Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
New Server | HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info forum | HOMM4: info forum | HOMM5: info forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Sex and drugs
Thread: Sex and drugs This thread is 8 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT»
Lith-Maethor
Lith-Maethor


Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
posted February 11, 2009 09:17 PM

*snorts*

not only you fail at making a proper argument, you apparently also fail to read JJ's posts (one of which was what i commented about in that post) without twisting their meaning

he already said whatever i wanted to say on the subject, what good would it do for me to simply say it all over again? you just regurgitate the same old bs anyway
____________
Dreams of Darkness nWoD IRC Chronicle, set in Edinburgh

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Binabik
Binabik


Responsible
Legendary Hero
posted February 11, 2009 10:28 PM

@TheDeath

I'm curious about something. Admittedly I haven't read many of your posts, only quickly scanned some of them here and there. But you seem to talk about the "good" or "bad" of things. So I have a couple questions about this.


1) Good or bad for WHAT?
2) What is the goal?


Good and bad are relative terms. They are pretty meaningless by themselves. Words or concepts such as good and bad, right and wrong imply some sort of goal. The "result" of any action is future tense, implying that the action either brought you closer to some goal or further from that goal.


So what is the context of your arguments?


This whole questions seems to revolve around the philosophical question of "what is the meaning of life?" Why are we here? What is our purpose? In other words, what is our goal?

Without knowing the answer to those questions, can we really address whether some action is good or bad? Without knowing our goal, how can we know if we are getting closer to our goal or further from it?


One last question.  Whatever your goal, do you believe it is only your own personal goal, or is it the goal of all humanity, both individually and collectively?


____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 12, 2009 11:02 AM

Ok, Death, this will be my last longer post, because you seem to think that no one understands your point and therefore try to make it in a different way. The problem is, though, that I understand your point, but you are using some fundamentally wrong concepts that misguide you completely. I will try to summarize everything freely and then to pint out the flaws.

So, your (main) point is that pleasure is a bad concept, since it is a rewarding concept of nature that inhibits the consciousness by flooding the brain with dopamine, a drug that's extremely addictive which means, that eventually the feeling of pleasure is a chemically induced drugged state - as opposed to happiness which is simply a state of the (calm) mind and not drug or chemically induced at all.
Sex, when not done for the purpose of procreation, is done for pleasure which is, in effect, the same, then,(or not better) than putting a needle into your vene, or - thinking a bit ahead - putting some electrodes into your brain and stimulate the pleasure center by just pressing a button. Still a quote now, since it's a good point to finish your's and start mine:

Quote:
PLEASURE is addictive, like any instinct, only that this one makes you feel good. Instincts, like muscles or ANYTHING else for that matter (even your brain, if you heard of 'brain exercise'), when "exercised" aka USED, tend to grow more powerful and more intense. This means next time it'll be harder to pull off. This is as close to addiction as it can get.

See? I don't even talk about sex, specifically. Sex is just something that HAPPENS to be included in this grand scheme of things, along with drugs, alcohol, and even smoking (though to less extent might I add). I'd really like if you could start to be looking more at the "building blocks" of all of them (PLEASURE), rather than taking sex as something special and oh-so-apart from the others.


Now let's see about drugs, addiction and pleasure.
Chemical drugs do a lot of different things - but none of the man-made ones stimulates the pleasure centre. With smoking it's the most obvious of all because here it is ADDICTION AS SUCH that makes addictive, or, more correctly, the stopping of a slight withdrawal symptom. Smoking works like itching: getting hooked means developing an itch, smoking means scratching it. Scratching feels good. Voila - you can have a little feel-good on demand, since the itch basically starts as soon as you stop smoking (which is the reason why smokers smoke so much more when drinking; the alcohol is draining away their discipline). That way, smoking becomes like a little reward (but not "pleasure" - the mind reassures itself that it just feels good (but it's actually lying to itself).
Other drugs work differently: alcohol (as a drug), for example, seems to dampen the command the subconscious fetters have on the consciousness. The overall effect is a numbing one, but there's a "numbing window" with just the right effect on said fetters that it is appealing.

However, you don't do something like a drug because you want to become an addict. You drink a glas of wine because it does something with your taste buds - and maybe because the SLIGHT amount of alcohol feels nice. You don't do it to get drunk/losen the fetters. This may be different with other drugs, but that has a certain reason (that there is no weak version, or that a weak version is available but has no other function).

Addiction is exclusively a function of the brain - bodily withdrawal is comparable with a sickness, addiction is something completely different. Addiction comes, when something is a replacement or ersatz for a need, a hole, an emptiness, something like that. If we keep with alcohol, if said fetters are developing into a real problem for you, so normal life becomes rather unpleasant, alcohol with it's loosening of fetters may just seem to solve that - chemically. The logical consequence is addiction (instead of solving the problem that makes you so vulnerable for that ersatz in the first place). Getting drunk as a fix of the problem is a lot easier and more readily available.

One additional remark to addiction. Another mark of it is the solitude. Typical for addiction is introspection. The addict is basically alone with themselves and the drug - which is NOT different with socially acceptable drugs like tobacco and alcohol: the ADDICT is always alone (but in this case it's consumed within a group).

Cut to sex and pleasure.

You have to realize that there is a "too much" and a "not enough" for everything: Oxygene, for example. Something which is good on a certain level may kill you on a higher level and kill you on a lower one because of deprivation. Just because something WILL kill you in a high concentration it doesn't mean it's bad, mind you. However, this human organism (and that of rats, for example, as well) wasn't made to cope with all concentrations possible, but only with those that are existing naturally (but given enough time we will of course adapt to higher or levels of anything).

However, it is in the ability of the human brain to analyze things and do things artificially. Take cocaine. The coca leaf is a pretty astonishing thing with something like 17 or so alkaloids that would be pretty helpful in medicine if the US didn't have such a problem with it, and since the leaf is there it's possible to chew it, getting a certain effect. Filtering out the strongest of those alkaloids and boosting the concentration is, what's called cocaine (and going a step farther with THAT stuff is leading to crack).
The trouble here is, that artificial working of natural resources lead to something the human organism has the same trouble to cope with than the rat organism has to cope with stuff normal and natural for humans.
You don't have to be a genius then, to predict, that electronical pleasure-centre stimulation will make addictive as hell, simply because the direct pleasure centre stimulation will "fill" so many holes so very completely, and the human organism and mind isn't made to cope with the level ofit. It's the difference between drinking a glas of wine and shooting pure alcohol directly into the vene. Experience overload.

Now, sex. You simply have to accept, that sex was not only made for procreation. For humans it is necessary for the parents of a child to stay together for bringing up the children - I've already explained why this has to be so because otherwise there would be certain problems.
Now, there ARE people who are addicted to pleasure - for example, there are known cases of people masturbating a couple of times each day. Those ARE pleasure addicts - but remember, addiction is about filling a need, not about seeking pleasure. A sex-addict is addicted to seeking pleasure because the experience of said pleasure fills the need or hole or emptiness or worry or pain that's otherwise there.

The dopamine levels the body uses and the filter mechanism of the human brain are made for each other and usually able to cope without any problem. Having sex is not much different in terms of addiction, pleasure overload and everything else, than drinking a glas of wine. Or chewing a coca leaf. Or watching a movie. Or doing everything at the same time. After all, you are doing it with someone else, you have a good time TOGETHER, synchronizing engines, sotospeak, communicating in a very primal and therefore very satisfactory way since the language is plain and simple and not prone to misunderstandings, quote wars and so on. It is not ONLY the pleasure, but at the least the mutual or shared experience and the intimate vista into another person which is not the same every time, mind you, which is another main difference, since addiction is based on recreating the same stuff over and over again.

Getting addicted to it has nothing to do with the dopamine or the sex - it has to do with the mind having a problem with life and trying to compensate for it. Completely unconnected with this is your EEE example that has to do with what humans can cope with: Too much oxygene will make you rather fuzzy as well.

Mind you, if you experience bliss with advanced meditating, in theory it would have the same addiction potential - of course, with the prerequisites for an addiction fulfilled you might mot be able to reach that state.

So the bottom line is this: 1) if you have a life, that is, if you are content and sometimes even satisfied with it, if you have various interests and are really happy once in a while, if life is INTERESTING and you have a general feeling of being able to cope with it and even have fun with it, you are in no danger to become addicted to anything, and that includes sex.

2) If you are NOT, you are in danger of becoming addicted as soon as you stumble upon the first thing that makes you feel really better without actually solving your problems, and that includes sex as well.

3) No matter how much of a life you have, if you stumble upon something you wasn't made to cope with, you'll get a problem. If you watch a car race directly at the track, you may really enjoy the engine sound - provided you put something into your ears. If you pull the ear-plugs, your eardrums will bust, though - which is why cars come with a silencer usually.


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Azagal
Azagal


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
posted February 12, 2009 11:51 AM

Quote:
not only you fail at making a proper argument, you apparently also fail to read JJ's posts (one of which was what i commented about in that post) without twisting their meaning

he already said whatever i wanted to say on the subject, what good would it do for me to simply say it all over again? you just regurgitate the same old bs anyway

*applause from the audience*
____________
"The superior man is modest in
his speech but exceeds in his
actions." Confucius

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted February 13, 2009 01:55 AM
Edited by TheDeath at 02:05, 13 Feb 2009.

@Lith, if you have nothing to say than just troll around and call my posts BS then you'd better not post at all. Not sure exactly what you try to accomplish, but I suspect you think you add great arguments backed up by something equally great to this thread. No worries though I have dealt with worse kinds on YouTube or programming forums (off topic section, obviously).

@Binabik: Good or bad in the same sense as eating some food and then puking it, which I consider bad. Bad as in waste of resources and energy. Yes it is waste, because it doesn't do anything. Not even educational, not even improve your artistic skill or your rational skill (since it's not mental), not even raises up ideas in your head, NOTHING. It doesn't do anything worth, except for pleasure. So yeah, it's bad.

@JJ that was a good read. What I was implying was more like "what's more optimal? few alcohol every month or none at all?". I think even though the former doesn't make you an addict, the latter is more optimal.

You see, like you said, we need these 'pleasure' to compensate for whatever other things. However what I was trying to get across is that these pleasures themselves modify your experiences. For example, if you go back 20 years, you'll see people being SATISFIED equally to today's people with really old games.

How is this possible? The brain gets addicted to stuff, or let's say, gets "used to" stuff. Note that this lowers its perception relatively/comparatively to other things. This is even worse if the intermediate drain is on feeding some instincts since then it's not only the mind who thinks about pleasure, but also the body encouraging it, which makes it even harder to pull off.

So the "root" of the problem is pleasure itself: as long as you don't seek it, it's going to DISAPPEAR as a "solution" from your mind AND body. Yes for those who are addicted to pleasure already, it will be harder, but it's like a junkie -- it's harder to pull off drugs than someone who got just 1 single dose in his life.

The organism may crave for pleasure but that's only because you feed that pleasure/instinct. You don't need "moderate" levels of pleasure if you don't feed them at all, because your body won't even crave for it. Like, your body doesn't crave for drugs if you never took one and your MIND never said "gee I hafta take that dose!", does it? (unlike a junkie); what you said about the mind is partially true as well, that it's also the mind that needs to "not think" about it. But instincts are big bad when fed up.

For example, this:
Quote:
Getting addicted to it has nothing to do with the dopamine or the sex - it has to do with the mind having a problem with life and trying to compensate for it. Completely unconnected with this is your EEE example that has to do with what humans can cope with: Too much oxygene will make you rather fuzzy as well.
is what I was specifically talking about. The mind has a "problem" that needs to be filled up by sex/pleasure only if that thing is either in the mind's priority (in short, if you THINK about the pleasure, which is just as bad as 'instinctual addiction'), or you feed the pleasure itself/instincts. Remember, any pleasure will make you crave for more. Just like the thrill of getting a new car -- once you get it however, you'll look up to even better cars, for example. The optimal solution in this case, is to not get or think about the first car at all (rather than ONLY THEN suppressing the "need" for a better car). Then, when your mind has a "problem" you don't even THINK about the car, but some other way to deal with it.

The reason it's a "waste" I explained above.

Quote:
You don't have to be a genius then, to predict, that electronical pleasure-centre stimulation will make addictive as hell, simply because the direct pleasure centre stimulation will "fill" so many holes so very completely, and the human organism and mind isn't made to cope with the level ofit. It's the difference between drinking a glas of wine and shooting pure alcohol directly into the vene. Experience overload.
I'm pretty sure we would be able to make it perfectly normal in the future


Optimal solution is not always to get the moderate. If you are, for example, a dude who gets annoyed really easily, it's obvious the optimal solution is to not do so in the first place rather than "calming down with pleasure". That would mean improving yourself, or seeking alternative solutions (psychotherapy is one example). It is always better to fix the cause and/or seek a solution that doesn't involve any waste than to find the cause and solve it. If you have no thieves, there's no reason to have police, and it is much optimal than arresting thieves.

Because (and what I'm referring to, for example) Lith's religion tells him sex for pleasure is sacred and even if there are alternative solutions, including not needing it in the first place, he won't choose it because it's against his scripture, even though LOGICALLY it is the optimal solution. (again: better to not have thieves at all than to have police to catch them, even if they catch them with lightspeed).

For this research I am encouraging research done on asexuals (they ARE, after all, not different than us in their 'mood' and don't require sex -- by definition and with LOGIC this makes them more OPTIMAL, more EFFICIENT). Sadly research like this is not funded very well, because religious sex-pleasure figures don't really care about it, or I would rather say, don't even WANT it, if that may lead to a pill or something that will make us more efficient without needing it.

After all, using a CPU that is equally powerful as another one but requires Watercooling instead of Passive cooling -- which one will you pick for efficiency?

Short summary: you say we need sex to satisfy something. I say we need to eliminate this "need" altogether (mind you, the mind is also a factor here as well). Evolving. The less needs to accomplish a task (i.e our life), the more optimal and evolved the organism.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 13, 2009 09:12 AM

I think you are forgetting two (well actually maybe three things:

1) Sex cannot have THAT high an addiction potential which in itself cannot be so bad: it would have been detrimental for survival (which you see with the rats pulling the lever).
So while it's PERFECTLY possible that the whole of humanity will die later on from some devious drug in helpless addiction, it's certainly not possible from sex, at least from simple, unaided and normal sex without the aid of, well, plastic bags, electronci devices or other stuff. Which makes sex rather harmless.
2) A human who has to fill holes will find ways to fill them, no matter what. Accepting for a moment that it would be possible to be willingly asexual, that wouldn't change anything about the fact there were still holes and needs to fill. People would have the same addictions - no addiction is FOR pleasure, but pleasure may become an addiction, which means that if you eliminate the pleasure you just eliminated ONE possible drug, but that's it.
3) There's no telling what will be eliminated with pleasure as a sideeffect. Without pleasure I doubt there will be art anymore - are there asexual artists? I doubt that very much. I even doubt that it will make us more effective. It would lessen emotional binds between children and parents, of course between parents as well, it would rob us of something and of something I still don't see any reason to be robbed of.

Getting used to things is no addiction. I'm referring to the part where you take the old games and the satisfaction with them as an example. I mean, we are getting used to warm and comfy homes and that is making us soft - we have long lost our ability to survive under harsher condistions. Today, without power supply, a lot of people would just die. That would have to be seen as a tragic kind of addiction from your point of view - so do we have to get rid of all amenities in life just because we get used to them? And isn't that a question of finding the moderate way as well? If there are too many amenities we may degenerate as a species, losing the ability to multiply and ultimately to survive. But forever living under harsh conditions to keep sharp?

That hasn't got to do anything with "pleasure"; it's simply progress. Making life safer. That we concentrate exclusively on MATERIAL things has nothing to do with pleasure either - it has more to do with capitalism. There is a very easy connection between the capitalist slogan "money makes the world go round" and the hunt for profit and the conclusion that you can buy everything for money including happiness which is simply not true. That in turn means, since we cannot alter the quality in terms of happiness of what money can buy we are forced to try quantity. In terms of sex this means, you can buy lust or maybe "raw pleasure", but that's not the same thing, since it's missing "the soul" of it.

To tell the truth, I've come to ask myself whether it wouldn't be better to take children after their birth and collectively bring them up in special "camps", in large groups without much comfort; what you learn as a child is important and being brought up under hasher conditions would teach them a lot more appreciation of amenities and the good life they generally enjoy nowadays.
That, however, would have rather grave consequences, emotionally, since children need grown-ups, and there is something of a limit for the number of children that can have the same grown-up as a person to relate to. Not to mention the difficulties mom and dad would have.

It's safe to say that there will always be a price to pay when changing something, and that price may become very high when you change something fundamental. Additionally I believe it is very possible that the actual root of your problem is materialism which is a direct consequence, in my opinion, of capitalism which tends to try and "bottle" everything to sell it and make a profit of it, including happiness.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Doomforge
Doomforge


Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
posted February 13, 2009 12:47 PM

Obviously, capitalism sucks, cause it's all about "GIVE ME MORE", with little respect towards everything else. Capitalism encourages to cast away all morals, just to make more money and fame. Which is tiresome. Still, there is nothing better, unless we want to limit liberty.

As for taking the kids to places, well, you know, taking them from their parents is a shock to both parents and kids. Also, the kids would have to be taught respect since their birth, otherwise, it would be like in schools; disrespectful guys making their own little gangs, with their influence higher than teachers'. In other words, unless we live in utopia, it won't work, I fear.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 13, 2009 01:18 PM

I brought up the thing with the kids as an example for a massive change with the intention to make a certain aspect better, for which a (too) high price would have to be paid, so that it can't be the right solution.

Moreover, capitalism is bringing about materialism which is the problem actually, so the real question is how and in which ways would capitalism have to be changed to overcome materialism

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
HC SUPPORTER
posted February 13, 2009 02:55 PM

Doomforge:
Capitalism is about people getting what they want. What's wrong with that? Are you some kind of dictator?

JollyJoker:
Capitalism has nothing to do with consumerism.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 13, 2009 03:10 PM

Quote:

JollyJoker:
Capitalism has nothing to do with consumerism.

Thanks for giving this succinct insight into the Capitalist Religion.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
pandora
pandora


Honorable
Legendary Hero
The Chosen One
posted February 13, 2009 03:22 PM

theDeath:

Do you honestly and sincerely believe the things you are saying, or is this another example of you playing 'the Devil's advocate' to keep people talking?

I'm not asking this to engage any type of argument, or make any implications about you and your belief system whatsoever, I'm genuinely curious about if this is real - or just you trying to keep things stirred up.
____________
"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Doomforge
Doomforge


Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
posted February 13, 2009 05:46 PM
Edited by Doomforge at 17:46, 13 Feb 2009.

Quote:
Doomforge:
Capitalism is about people getting what they want. What's wrong with that? Are you some kind of dictator?


Nah, nothing. Have you read "Brave New World" ? They also got what they wanted, from alphas to epsilons.. well.. at least what they suspected they want.

We're heading that way.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
HC SUPPORTER
posted February 13, 2009 10:40 PM
Edited by mvassilev at 15:30, 14 Feb 2009.

Actually, "Brave New World" is more like socialism, when the government tells people what they want.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Doomforge
Doomforge


Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
posted February 14, 2009 09:02 AM
Edited by Doomforge at 09:02, 14 Feb 2009.

Didn't look like socialism to me. Socialism is strict. At least, it was in Poland. Brave New World was not strict.

It got rid of everything "unimportant", like religion, and focused on what people want. Except working, that is. And after a bit of brainwashing, people are totally satisfied with simple pleasures.

Look around you. In your beloved capitalism, people work 12 hours per day, and after that, focus on simple pleasures because of lack of time, and lack of motivation to do anything more complex

____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Azagal
Azagal


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
posted February 14, 2009 09:41 AM

Funny how so many people talking about sex and pleasure here have no freakin idea what it is lol.
Jesus christ there's a lot of "interesting views" to be found in this thread~~
Quote:
Remember, any pleasure will make you crave for more. Just like the thrill of getting a new car -- once you get it however, you'll look up to even better cars, for example.

Ehm no? There is such a thing as being happy with what you have. Content isn't neccesarily a momentary phenomenon. You know there is such a thing as being satisfied permanently with a situation. Besides even if you'd want something there is something like restraint.

But lol who am I kidding no one here is really going to change his stance on the subject. So kids remember sex is baaaad.

Quote:
It is clearly not coming from the brain, and logic comes from the brain. In fact, the reason they are used in the first place, is that if you HAD deep logic and an active brain, you wouldn't do it.
Yeah lol right. People who have sex don't have an active brain. Sex is pure instict.Nothing more. You obviously have no clue what you're talking about^^. Maaah maah mah I'm soooo tired of the utter BS that people who have sex are just hedonists who can't controll their urges (should they have sex for other reasons than the "allowed/logical" reason of wanting to have offsprings).
____________
"The superior man is modest in
his speech but exceeds in his
actions." Confucius

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted February 15, 2009 01:51 AM
Edited by TheDeath at 02:05, 15 Feb 2009.

Quote:
1) Sex cannot have THAT high an addiction potential which in itself cannot be so bad: it would have been detrimental for survival (which you see with the rats pulling the lever).
So while it's PERFECTLY possible that the whole of humanity will die later on from some devious drug in helpless addiction, it's certainly not possible from sex, at least from simple, unaided and normal sex without the aid of, well, plastic bags, electronci devices or other stuff. Which makes sex rather harmless.
2) A human who has to fill holes will find ways to fill them, no matter what. Accepting for a moment that it would be possible to be willingly asexual, that wouldn't change anything about the fact there were still holes and needs to fill. People would have the same addictions - no addiction is FOR pleasure, but pleasure may become an addiction, which means that if you eliminate the pleasure you just eliminated ONE possible drug, but that's it.
3) There's no telling what will be eliminated with pleasure as a sideeffect. Without pleasure I doubt there will be art anymore - are there asexual artists? I doubt that very much. I even doubt that it will make us more effective. It would lessen emotional binds between children and parents, of course between parents as well, it would rob us of something and of something I still don't see any reason to be robbed of.
You must be joking with (3) right?
I mean really... I can't believe you reduce art to sex or to any pleasure for that matter...
If you take a look at AVEN you'll see how 'strange' those people are. They don't like music, don't appreciate music or pieces of art like paintings, pictures, sculptures (even 'computer' models which are considered that way), or any other art. Right?

(sarcasm by the way, since it seems lately some people have difficulties catching one )

Sex (in fact, pleasure) has absolutely nothing to do with the right-hemisphere of the 'conscious' brain, which deals with artistic insight or creativity. Nothing whatsoever, not even physically in positions. I have no idea who ever even thought about this but to me it sounds like it's some self-projection of sorts (*cough* Freud *cough*) trying to justify his stupid thinking upon everyone

Next up would be to link relationships or love with sex. That is, no sex = no love. Again moot point, not even THAT is reduced to sex (and the very thought of REDUCING it to sex makes me appalled). Because I am lazy to define 'romantic' relationships instead of 'sexual' relationships, just look up "Platonic relationship". It is close.

EDIT: Check this


Now getting to the other points. In (1) you say I meant sex is harmful. Yes it is, if not for addiction purposes then most certainly socially. Yes and I do mean all forms of it. But that is not the main point behind my arguments and I haven't even used it much.

(2) is pretty interesting. Yes a man will fill the holes, but remember, there are people who are satisfied at the same level with far less, so to speak. Optimum would be, obviously, to make something that simulates their behavior and bodies. It is going to be, obviously, a one-step-at-a-time approach -- they aren't perfect but little by little it's how "evolution" works. (in this case, artificial evolution, because let's face it, natural selection is long forgotten since medicine and science got into our society, and even before just partly efficient).

Where I'm getting is that, if some people need far less 'stuff' to be 'normal', and you would have the chance to become like them, why wouldn't you? Unless your religion prohibits this, of course, in which case I can't argue with that.

Now as to how to become like them: unfortunately due to the few research done (not many people are interested) on asexuals, it's going to be a while before a pill or drug hits the market. However, you can become yourself simply with your MIND easily not "needing" such pleasure.

Of course for someone who is already addicted (so to speak, my definition is wide), it's going to be tough. Just like it is a lot harder for a muscular guy to lose his muscles (compared to a skinny guy), or how it is a lot harder for a fat guy to lose his weight compared to an average guy. So it is with addictions for pleasures, or addictions for instincts. For example, if you want to not NEED that pleasure, you need to 'lose weight' to these instincts/pleasures (metaphorically speaking).

This isn't about holding your breath. It's about not NEEDING such pleasure -- i.e less "needs". Only with the mind you can do it (unless you are asexual of course). Of course, just like any person, you'll need some time and effort before you lose that weight. But once you do, you won't NEED let's say, a strong bed so it doesn't collapse under your weight


@Pandora: 'Believe' is a bad word. Maybe "have formed an opinion about it" would be better, because I linked sources and obviously most stuff I know from there and even the site with the FAQ precisely giving an answer to every question, but most probably put it down after the first 3 questions or so because "hey man, that's stupid! I mean, I really HOPE it's stupid and false, since I want sex pleasure!" (true/false is less of a concern though because it isn't as if it goes into psychology at all, the FAQ I mean, just simple remarks).

But I'm really curious as to why you think I wouldn't "believe" it (at least after I provided the main links, not the 'research' links but the ones where it all started from). And does it even matter? I mean if someone points out the obvious, does the fact that no one likes it change that? (including him, if that were the case, which it isn't)


@Azagal:
Quote:
Funny how so many people talking about sex and pleasure here have no freakin idea what it is lol.
Yeah right, are you talking like this as an objective analysis performed on scans of the brain (as I have linked before) about the 'knowledge' thing, or just personal experience?

But junkies tell me that I have no idea what drugs are -- that they aren't just pleasure but some "gate" to some "higher plane of existence" or "eye opener to a higher dimension" of sorts. Yeah, well, I really have NO idea about that, to be honest with you (no sarcasm)

Quote:
Ehm no? There is such a thing as being happy with what you have. Content isn't neccesarily a momentary phenomenon. You know there is such a thing as being satisfied permanently with a situation. Besides even if you'd want something there is something like restraint.
Well I'm pretty sure starving children in Africa are perfectly happy with just having food. Why you want more than them?
It's always the more we have, the more we want -- and consequently the harder our "needs" are satisfied. Thankfully not all of them are gathered around pleasure. We can get rid of pleasure though. Of desire it's a lot harder, not that it is always a bad thing (depending on desire of course).

Quote:
Yeah lol right. People who have sex don't have an active brain. Sex is pure instict.Nothing more. You obviously have no clue what you're talking about^^. Maaah maah mah I'm soooo tired of the utter BS that people who have sex are just hedonists who can't controll their urges (should they have sex for other reasons than the "allowed/logical" reason of wanting to have offsprings).
Azagal mate, this is what I call "defense on arrogance" when you defend something by calling stuff BS or whatever, when even in a flawed religious thread (if you were an atheist which you aren't) wouldn't call that, simply because then you are not fanatically defending anything ("you" as in general speaking), in those threads it's more rational oriented. There people may have doubts which is constructive discussion.

Apparently you are so blinded by this calm rage of defending fanatically that you can't even read properly, even less argue properly.

What I meant, if you can't read properly, is that PEOPLE WOULD NOT HAVE SEX IF THERE WAS NO PLEASURE. And guess what? It already happens. Asexuals don't like it, because there's no pleasure, so why would they do it?

And by 'active brain' I meant during EVERY pleasure, because that's what the 'primitive' (don't argue for the sake of it, that's how that part of the brain is called, like it or not) brain, which deals with this primitive 'reward' stuff (which is located slightly below the conscious part of the brain). I gave freaking links that it SILENCES (partially ofc) these conscious parts (left-right hemispheres as well), and that it acts as 'sleeping pills' or 'anaesthesia' or whatever.

You know what's BS? Pure speculation without any arguments (sorry if I don't take "I'm tired of that utter BS" as an argument).

You know what's also BS? The junkie's "higher dimension" when he gets high.



@mvass:
Quote:
Capitalism is about people getting what they want. What's wrong with that?
EXPLOITATION. Both of people (workers), in a metaphorical way, and to resources which you either CLAIMED or TOOK and then put a price tag. That's what's wrong with it.

Getting "what you want" must be based on claiming or taking stuff (including resources), since the Universe didn't come with a price tag on it. Therefore, there IS something wrong with that: and that all people must agree not to disturb others' "owned stuff", which I pointed out the flaws already why they shouldn't, since the first guy didn't ask anyone to "claim" his stuff.

You know I want to get what I want, let's say, blow the entire planet to pieces. I'll say, I just happen to be the reincarnation of a really old creature that owns the whole planet.

sorry, couldn't resist to reply to mvass.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 15, 2009 10:32 AM

Quote:
Quote:

3) There's no telling what will be eliminated with pleasure as a sideeffect. Without pleasure I doubt there will be art anymore - are there asexual artists? I doubt that very much. I even doubt that it will make us more effective. It would lessen emotional binds between children and parents, of course between parents as well, it would rob us of something and of something I still don't see any reason to be robbed of.
You must be joking with (3) right?
I mean really... I can't believe you reduce art to sex or to any pleasure for that matter...
If you take a look at AVEN you'll see how 'strange' those people are. They don't like music, don't appreciate music or pieces of art like paintings, pictures, sculptures (even 'computer' models which are considered that way), or any other art. Right?
If you wouldn't be completely addicted to your twisted views you'd not waste so much space with nonsense, Did I write they can't APPRECIATE art anymore? "Are there asexual artists?", that's what I was asking - and you didn't answer that, which I take as a NO.
Quote:

Sex (in fact, pleasure) has absolutely nothing to do with the right-hemisphere of the 'conscious' brain, which deals with artistic insight or creativity. Nothing whatsoever, not even physically in positions. I have no idea who ever even thought about this but to me it sounds like it's some self-projection of sorts (*cough* Freud *cough*) trying to justify his stupid thinking upon everyone
The only stupid thinking I see here is yours: monocausality has never led to good results, and while the ABILITY to be artistically creative is one thing, the inspiration is another. Show me the asexual artists, please. If you do that, we can talk from that point on. But if you can't, then evidence is against you, and you have no point.
Quote:

Next up would be to link relationships or love with sex. That is, no sex = no love
Again, can you READ? "It would lessen emotional binds" is what I said. Your problem is, that you have no idea what "love" actually is - we had that discussion already. You are just trying desperately to find a definition that excludes sex, but that is not working.
Quote:

Now getting to the other points. In (1) you say I meant sex is harmful. Yes it is, if not for addiction purposes then most certainly socially. Yes and I do mean all forms of it. But that is not the main point behind my arguments and I haven't even used it much.
Where is your prove? There is none. Just an unfounded claim, nothing more.
[quote}
(2) is pretty interesting. Yes a man will fill the holes, but remember, there are people who are satisfied at the same level with far less, so to speak. Optimum would be, obviously, to make something that simulates their behavior and bodies.
I think you are leaving the sane sector now.
Quote:

Where I'm getting is that, if some people need far less 'stuff' to be 'normal', and you would have the chance to become like them, why wouldn't you? Unless your religion prohibits this, of course, in which case I can't argue with that.

Now as to how to become like them: unfortunately due to the few research done (not many people are interested) on asexuals, it's going to be a while before a pill or drug hits the market. However, you can become yourself simply with your MIND easily not "needing" such pleasure.
Are you understanding nothing? You'll want people to take pills to "come off of it"? They are doing it in the army already, or at least they are suspected to. Death, sorry, but your opinions are just ridiculous.
Quote:

Of course for someone who is already addicted (so to speak, my definition is wide)
Your definition isn't wide, it's wrong.
Quote:

This isn't about holding your breath. It's about not NEEDING such pleasure
We aren't needing it. Relax.

Bottom line is, you have wrong definitions, you make wrong conclusions and you make assumptions, and on THAT foundation you are presuming to change whole humanity for the better. That's the "Frankenstein-Complex".

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted February 15, 2009 09:42 PM
Edited by TheDeath at 22:01, 15 Feb 2009.

Quote:
If you wouldn't be completely addicted to your twisted views you'd not waste so much space with nonsense, Did I write they can't APPRECIATE art anymore? "Are there asexual artists?", that's what I was asking - and you didn't answer that, which I take as a NO.
What kinda logic is that?
if they can appreciate it of course they can be. not sure where you're heading, and do you really want me to go and google for examples?

Quote:
The only stupid thinking I see here is yours: monocausality has never led to good results, and while the ABILITY to be artistically creative is one thing, the inspiration is another. Show me the asexual artists, please. If you do that, we can talk from that point on. But if you can't, then evidence is against you, and you have no point.
Evidence against me?
You are making the claim that they cannot be artists. This is your claim, your speculation or whatever twisted logic you put pleasure (and even more sexual pleasure) in the same boat as art

But hey, I have to waste time anyway, just cause I'm the nice guy, so if you just looked at the forum a bit you'll see this section called "Open Mic" (here a link for extra laziness ). Or if that's too much for you, just check the (currently) first thread linked here for your convenience in that subforum (which deals with this subject).

I have a question however. You seem so keen on making biased (and even maybe lazy) assumptions or speculations, since you haven't even looked the slightest in the links I provided (the link above comes from a link I posted in my previous post: AVEN).

This is downright dishonest to those people (just like saying that 'gays' have different inspirations (except for sexual oriented subjects of course)). But you know what? I dare you to post these speculations in that forum I linked and tell them "hey dudes, guess what? You can't be artists! You can't have inspiration, I can cause I'm sexual! I know better." or some more polite version of that. If you do that (not even looking at replies yet anyway) we can discuss this further.


I'm sorry if I sounded a bit aggressive but I cannot stand these accusations -- (I may get the picture of gays being oppressed). Even in gays it's less worse, ideologically speaking (not action), since there it's usually moral argument, not argument claiming they are less capable than us at doing things. In fact, if anything, they are MORE capable than us, just like a blind guy is MORE capable at other senses and/or neuronal activity (since those neurons aren't used for vision anymore). Someone without a sexual drive will be more capable at dealing with other things, on average.

Quote:
Again, can you READ? "It would lessen emotional binds" is what I said. Your problem is, that you have no idea what "love" actually is - we had that discussion already. You are just trying desperately to find a definition that excludes sex, but that is not working.
I gave a freaking link. To me it seems more healthy than a sexual relationship that divorces after 2-3 years. They kiss, they hug, they hold hands, they love each other (also read his story how he never stopped thinking about her even for a burger or whatever). What emotional ties are you talking about? Sex? Give me a break.

You speculate, I give examples. The interesting thing here is, I don't have to disprove anything to show what love can be. I just need one example for that... to prove there's a black sheep, you can't just provide examples of ANY amount of white sheep you want. Just ONE example of a black sheep is enough

Do I really need to quote the whole article here?

Quote:
Where is your prove? There is none. Just an unfounded claim, nothing more.
Proof for what?
Rape? (at least some forms of it, like pedophilia for example) Cheating? All the other SOCIAL PROBLEMS this 'pleasure' creates? That it wouldn't exist otherwise?

Quote:
I think you are leaving the sane sector now.
What is that supposed to mean? Do not resort to claims like these when you can't reply, you know what I meant. But in case you haven't, here's a stripped summary: Some people are satisfied with far less than others. Now we could have this pill that makes people have less needs, is what I said. What's not "sane" here?

DO NOT ask me for more details AGAIN because that's what I did in my previous post. Seems it's always like this:

1) If I detail too much, you'll say I make no sense at all
2) If I don't detail, you'll ask for details

Quote:
Are you understanding nothing? You'll want people to take pills to "come off of it"? They are doing it in the army already, or at least they are suspected to. Death, sorry, but your opinions are just ridiculous.
No I'm talking about one-shot pill that removes, let's say, your sexual drive. Not a weekly-pill or daily-pill (Pill may not be the right word, however, in case you are familiar I was referring to nano-bots put in pills btw ).

Quote:
Your definition isn't wide, it's wrong.
Ok so what do you want? A new word so we can talk, or do you want me to explain everytime what I mean about it and waste already even more time?

Quote:
We aren't needing it. Relax.

Bottom line is, you have wrong definitions, you make wrong conclusions and you make assumptions, and on THAT foundation you are presuming to change whole humanity for the better. That's the "Frankenstein-Complex".
Well some of us certainly need that pleasure otherwise we wouldn't have it. And the more you have, the more you'll need it. This applies in any needs by the way, only that this one is completely useless (i.e a waste, like I said).

If you're poor, all you need is food to feel happy. If you're rich, you will need, let's say, an expensive video game (and obviously, food as well!). At least in this scenario it's psychological (or artistical) effect and can influence you (games can even improve your vision and/or creativity, for example). It's not only pleasure, but mental activity.

Similar goes to instinctual 'needs' (after all that's what instincts propose: needs). The more you use them, the less value relative they have, so it'll be harder to pull off. (note the word 'relative'). only that here, we prefer to feel that pleasure over the conscious. (don't start with this again cause I provided enough examples already).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Vlaad
Vlaad


Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
posted February 15, 2009 11:57 PM
Edited by Vlaad at 00:08, 16 Feb 2009.

Quote:
You speculate, I give examples. The interesting thing here is, I don't have to disprove anything to show what love can be. I just need one example for that... to prove there's a black sheep, you can't just provide examples of ANY amount of white sheep you want. Just ONE example of a black sheep is enough
This is false. You have simplified the argument and made a logical fallacy: What is true for the black sheep is not for white sheep; if your pill seemed like a good idea to asexuals (although your attitude is actually antisexual), it would harm sexual people. Because whatever the reason is people do it (and there I tend to agree with your arguments) - sex still has a number of physical and psychological benefits.  
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted February 16, 2009 12:33 AM

I don't think you got it. The pill isn't supposed to be used by asexuals, it would be pointless
And of course I never said I am asexual. I said, if we were all given the chance to be one (via the pill), why not? It lowers our needs or complements them with something else less wasteful. Maybe we'll use actual psychological and mental needs than just instinct-driven needs. (like solving puzzles, although that is just one example). It's not just a waste of energy/resources but a waste of mind ability as well.

And yes, if the black sheep was more efficient than the white sheep then the most optimal and logical choice would be to mutate the white sheep (if possible, let's say, with a pill) into black sheep.

But as for the sheep example, my point was this: you cannot prove something does not exist or cannot happen. But to prove it, it only takes ONE single example. That is, you cannot prove there are no black sheep (unless you spot them all), but providing ONE black sheep is enough to prove that they, in fact, exist.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 8 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.2397 seconds