zedvictor4

Perpetuated overthink becomes an accepted norm over time.

 

Religions are an obvious example.

And trans-genderism will probably become the same.

So I'm not sure that overthink can rightly be regarded as a mental illness per se.

I would suggest that mental stress/illness is a side effect of overthink.

We are a species prone to obsession, because intellect and material development afford us the opportunities to become obsessive.

On the one hand, fiddling with and mutilating young boys dicks is paedophilia.

And on the other, it's completely acceptable behaviour.

What it is to be human hey?

Theory is theory.....So any theory.

CAFKOE.....Fully explained in post#17.

GUTOE.... Yep,  GUTOE is a another simple acronym and means exactly what it says.

A collective theory of theories, that falls short of CAFKOE

The clue is in the word theory. GUTOE

As it is, both GUTOE and CAFKOE are just inert statements that do not attempt to explain anything.

So you theorise, and you present your thoughts regularly on DebateArt. 

And there is no escaping from the fact that a great deal of what you present is symbolism coupled with you own unique narratives.

Honesty is not disrespect.

And who else on DebateArt, genuinely makes the effort to communicate with you.

Respect is a two way thing.

You are joking aren't you?

I suppose that one of the benefits of being a Roman Catholic Man of God, is the no marriage rule. 

So neither of the above apply.

And you didn't mention Altar Boys.

And if the Old Boy refused to be coerced into a situation he wasn't happy with, then good for him.

I have never met anyone who is white.

I suppose that an albino would be the closest.

But I've never met an albino.

Even so,  supremacy is relative to circumstance and not skin tone per se.

Deeply tied.

Is this the Erotica Forum.

Naughty Naughty subliminal sexual messaging TWS.

You're as bad as all the rest.

Yep, there sure is a lot of it about.

Where to start?

As we're in the religious forum.

How about religious pseudo-hypotheses.

Once upon a time there was this uncreated magic guy who created everything...............

And then 14 billion years later.

Human genetics exist, diverse genetics is the basis of species diversity.

We know that.

Skin tone and anatomical variations are a reality relative to genetics and species development.

We know that.

Europeans Africans Americans, Asians are people who reside/resided  within certain continental land areas.

Though migration from the epicentre of humanity has resulted in a diversely populated planet.

A planet where all humans are related, but vary as dictated by genetic variability relative to human migration and tribal segregation over a period of some 300000 years.

All that you are doing is showing yourself up to be a bit of a White Supremacist/Isolationist.

And if the basis of your defence relies upon ignoring the reality of the human condition, then you will inevitably dismiss the truth as vague word salad.

Come to the UK and you will find that we have very little room in which to isolate communities.

Which is not to say that communities do not still segregate relative to inherited conditioning and genetic variation.

Nonetheless the UK as a Nation is wholly multi-cultural and integrating steadily.

A reality that I  have become accustomed to and not afraid of.

Sub-races are a concept relative to human social development.

But even within that context "white" is not a sub-race.

White is an assumption relative to a perceivable difference........Skin tone and certain facial features at the lighter end of the colour range.

Europeanism is broad spectrum of sub-races exhibiting a broad range of facial features, and formerly Britishness was no more than a development of Europeanism as was Americanism. Though ongoing migration and development  has further changed what it is to be British or American....For ever.

So, human social development has not ceased, neither here nor in the USA. Nor did it not occur prior to the establishment of Europeanism.

In fact human social development migrated outwards from the singular establishment of the Human Race, and from there on in, we anatomically and physiologically sub-divided.

Your white Americanism really is just a very recent cherry picked bit of human history relative to social development, human migration and human distribution.

And also your inbuilt concerns relative to your formative conditioning.

If we teach our kids that they are different and special, that is what they will grow up believing.

And of course the same principle applies to all human sub-groups who teach the same misleading stuff to their kids. Which as we are patently aware, leads to all sorts of problems in terms of how we do or don't interact within our local communities and the wider global community. 

And for sure, along the way we can attribute specific aspects of material development to specific sub-groups, which will obviously also relate to a certain temporary slowing down of genetic diversification

But hey it's now, and genetic diversification and the human race is still on the rampage. And Planet Earth is only so big.

Exactly.

Morality is a concept relative only to the conceiver.

And as far as we are able to know thus far, the human is the only organism that conceives the notion of morality relative to it's behaviour.

And the lazy cat is only lazy because we create a state of laziness for it.

Though the lazy cat will always instinctively kill the slow bird.....Morality not a consideration.

To further theory it is essential that all is considered and nothing is dismissed.

As it is, you are as theoretical as me and any other theorist.

And CAFKOE was just another theoretical acronym, representing the Complete And Final Knowledge Of Everything relative to material development.

Which is a simple string of words and quite easy to understand; basically meaning exactly what it says.

Now it has to be said that Ebuc-speak is quite symbolic and unique and not so easy to understand, but I do try.

I work on the principle of ignore or react.

And further on the principles that ignorance is bliss and reaction is often unnecessary overthink.

OK, so it's fair to say that ignorance is a form of reaction.

So to establish the right mindset and be truly ignorant, requires practice.

After all it's just another conditioned response, the same as being offended.

My wife doesn't get that I can just switch off bad stuff.  Whereas she has the tendency to mull things over.

Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me. This is what I was taught as a kid.

Given the nature of scriptural development over time, it's unlikely that any modern Abrahamic book in any language will be an accurate reinterpretation of an original narrative.

Nope, I didn't say judging something based upon an outcome. I said judging  policies on possible outcomes. Irrespective of whether a policy might or might not effectively be utilitarian.

Though an hypothesis can certainly be pre-judged by applying principles.

What I was  trying to suggest, was that retroactively judging a proposal is only possible if one knows the outcome. Whereby the proposal has long since to ceased be a proposal, and therefore cannot be judged as such.

One says what one says, and "shouldn't have" is irrelevant.

You can always say something else.

One cannot judge a policy retroactively if it is a proposal.

This is a truism.

Whereas one will/might judge a policy with consideration to possible outcomes.

I would suggest that you are just stating the obvious.

I personally have no race other than the human race.

And I suppose that I have what might be described as pride in modern British multi-culturalism.

I'm also fully aware of how modern Britishness was arrived at.

And also fully aware that the USA was arrived at in exactly the same way.

And so why do you continue to refer to your whiteness when you know that it doesn't actually represent whiteness.

Especially when there is a wide spectrum of skin tone relative your European Heredity.

An heredity that was thousands of years in the making, rather than the few hundred years of the USA.

I would suggest that you pride in your whiteness is just a temporary psychological prop in response to the oppressive reality of change.

Fortunately the USA is big enough to still afford you the isolationism that your fearfulness craves.

And of course you've also got all those lovely guns....But so has Blackie.

You yourself stated that:    

A. Naught is created and naught is destroyed, only transformed.

Now, I can happily run with that principle, within the context of apparently existent and ongoing matter.

I was simply asking whether a process of transformation/material development has a purpose and necessary outcome  relative to intellectual input.

I was further suggesting that perhaps CAFKOE was vital to an ongoing sequence/process of transformation/material development.

If not then from an intellectual perspective, wherein lies any real intellectual purpose. 

NB. From an intellectual perspective it is also not possible to ignore the something from nothing principle.

Which despite principle A, is a basic an recurring intellectual  consideration of uncaused matter.

 In terms of process.

People do not insult.

People choose to be insulted.

In this instance it's just another facet of the who's religion and book is the best, competition.

That said, it's logical to suggest, that what came later is only an interpretation of what went before.

Not that I personally give much credence to any outdated creation/deistic/social ideology hypotheses.

Hey, but the influence of generational data transfer relative to demographics is what it is.

So, peace be upon everyone...Now wouldn't that be nice....If only there were one real GOD that insisted on peace.

Rather than a plethora of Men's versions of GOD, whereby men do all the insisting.

And occasionally women might get a look in too, if men will allow it.

Such is the influence of testosterone.

Some Jews are whitish.

The trouble with people drawing attention to specialness, is that it pisses of people who also think that they are also special.

Same as it ever was.

GUTOE.

Isn't an ultimate theory, still only a theory.

And therefore falls short of a Complete And Final Knowledge Of Everything.....CAFKOE.

If there is any purpose to material development and decline and redevelopment, then wouldn't CAFKOE be vital to the resurrection of the process.

Naught is created or destroyed, but failed to reinitiate. As it might be.

For sure, never voice an opinion in the presence of a stranger.

Just make small talk.

Same old shit really.

1. Self defence is one side of a two sided argument; in your case, where both sides have guns and where who shoots first wins.

2. Protection against tyranny is one side of an even bigger argument; in your case, where lots of people have lots of guns and both sides assume that the other side is tyrannical; in this case guns will solve nothing; only cause lots of deaths until such times as a non-violent agreement is reached. Though as long as all citizens are prepared to abide by the rules of the US electoral system every four years, then I don't see much chance of tyranny occurring.

3. Hunting and shooting is also a U.K. pastime; albeit heavily licenced and regulated and with no military grade automatic firearms or hand guns  hiding in the gun cupboard.

4. Mental health and a sense of empowerment and control....Just about sums up the downside of mental health and gun ownership. FFS, guns and mental health issues related to empowerment and control tend not to end well....."Mass shootings and such".

5. Second amendment is just an old outdated bit of paper; put a match to it.

A gun is a violent piece of apparatus, doesn't matter whether it's legal or illegal.

And in any ones hands a gun becomes an instrument of empowerment and control;  it's what is known as the gun effect, and it affects good guys and bad guys alike.

So address the issues that lead to "mass shootings and such".....Why not start in the obvious place, instead of looking for stupid excuses.

Because stupid excuses are always the solution (see above) and therefore "mass shootings and such" are never actually addressed.

@Kaitlyn

As I see it there is nothing nationally white about the USA.

So you are probably best regarded as a physiological isolationist.

Not that in any real sense is anyone white...Albino's maybe, but this would include "black" albino's.

So you're pride is probably relative to an ambiguous European heredity.

In so much as Europe was and is a mish mash of all sorts, divided by ever changing borders.

@Badger

Ireland is now the emerald end of the big rainbow....Ain't that right Badge?

As long as we can hang on to freedom of thought for a bit longer, then I can think what the f**k I want about anything.

 

I used the word compartment to represent the non-vacuum/vacuum idea.

@Tarik

A standard is a social objective that can be lived up to or not, rather than an objective concept per se.

Though a standard is a variable ideal, so only a standard relative to a collective decision.

And how collective decisions are influenced and reached is open to question.

The Russia/Ukraine situation is an obvious example.

How does the Russia/Ukraine situation measure up morally?

So, I grasp the concept of occupied and unoccupied space. Universe and beyond as it were.

Are you suggesting that the potential of unoccupied space is a separate compartment?

As a concept space can be potentially infinite without boundaries.

Or not.

But to me, the or not option is not so conceptually obvious. Universe in a bubble type thing.

As I see it a universe is only bounded by it's ongoing potential.

Theoretical physicists are fine in theory.

Though tomorrow there will be one with a new big idea.

Though, I assume that all might or might not one day lead to a conclusion.

Science is essential if we're ever going to escape this Earthly prison.

Who sucks or fucks what in the meantime, is just the same old human penis vagina distraction.

Bring on A.I. I say....No penises or vaginas to worry about.

Unable to scratch own bollocks.

You miss the point.

I won't attempt to explain.

Regards.

Space can't be a vacuum because it's full of stuff.

And for sure, 2D is a hypothetical property of a 3D assumption.

in so much as we think we know, but we can't be 100% certain.

Remember that time when Dubya said weapons of mass destruction.

And they found Saddam down a hole.

Fun times.

If kids are going to be prevented from accessing information.

Then society has certainly got it's work cut out.

Step 1.  Eradicate all media technology and broadcasting.

Hmmmmmmm.

I would suggest that it's far too late.

When it comes to guns and penis and vagina confusion and testosterone, mentally unbalanced just about sums up all American men below the age of 100.

Morality and ethics are abstract concepts.

You can interpret them yourself

Or someone will interpret them for you.

And then there's social behaviour, where similar rules apply.

Penises and vaginas.

Still as hung up as ever on penises and vaginas and what to do with them.

Isn't it ironic that GOODO made em both reproduction bits and pissing bits.

And then there's the anus!

Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhhahahahahahaha, laughed GODDO.

Bring on asexual AI is what I say.

And leave humanity floundering about in a metaphorical sea of it's own discharge.

And it says that Zooey Zephyr is trans-sexual and bisexual.

Any which way, hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, laughs GODDO

For sure.

And I will give you an E/C for EbuccubE.

Have a nice day.

Actually I think that we do agree.

It's just that you are caught in the moment, and assess such issues from the perspective of the modern human.

Whereas I like to make comparative assessments between the base human and it's modern derivatives.

"Basic human biology" and the overthought approach to basic human biology, as it were.

Recreational sex....You were basically saying what I was saying.

But how do we define natural?

What isn't natural?

Surely everything that occurs within the universe is of a natural cause.

Does any other species behave in the same way to an unclothed body.

For sure, naked people have become a distraction, but only  because we have been brainwashed into thinking that they are a distraction.

Such is one drawback of overthink I suppose.

And also the drawback of elaborately overthought recreational sex.

I work in the Pharmacy industry.

And first hand knowledge tells me that old heroin addicts still require a fix on a daily basis.

Albeit a safer alternative.

And I think that obsessive behaviour is a certain level of addiction, though long term physiological damage is not as irreversible as from chemical addiction.

And modern life presents us with time to fill, which is a situation that some people find difficult to cope with.

Got to be doing something, as it were.

My advice is.......No, you haven't, take the opportunity to reflect, and relax both mind and body.

Have a nice day Lemming.

Top of the morning Doc.

You probably watch too many slushy movies.

There's an element of truth in this statement, but over the past 300000 years, context has obviously changed markedly and intellectual reasoning has modified how we regard our responses to innately inspired behaviour. But for sure, the females would have been attracted to the dominant male. Whereas today we consciously organise society differently and therefore apply alternative criteria to the pairing and mating processes.

As for the little 5'0 balding but extremely wealthy hypothetical. I'm sure that he would have no problems attracting a cooperative mate. Slushy concepts such as love would have very little to do with it

Though once again it's all about contexts and comparisons. Remove money from the equation and the little chinless bloke wouldn't stand a chance. Just as back in the day he would have long since have been eaten by lions.

My initial post, wasn't about acquired modern behaviour, but about how modern behaviour is only a conscious modification of the innate programme, and how this relates to modern gender roles compared to primary gender roles.

And in this instance, let's not get hung up on modern conscious modifications and approaches to gender. That's a related but separate issue.

The richer man represents the Alpha-Male.

I wonder if GOD is omni-larious.

I guessing that he/she/it pisses him/her/itself on a daily basis, watching 8 billion humans floundering around here on this speck of universal dust.

Hey Gabriel! Come and look at this lot again; they're still fighting and now they've come up with the concepts of wokeness and gender neutrality and that fat stubbly bloke Smith is gender neutral and Debs in the shed powder coating the slave and Zeds in the shed oiling up his.

And they still do all that singing and mumbling stuff on Sunday mornings; what's that all about.

I think it's about you  boss.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Yep, clothes and the development of.

Logically developed for comfort and protection.

Illogically considered in regard to the bizarre human concept of indecency, relative to our crazy ongoing body conscious hang ups.

What it is to be human I suppose.

It's perhaps a lot to do with how we naturally relate to innate instruction.

The old bread winner thing was simply an extension of the male role

And the house wife was an extension of the mothering role.

Extended by intellectual assessment.

Though the natural male role would have been short bursts of effort with extended periods of rest, so not naturally conducive to long periods of breadwinning.

Whereas the natural mothering role was lengthy periods of physical commitment, resting mostly during familial sleep events.

So the natural female role is conducive to the modern breadwinning role in relation to modern family values and breeding patterns.

So perhaps under the guise of feminism and equality etc, we are actually just continuing to mirror base instinct.

Yep, that would be helpful.

Yep, derived from the Frenck/Italian pantaloon/pantalone..

Which were sort of both underpants and trousers.

Trousers/Trews is a Scottish Irish Gaelic thing.

So I expect that the Doc wears trousers.

Well, I'm thinking that biologically a rat and a human are sort of pretty similar. (See Charles Darwin)

Maybe not so intellectually.

But intellectual humans easily become addicted to heroin.

Not sure that addiction is the same as classical conditioning.

Or we would be able to recondition heroin addicts, and I'm not sure that this is possible.

@Tarik

Heaven is currently rhubarb crumble and custard.

This is a personally objective fact derived from personally subjective reasoning.

The same principles of reasoning apply to how one arrives at a moral judgement.

And happiness is a brief moment of electro-chemical profundity.

Contentment is what we should aim to achieve.

And if that necessitates a belief in an afterlife.....That's absolutely fine.