cooperation are also necessities of the system.....But theoretically trade and cooperation could function without money.

The system is it's own inherited brain.....Hive mentality if you like......But the human hive has individuals with individual aspirations...... Aspirations that need to be satisfied.

I remember a .org atheist exponent,  Backwardseden.

Climate change, does.

And trends do.

And causes are.

And concerns are relative.

And contradictions abound

And statistics always fit the bill.