Total posts: 13,966
-->
@ebuc
Ear drums detect vibrations.
Brains create noise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
We're slaves to material evolution.
And in terms of the evolution of species, this certainly includes the development of money as a controlling influence.
After all we are just thinking, manipulative organic blobs, who's purpose if any, seems to be the furtherment of material evolution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Certain sexual acts are collectively considered to be anti-social and are outlawed.
These sorts of acts will attract descriptive labels appropriate with their appointed status.
Just as homosexual acts once did.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Well currently that seems to be the only answer.
But doesn't resolve the something from nothing conundrum.
Though if matter and energy have always existed, why would intelligent structures not have evolved of their own accord.
And why did they not evolve billions of years ago?...(Perhaps they did in previous universes).
OK. So an evolved super-intelligence, created intelligent humans...But why?
Wouldn't an evolved super-intelligence have furthered material evolution by creating technological intelligence, as we are now doing.
Perhaps we are the evolved universal super-intelligence...(In this universe).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Not so long ago, decapitating a head with an axe was a popular form of public entertainment in the UK.
And Madame Guillotine certainly got the French buzzing with excitement.
In fact, I think that a good beheading sill fills stadiums in some places.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
For sure, another superior intelligence would exist in another realm..."Spiritual" is just a human descriptive.
And for sure also, we may or may not be resultant of another superior intelligences design.
Though the problem that I have with an intelligent designer, is with the design of the intelligent designer.
(All attempts at resolving the question of material existence, fall down at an absolute beginning).
If the intelligent human required an intelligent designer, then so did the intelligent designer.
Otherwise, if the intelligent designer didn't require an intelligent designer, then nor did the human.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
In short.
Responses are conditioned.
So if one is conditioned to think that A is worse than B, then one will generally default to that position.
Legal and consensual constraints accepted, I personally do not consider any act of sexual congress disgusting.
Rather, just a choice made by consenting individuals.
Even in cases of illegal and non-consensual acts I would not default to a position of "disgust"...Such is my conditioning.
Where does "disgust" comes on a general scale of reference?
Sort of, just before repulsive and quite a way after nice.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
@Cougarbear121212
Homosexuality is simply an act of sexual congress between two males.
In response we generate variable mental palaver.
Religion is also a variety of mental palaver.
And then, clean up.
Roll over and go to sleep.
Until the next time.
In between times there's a whole lot of other stuff to be doing.
Funny how we like to concentrate on brief episodes of mutual ejaculation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Slavery isn't just a niche or pocket of downtrodden circumstances.
It's also indicative of a niche or pocket of up-treading circumstances.
So a hundred years or so from now, who will be the slave and what will be the master?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Here I am.
I took your advice and I'm here to discuss the Jesuit significance of crosses.
So, I buy a plain cheese and tomato base from Aldi, and top it with mushrooms, red peppers, black olives and anchovies.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
If you think about how the human computer converts incoming signals into discernible data...The human realm is therefore self contained and self generating.
And undoubtedly we can generate a sense of spirituality or a spirit realm as you refer to it, in response to both incoming and self-generated data.
So in terms of internal electro-chemical processes, a spirit realm is real and believable.
Though this realm occurs inside your brain.
Not outside.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
Vibrating air molecules is not a problem.
But without ears and brain there is no noise.
All that you have is vibrating air molecules.
Other systems may also detect vibrating air molecules, but Ebuc still needs his own auditory system to convert their signals into noise.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
One can believe anything.
Because belief is no guarantee of anything.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Consciousness and therefore awareness, rely upon a consciously functioning system.
Has residual energy ever been verifiably detected leaving a dead body?
Though a scary idea which actually sounds quite feasible, is that the human consciousness could be downloaded to an alternative system.
But how is this directly connected to the contentious creator GOD hypothesis.
The only way to reconcile the creator GOD hypothesis, is to contradict the necessity of the creation, by asserting that a creator does not require creating.
In which case, it is implied that creation is not a necessary requirement.
Therefore inferring that a creator is also not to be a necessary requirement.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I think that ghosts are still popular.
Spirituality like any other theory or pseudo theory, simply relies upon a complex brain having the desire to create it.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
@ebuc
Species may have developed varying sensory mechanisms that detect vibrations
In the case of the human species, noise is created by an auditory system.
Sound waves are detected by the ears and converted into noise by the brain.
You are making the classic error of confusing sound and noise.
And my vacuum cleaner is very old and makes a heck of a noise.
But fortunately my deaf neighbour can't hear it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
@Mall
See the Man
Listen to the Man
Make your own judgements.
A two party, us and them State, where wealth rather than intellect decides, ends up with a choice between two old incompetent white men as the National figurehead.
And they will tell every minority group that they love them.
And the trouble with a two party us and them State, is that a huge proportion of the electorate never need to think about what it is they are voting for.
Just turn up and vote for the same colour as last time, and the time before that, and every time before that when their Mum and Dad turned up to vote.
Fortunately, there is still a big enough minority of thinking moderates, who are able to keep things in check.
And long may they do so.
So that the rest of the World can still enjoy the electoral Circus from afar.
So who do you think actually runs the USA?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
He undoubtedly was and still is a racist.
And he does what he does, solely for votes and personal gain.
And he doesn't give fig about religious doctrine, but will accept votes from any old gullible numpty.
In short; he's an old school, white privileged, hypocritical narcissist.
Nonetheless, his stand up routines are fun to watch...From a distance.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Ongoing conditioning.
When you first began using DebateArt, you were certainly a tad moronic.
Exposure to superior intellects has broadened your own intellect considerably, making you now one of our top contributors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Hmmmmm.
I'm guessing the crucifixion was a significant bit of the story.
Sort of, as in crucifix.
But you're right:
He perhaps would have preferred to be remembered for stuff like...
Loaves and fishes say.
So maybe a fishfinger sandwich would be a far more appropriate symbol for Christianity.
Don't forget the Mayo.
Created:
-->
@Mall
@Intelligence_06
Grabbing her if she is about to run over by a bus, blown of a cliff or is drowning.
The consequences of which might also require CPR.
And an act of copulation requires someone to do something...It would be no good if people just stood and looked at each other. (Currently)
Also.
Inadvertently when they are sleeping.
Though compulsory single beds, might be an option.
Also
CGS might be a solution to everything.
Compulsory Gender Segregation.
Though I do think that GOD actually designed women's buttocks as pre-coital spanking surfaces.
And Intelligence-06 would seem to concur with this suggestion.
Therefore this raises the question.
Should the State interfere with GOD's will?
Created:
-->
@Mall
Outcome aside, is the absolute function of sex sexual reproduction regardless of the person's intent?
That question doesn't make sense.
I'm assuming that you forgot a what.
And that the extra sex was a slip up. (Let's hope that you used a condom)
Joking aside.
I have clearly stated all along that procreational drive is innate, whereas recreational drive is procreational drive dressed up as recreational drive.
But nonetheless, one would strongly suggest that recreational sex has evolved with the species, therefore becoming as much an integral part of our make up as procreation is.
To say not, would be to suggest that all consequences of intellectual development are unnecessary...Which of course might be true.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
Zed, when trees fall they make noise.
Sound waves.
Not noise.
Without a system to receive and convert sound waves, there is no noise.
Hence why profoundly deaf people cannot hear anything.
Created:
-->
@Mall
@ADreamOfLiberty
Parse error indeed.
Or in more colloquial terms...WTF.
Created:
-->
@Mall
There's kissing.
And then there's kissing.
The former is a widely regarded method of greeting.
Whereas the latter is widely regarded method of sexual foreplay.
So I would impose an absolute ban on the latter, irrespective of the make up of the participating couples.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
Actually.
Falling trees don't make a noise.
Auditory reception systems create the noise.
Which is why deaf people shouldn't walk under trees in a gale.
Nor should they cross the road without looking both ways.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Yes.
We have concluded that recreational sex is an enjoyable activity, and that procreation is not always a necessary outcome.
In fact for most women, during their sexually active lives, procreational sex is only deemed necessary 2.3 times.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
I would suggest that to make a secondary definitive conclusion, one must first start with definitive evidence. Hence trees in general and then the fallen one.
Which isn't to suggest that theoretical assumptions and conclusions do not play an important role as building blocks, when attempting to acquire and utilise new material knowledge.
But I would also suggest, that to utilise acquired knowledge, then the relevant data still needs to be acquired and proven.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Who is Pete Bogs?
Is he a Theoretical Physicist.
Or a Palaeontologist.
One makes theoretical assumptions and comes up with theoretical conclusions.
And the other researches tangible evidence and comes up with relative conclusions.
And you and I see a log on a path and conclude that someone must have been sawing firewood.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
@FLRW
If we observe something and it behaves differently to when we don't observe it, how do we know how it behaves when we don't observe it, unless we observe it?
Created:
-->
@Mall
Good question.
That which drives recreational sex, is the same as that which drives procreational sex.
So one could say that the desire is the same and therefore not contradictory.
All that we have done is learn how to out think the driver.
Which I suppose, within the context of the organism could be regarded as a biological contradiction.
What do you think?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Apologies.
I should have referenced your reply to YouFound_Lxam. (#22)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Once she has children to consider, then maternal instinct should kick in.
Which includes the need for provision.
But of course nowadays, that rarely depends upon men going out to hunt for food.
And who except the woman, can say what a woman without children really wants these days.
It would certainly be arrogant of me to try and suggest what she should want.
There are no global rules or standards when it comes to relationships.
And I cannot read minds.
So, I don't know, is the answer to your latest question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ponikshiy
You couldn't have a Russian version, because the will already have been shot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Therefore it could be a true doctrine, if it is defined appropriately.
Is this what you are saying?
Though hypotheses do not really comply with the general rules of truth and falsehood.
More so, likelihood and unlikelihood.
Maybe?
Created:
-->
@Mall
Other than teaching as a method of conditioning...Teaching kids about heaven and hell, is not the same as teaching kids about Santa Claus and Easter bunny.
In so much as the usual intent of the former, is to make it a part of a conditioned belief system, whereas the later are simply intended to become conditioned folk tales.
As you well know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
How old is a child?
At any age a child will behave relative to it's ongoing conditioning.
Therefore, what is innocence?
And what does pure at heart mean?
Sentimental BS perhaps.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Hypothetically, if every pregnancy was terminated then this would make a difference.
And I know the difference between contraception and abortion.
Though both result in zero population gain.
And both result in no unwanted pregnancies.
Nonetheless, back in the real World population continues to increase.
So currently abortion has no effect negative effect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
"A man"
"His woman"
His women.
The dominant breeding male will protect his harem.
Refer to it as jealousy if you wish.
So, we've moved on a tad since back in the day.
But the body chemistry stays the same.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
That's another way of doing it.
Though some people might frown at a system, where 75% of the participants are ignored.
Wherein, more people were unpersuaded than were persuaded.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ponikshiy
HaHa.
You forgot that Russia is now a capitalist State.
Albeit headed by a dictatorially corrupt regime.
Not that I believe for one minute that you are Russian, or even female.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
As I stated, a dog will respond instinctively relative to it's circumstances.
So yes, either aggressively or non-aggressively.
What humans can do has nothing to do with what dogs can't do.
As it stands this is a somewhat daft statement.
Please exemplify so that I can understand it's relevance.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
I would suggest that typically an audience has an unswayable majority and a thoughtful minority, so outcomes are more likely to decided by the make up of the audience, rather than swayability and thoughtfulness per se.
For example, if you debate against Islam, where the audience is 75% Muslim and 25% other, if you're lucky you will get a respectful round of applause, but you will never win.
Though this is a generalisation not taking into account certain other factors, such as the ability of debaters to communicate reasonably coherent arguments.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
If you debate 100 times, win 90 times and lose 10 times, your win percentage would be 90%.
If you debate 100 times, win 90 times, lose 5 times and draw 5 times, your win percentage would still be 90%.
Nonetheless, it isn't worth worrying about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
And you accuse me of mushing.
The main problem with human interaction with canines and associated human expectations, is the assumption that canines can be trained to do and think in the same way that humans do and think.
So if you can get your dog to sit, and in a praising voice you say good boy and reward with a tasty treat. Then the dog will remember and repeat. Though a dog has never learned, and never will learn the definition of good boy.
So similarly, a dog can be trained to be either aggressive or non-aggressive. But the dog will never learn the definition of right and wrong relative to it's behaviour.
Whereas a person can be trained either voluntarily or involuntarily, and at all times consider and understand the rationale of the exchange.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
When a dog is equipped with protection, that dog is not defenceless. The opposite is true for a person.
Hmmmmmm.
Please clarify, with examples.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
For sure.
Jealousy is a word we use to describe a particular behaviour.
Desire, is another relative word.
I would suggest that what we attempt to describe with such words, are sub-consciously motivated physiological responses to perceivably demanding situations.
We attempt to describe body chemistry, as it were.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Well, I think that it's fair to say that a whole lot of pregnancies are planned.
And some are not.
And a lot of sensible people use contraception when indulging in recreational sex.
Your exaggerated hypothesis is not really realistic.
Just an exaggerated hypothesis for arguments sake.
And typically you avoided the question I posed to you.
So I will rephrase:
In terms of population loss or gain in relation to unwanted conception, what is the difference between an abortion and a condom?
(The ethics and morality of the issue is a separate hypothesis).
Created: