'Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day. But when I follow at my pleasure the serried multitude of the stars in their circular course, my feet no longer touch the earth.'
 
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Homosexuality

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
AuthorMessage
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3335
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality   Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:32 pm

If you'd rather discuss the concepts and rationale behind the interactions of pleasure and procreation, that would be valid. But the thing itself, and it's manners of interacting, are quite distinct from our rational understanding about it, how or if we attempt to justify such phenomena.

Most people don't have sex to produce a baby, or to pass on their genes, you know. Sex is pleasurable, in case you haven't noticed. Life does what feels good and avoids doing what feels bad, generally. Counter to your mistaken, moralistic "cart before the horse" notion, which is all too common a fallacy of logic among those inadequate to the task of their own thinking.

 

___________
"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"Do you hold out hope, then?" ... "I hold out dignity." ... "She will need opiates before long, for the pain. She will cease being who she is." ... "Then I will love who she becomes."  --Penny Dreadful
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3335
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality   Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:41 pm

Humans partially suppress their sexual instincts at the behest of many things, some of these being ideas, or fears, or social reward schemes. But regardless of the actual cause or how rational or not it may be those instincts themselves are what they are: automatic processes of accumulating and them discharging an excess of feeling, a latent sense interpreted as pleasure or pain. Sex is so strong an instinct because it has proven highly useful to tending to cause behaviors that tend to lead to procreation, but other instinctive pleasure responses are no different in that way, just more or less conglomerated and centrally-dominating of consciousness' momentary appraisals and motives.

The idea is different. Secondary, derivative and in interaction with the body of feeling. That alone is quite fascinating and would be a good topic of discussion, if you're interested in moving beyond the merely ideologically superficial.


 

___________
"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"Do you hold out hope, then?" ... "I hold out dignity." ... "She will need opiates before long, for the pain. She will cease being who she is." ... "Then I will love who she becomes."  --Penny Dreadful
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Imafungi
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22

PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality   Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:49 pm

Someone said 'why not have sex with a dead baby animal', and it made me think if the idea behind sex, or at least homosexual sex is pleasure (and beyond), why not have sex with a woman.  The vagina is designed for that sort of thing, I personally dont get how the thought of that act of pleasure is non enticing.  

Im interested in the view of homosexuals towards women, sexually.  What is it about a beautiful woman that is unattractive?  I personally admit I find intelligence and personality attractive in a woman, of course I find women of all aesthetic attractive but i would sacrifice points in the look department if it meant increased points in the intelligence and personality department.  

I am wondering if the attraction between two men and the non attraction of a gay man to a woman has just as much if not more to do with the mind of the man then the body of the woman and her mind too.  Is it something about being familiar with the way the male mind works, and being attracted to that, wanting to be in love and be loved by that?  

Also an interesting thing to bring up is transsexuals.  I personally am not gay by any exacting degree, I dont think I would ever be able to make out with a man.  But when it comes to a transsexual not that I have experience, as a thought experiment, I would prefer a born woman with a penis (as long as it went nowhere near my poopschute and mouth), then a born man with a vagina.


Last edited by Imafungi on Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:41 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Wizard



Posts : 8
Join date : 2014-01-20

PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality   Wed Jan 22, 2014 2:20 pm

Instinct is an accident? Hahaha.

You and FC have both become exposed to others. Your mind is uncovered.

"Instinct is an accident."

"Sex evolved for pleasure, not procreation."


Very liberal and modern beliefs, popular and not uncommon. You value popularity and fitting in with 7 billion other manimals. How are your "values" any different than the regular manimal? How are you any different?

Why not fuck dead baby animals, when it feeeeels gooood maaaan?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3335
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality   Wed Jan 22, 2014 2:31 pm

If instinct is not accidental as I have described it, then from where does it come? God, perhaps? Or maybe you think the universe itself is somehow benevolent and intelligent to intentionally create instinctive life, for some purpose, hm?

You are confounding the two issues of instinctive feeling and the rational ideas we form about these feelings, as well as confounding the (likely) effect of a thing (in this case, instincts) with the cause of that thing.

You might try thinking rather than trolling. My patience is not unlimited.

 

___________
"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"Do you hold out hope, then?" ... "I hold out dignity." ... "She will need opiates before long, for the pain. She will cease being who she is." ... "Then I will love who she becomes."  --Penny Dreadful
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3335
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality   Wed Jan 22, 2014 2:33 pm

Although this is a very nice confirmation as to the low quality of the minds which gravitate to KT.

 

___________
"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"Do you hold out hope, then?" ... "I hold out dignity." ... "She will need opiates before long, for the pain. She will cease being who she is." ... "Then I will love who she becomes."  --Penny Dreadful
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3933
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality   Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:52 pm

Wizard wrote:


Why not fuck dead baby animals, when it feeeeels gooood maaaan?

If that feels good to you, that's troubling. Your values would differ so greatly from mine that we would be, ontologically of very different species.

Your idea of values and "feeling" is extremely superficial. Satyr has not scratched the surface.

I advise that you try to think about why you think fucking baby animals would feel good. Try to imagine doing it and observe this "good feeling" you imagine. If you actually feel that it would makes you happy (make you feel good), it would surprise me and disgust me immensely.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Imafungi
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22

PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality   Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:54 pm

Basic instinct is a survival imperative. Its the will to live, to accept existence and do what needs to be done to remain living. All living conscious creatures are born just like you into this world and it is no one but themselves who must live for themselves.

Of course the word instinct can provoke an argument of semantics, as it may be a convoluted concept full of grey area and varying value and proportion.

Also every conscious being, in the human of course like all other areas there is more room for potential and degrees of freedom, is responsible for interpreting the environment, themselves, their feelings, the information they learn, their thoughts, the way they access their memories, the way they use their imagination, their values amongst everything else humans do or can do or want to do and why.

The situation of the homosexual as a type of human not even considering the continuation of their previously unbroken genetic legacy since the beginning of life, is interesting, yet perhaps no more interesting then a heterosexual person never getting married and having kids.

Do all, or most, gay men believe they are feminine or associate with the female? It would be interesting to see brain pattern studies. Or is it less about themselves, and more about the obsession with the male? Does at least any of the percentage of gays have to do with traumatic experience with females in early youth? Or experiences with mothers? Or fathers? Yes I am aware of reports of the number of animals that partake in homosexual behavior, and of the behavior existing with humans for sometime, if not all time. It is certainly intriguing though. Also heard the theory it could be a form of natures population control.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Imafungi
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22

PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality   Wed Jan 22, 2014 4:55 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
Wizard wrote:


Why not fuck dead baby animals, when it feeeeels gooood maaaan?

If that feels good to you, that's troubling. Your values would differ so greatly from mine that we would be, ontologically of very different species.

Your idea of values and "feeling" is extremely superficial. Satyr has not scratched the surface.

I advise that you try to think about why you think fucking baby animals would feel good. Try to imagine doing it and observe this "good feeling" you imagine. If you actually feel that it would makes you happy (make you feel good), it would surprise me and disgust me immensely.

Though I have not heard of that being one, what do you think of the realm of human kinkiness, and its near infinitess variety and creativity?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3933
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality   Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:16 pm

Humans can value a lot of different ways, and a lot of these ways will prevent them from procreating.
Say we are in a tribal society of sorts. If you are in my "clan" and you value in such a way that your values directly contradict mine, my clan will expel you. It will not be able to value you in terms of its self-value. In other words, it will not be able to value itself as strongly with as without you.
It will not be able to justify your presence to itself.

Of course a human can value fucking dead animals. Evidently, this is a risky type of valuing, it will quickly get sick and will not be as likely to procreate, etcetera - and if it is caught doing it, it may very well be killed if not put away into a psychiatric ward.

VO does not offer an inherent judgment of any type of valuing, it rather shows how entities act and interact, and it basically disallows for the perspective "oh, it's just what he values, let him". It demands that you involve your personal judgment, your taste, your will in your decisions - and thus in your philosophy.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Imafungi
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22

PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality   Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:26 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
Humans can value a lot of different ways, and a lot of these ways will prevent them from procreating.
Say we are in a tribal society of sorts. If you are in my "clan" and you value in such a way that your values directly contradict mine, my clan will expel you. It will not be able to value you in terms of its self-value. In other words, it will not be able to value itself as strongly with as without you.
It will not be able to justify your presence to itself.

Of course a human can value fucking dead animals. Evidently, this is a risky type of valuing, it will quickly get sick and will not be as likely to procreate, etcetera - and if it is caught doing it, it may very well be killed if not put away into a psychiatric ward.

VO does not offer an inherent judgment of any type of valuing, it rather shows how entities act and interact, and it basically disallows for the perspective "oh, it's just what he values, let him". It demands that you involve your personal judgment, your taste, your will in your decisions - and thus in your philosophy.

What do you think of people who value things that they know are harmful to them? What do you think of people with 'mental disorders' who value strange things like perhaps always filling up their pockets with sand and walking while spinning in circles? Perhaps that person might not even be as crazy as some one who values harmful vices? I suppose 'mental disorders' are a whole nother topic though.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3335
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality   Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:41 pm

FC:

Yes... and thus exposing the implicit nihilism-insanity at the heart of positions like those satyr or wizard espouse. Their thinking is enslaved to post-modernistic notions of no-value possibility, no objectivity except the "ruthless" and most obvious forms of violence and banality. Thus these become championed as ideals while the nihilistic and self-defeated is attacked as the worst kind of sin-- the perfect combination of pathological lies needed to mask their own real fundament from themselves.

 

___________
"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"Do you hold out hope, then?" ... "I hold out dignity." ... "She will need opiates before long, for the pain. She will cease being who she is." ... "Then I will love who she becomes."  --Penny Dreadful
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3933
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality   Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:08 pm

Imafungi wrote:
What do you think of people who value things that they know are harmful to them?

To an extent, inviting pain and damaging or poisoning the body is not a problem for a self-valuing, because the self-valuing is so pervasive and present in every cell (DNA, self-valuing code, history of successful effort) that pain and poison can be sued as means to explore what it means to exist. A self-valuing like a abundantly healthy human has a lot of excess energy, it does not need to be constantly occupied with preserving its health, it can spend a lot of energy just enjoying the fact that it has this energy to spend, which is a high form of self-valuing.

From my personal perspective, counting with my personal values, we can see this work in great artists who use a lot of drugs. They produce immense value for themselves and others, and in the process they are sacrificing a lot of their health. Some perish of this habit, but I do not see this as failure necessarily. Life itself is not a goal unto itself. It is a means to attain value, it is self-valuing. If death happens during a bold bout of high energy self-valuing that produces a lot of value for others (in the creation of a great artwork or in fighting a war, for example) then I admire the purity of the valuing.

But having said all this, if the damage done does not produce any value that remains, that one can value later - if the drug is only used to forget pain and to momentarily self-value in a state that is necessarily fleeting, then I think this is very suboptimal. And lastly, in the case that someone enjoys just fucking himself up and getting trashed in all sorts of ways, there's just the obvious conclusion of a relatively quick death. Such a person may not actually value himself, not be a "functional entity" in this sense, and only value that which brings closer the end of his physical being. His highest self-valuing may be opposed to his actual physical contextual existence. I think a lot of religion thrives on entities like this, self-abnegation. The concept of heaven as an escape from Earth, the idea of Earth and its lifeforms as fundamentally/essentially corrupted, etc.

Quote :
What do you think of people with 'mental disorders' who value strange things like perhaps always filling up their pockets with sand and walking while spinning in circles? Perhaps that person might not even be as crazy as some one who values harmful vices?  I suppose 'mental disorders' are a whole nother topic though.

It's hard to say in general - I think that being compelled to do things that have no consequences except the momentary relief of the compulsion are not a very "viable" form of valuing - but I can't deny them their reality. I personally prefer to be without such compulsions, but who knows someone derives an intense pleasure from it and gets into a state of consciousness that I will never know.

I do not have fundamental general judgments about particular things. My judgments about entities and situations only become active when they begin to affect me. For example. I don't mind the existence of "Satyr" at all, and I don't mind his habits, as long as he does not make a habit out of being here. Then his valuings would actively soil what I think is of value. Likewise I do not negatively value the existence of hydraulic drills, but  I do not value the drill that begins working outside my window when I'm trying to sleep. I do not negatively value the existence of shit, but I do need it to stay in the context of excretion and fertilizer.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3933
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality   Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:12 pm

Capable wrote:
FC:

Yes... and thus exposing the implicit nihilism-insanity at the heart of positions like those satyr or wizard espouse. Their thinking is enslaved to post-modernistic notions of no-value possibility, no objectivity except the "ruthless" and most obvious forms of violence and banality. Thus these become championed as ideals while the nihilistic and self-defeated is attacked as the worst kind of sin-- the perfect combination of pathological lies needed to mask their own real fundament from themselves.

Yes. They are trying desperately to value (as they must to exist, to experience themselves) the fact that they have lost their belief in value. This is pure cognitive dissonance from which they're operating. Essentially unwholesome intellects, able only to value the reversed Midas touch. "Look, what I touch turns to shit, this proves that the world is made of shit, and this in turn proves that I am right. Hail shit! Fuck shit!" Etc etc.

It is likely that they are physically sickly, but it could also be that they are just unfortunate to have stumbled on the realization that God is dead while in the mind-state of needing a god - they have made the absence of God their God, they are peering into the open grave and savoring the rot.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Wizard



Posts : 8
Join date : 2014-01-20

PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality   Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:24 pm

No, I'm serious here.

On one hand you have a beautiful, gorgeous, young, nubile, fresh, girl who is hot, horny, and wet for you.  She wants your cock badly.  No condom.  And after you release yourself, then she'll leave town and you'll never see or hear from her again.

And on the other hand you have a dead, sickly pungent, male corpse, with a decaying anus.  Stick your dick in it, why not?  Why, the fuck, not?  It feels good.

What's the difference here?

It is you and Pezer here, claiming that sex evolved for pleasure.  So why choose one over the other?  Why fuck women's pussies, over men's anuses?

Whatever floats your boats, right?  To each his own.  This is about pleasure, isn't it?  Not procreation.  Isn't it 100% about pleasure?

"If it feels good, do it."  Isn't this what your "value ontology" is all about?

You've already been exposed.  So won't you backtrack on what you've already said?  Why not commit yourself to what you've already said?

Sex is about pleasure.

Instinct is an accident.

Correct me if I'm wrong.  Or, correct yourself if you're wrong.  Am I missing something?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Imafungi
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22

PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality   Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:37 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
Humans can value a lot of different ways, and a lot of these ways will prevent them from procreating.
Say we are in a tribal society of sorts. If you are in my "clan" and you value in such a way that your values directly contradict mine, my clan will expel you. It will not be able to value you in terms of its self-value. In other words, it will not be able to value itself as strongly with as without you.
It will not be able to justify your presence to itself.

Of course a human can value fucking dead animals. Evidently, this is a risky type of valuing, it will quickly get sick and will not be as likely to procreate, etcetera - and if it is caught doing it, it may very well be killed if not put away into a psychiatric ward.

VO does not offer an inherent judgment of any type of valuing, it rather shows how entities act and interact, and it basically disallows for the perspective "oh, it's just what he values, let him". It demands that you involve your personal judgment, your taste, your will in your decisions - and thus in your philosophy.

Is there a way to judge and compare all possible values, and determine if not which are the best, at least show which may be better and worse?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3933
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality   Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:38 pm

Quote :
No, I'm serious here.

On one hand you have a beautiful, gorgeous, young, nubile, fresh, girl who is hot, horny, and wet for you.  She wants your cock badly.  No condom.  And after you release yourself, then she'll leave town and you'll never see or hear from her again.

And on the other hand you have a dead, sickly pungent, male corpse, with a decaying anus.  Stick your dick in it, why not?  Why, the fuck, not?  It feels good.

Maybe this is how you fuck - with mouth, eyes and nose closed, without registering body heat or the state of the body you're fucking at all - Maybe this is all you're used to. This would illustrate my point about your KT people rather dramatically.

Personally, that does to appeal to me. It would not feel good to me. I also suspect you are holding a minority position.

Quote :
What's the difference here?

The difference is that this shit you're into is utterly disgusting to me. That's all. Nothing God-given.

Quote :
It is you and Pezer here, claiming that sex evolved for pleasure.  So why choose one over the other?  Why fuck women's pussies, over men's anuses?

Because I don't get pleasure out of that. I do not claim that you do not fuck male corpses or that you shouldn't. I am just claiming that you will not procreate in this way and that I will try to exterminate you if you get too near with that filthy habit.

Quote :
Whatever floats your boats, right?  To each his own.  This is about pleasure, isn't it?  Not procreation.  Isn't it 100% about pleasure?

"If it feels good, do it."  Isn't this what your "value ontology" is all about?

Corpsefucker, look up the meaning of "ontology".

Quote :
You've already been exposed.  So won't you backtrack on what you've already said?  Why not commit yourself to what you've already said?

Sex is about pleasure.

Instinct is an accident.

Correct me if I'm wrong.  Or, correct yourself if you're wrong.  Am I missing something?

Maybe your penis fell off? I don't know.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3933
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality   Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:40 pm

Imafungi wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
Humans can value a lot of different ways, and a lot of these ways will prevent them from procreating.
Say we are in a tribal society of sorts. If you are in my "clan" and you value in such a way that your values directly contradict mine, my clan will expel you. It will not be able to value you in terms of its self-value. In other words, it will not be able to value itself as strongly with as without you.
It will not be able to justify your presence to itself.

Of course a human can value fucking dead animals. Evidently, this is a risky type of valuing, it will quickly get sick and will not be as likely to procreate, etcetera - and if it is caught doing it, it may very well be killed if not put away into a psychiatric ward.

VO does not offer an inherent judgment of any type of valuing, it rather shows how entities act and interact, and it basically disallows for the perspective "oh, it's just what he values, let him". It demands that you involve your personal judgment, your taste, your will in your decisions - and thus in your philosophy.

Is there a way to judge and compare all possible values, and determine if not which are the best, at least show which may be better and worse?

No.

Thats my short answer. But religions are attempts to do this.

I don't think it can be done, because that would still involve a valuing agency, thus a subjectivity.

The bottom line is that what's good for me might be bad for you.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Wizard



Posts : 8
Join date : 2014-01-20

PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality   Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:25 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
Personally, that does to appeal to me.
This is your mental weakness, your "perceptual blindspot" if you will, and why minds such as yours are so easy to manipulate by a select few.

Why not?

You are not going far enough. Use reason, use philosophy, how long have you been at this project, and getting nowhere?

Why, the fuck, not?

Why do you prefer to fuck a live corpse opposed to a dead one? Warmth? That's your answer? Why do you value warmth?

Go with it.

I know you're upset, irritated, annoyed, and you want to dismiss me. I can read that about your mind. I know. But be patient. I want to see if your mind can yet learn a lesson.


I see no difference between you, this place, ILP, Satyr, KTS. Each have flaws. But the real question revolves around how you respond to these flaws.

You are failing to prove yourself worthy, of respect. Go further.

Is sex 100% pleasure? 80% pleasure and 20% procreation? Give me some numbers. 50-50? 28% pleasure, 72% procreation? Maybe numbers will help you.


Here is a hint: why would a man, or anybody, value procreation and reproduction?

Is pregnancy always an "accident"?

That ought to last you a week, reflect on this.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3335
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality   Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:16 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
Capable wrote:
FC:

Yes... and thus exposing the implicit nihilism-insanity at the heart of positions like those satyr or wizard espouse. Their thinking is enslaved to post-modernistic notions of no-value possibility, no objectivity except the "ruthless" and most obvious forms of violence and banality. Thus these become championed as ideals while the nihilistic and self-defeated is attacked as the worst kind of sin-- the perfect combination of pathological lies needed to mask their own real fundament from themselves.

Yes. They are trying desperately to value (as they must to exist, to experience themselves) the fact that they have lost their belief in value. This is pure cognitive dissonance from which they're operating. Essentially unwholesome intellects, able only to value the reversed Midas touch. "Look, what I touch turns to shit, this proves that the world is made of shit, and this in turn proves that I am right. Hail shit! Fuck shit!" Etc etc.

It is likely that they are physically sickly, but it could also be that they are just unfortunate to have stumbled on the realization that God is dead while in the mind-state of needing a god - they have made the absence of God their God, they are peering into the open grave and savoring the rot.

It is indeed a thing of unfortunate luck, for them.

We ought to remember this when we think about how "lucky" we have been. Lower forms are always more common than higher forms, and this world is poorly made for the production of philosophers.

 

___________
"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"Do you hold out hope, then?" ... "I hold out dignity." ... "She will need opiates before long, for the pain. She will cease being who she is." ... "Then I will love who she becomes."  --Penny Dreadful
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3335
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality   Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:35 pm

Wizard wrote:
No, I'm serious here.

On one hand you have a beautiful, gorgeous, young, nubile, fresh, girl who is hot, horny, and wet for you.  She wants your cock badly.  No condom.  And after you release yourself, then she'll leave town and you'll never see or hear from her again.

And on the other hand you have a dead, sickly pungent, male corpse, with a decaying anus.  Stick your dick in it, why not?  Why, the fuck, not?  It feels good.

What's the difference here?

The difference to whom? You? Me?

Or are you trying to make a point about "all people should…"? If so, you are the only one here making any such claims. And if not, then I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about, other than trying to assert, in some vague half-baked manner, that people have sex because sex sometimes leads to procreation.

Yeah, we know that sex sometimes leads to procreation. And that is often not why people have sex, nor is that the content of the sexual instincts themselves.

Reasons are after the fact, not before the fact, of instinct. Dig down far enough and you always will hit the "unthinking" organism out of which higher things are forged.

Although it seems you have never left that organism, so perhaps you are unable to see it properly.

Quote :
It is you and Pezer here, claiming that sex evolved for pleasure.  So why choose one over the other?  Why fuck women's pussies, over men's anuses?

Whatever floats your boats, right?  To each his own.  This is about pleasure, isn't it?  Not procreation.  Isn't it 100% about pleasure?

"If it feels good, do it."  Isn't this what your "value ontology" is all about?

You've already been exposed.  So won't you backtrack on what you've already said?  Why not commit yourself to what you've already said?

Sex is about pleasure.

Instinct is an accident.

Correct me if I'm wrong.  Or, correct yourself if you're wrong.  Am I missing something?

A brain, from the looks of it.

If you are trying to claim there is no reason to fuck a woman over a dead male, I would love to see you attempt to make such an argument. So far all you have is, "well YOU need to prove to ME that there is a difference!!"  Shocked Oh? But we already have, and you are incapable of even registering this fact… let alone that the burden of proof would be on you to defend such a claim of yours, not on us to disprove it before you even try.

 

___________
"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"Do you hold out hope, then?" ... "I hold out dignity." ... "She will need opiates before long, for the pain. She will cease being who she is." ... "Then I will love who she becomes."  --Penny Dreadful
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Imafungi
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22

PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality   Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:54 am

Capable wrote:




Yeah, we know that sex sometimes leads to procreation. And that is often not why people have sex, nor is that the content of the sexual instincts themselves.


Are you saying procreation is not the content of the sexual instincts themselves? What is your definition of instincts in this statement? If you were nature how would you insure the procreation of your biological inventions? How about equip them with a reward based system that causes them to be obsessed with the opposite sex and copulation as often as possible? Human life is but an elaborate mating ritual. Look at the animal world, they reproduce at a time, some organisms give birth to 1000s of offspring in a batch, life is a numbers game. If I was not equipped with hormones and all the chemicals in which during puberty make me horny and attracted to females and wanting to orgasm, I dont see why I would ever have 'sexual tendencies', I dont even know if I would come up with ideas of beauty on myself, the beauty of proportions and curves and symmetry and meat. And I dont know why I wouldnt find that same attraction with another animal, or a tree or bush, or a puddle of mud, there is beauty all around.

So this is a battle of the being and nature. Nature designed the being with the evolved inclination to be horny. A prodding in the direction of procreation. And now just like nature equipped the being with legs for running and arms for moving to survive and do whats necessary, we also do things for fun, like make sport, or have sex for pleasure.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3335
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality   Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:55 pm

Imafungi wrote:
Capable wrote:




Yeah, we know that sex sometimes leads to procreation. And that is often not why people have sex, nor is that the content of the sexual instincts themselves.


Are you saying procreation is not the content  of the sexual instincts themselves?  What is your definition of instincts in this statement?

Instinct is defined as a storing-up and then releasing of excess 'energy', the ability for the body to respond/do work. An instinct is specifically a certain chain-reaction process in the body which defines a range of inputs and, given these inputs, triggers the production of increased energy/motive-force to accumulate along a certain pathway. That pathway is what takes this energy into other processes in order to stimulate and act as the input for their own output, be these physical actions, image-ideas in the mind, or other instincts themselves.

Instincts are sure ways to cause physical and physiological responses in organisms and in response to stimuli from their environment. It is the reason hormones, like adrenaline, are released into the bloodstream, which is the basis of emotions, and instinct is also the reason why muscles contract and release which is the basis of all bodily movement.

Quote :
If you were nature how would you insure the procreation of your biological inventions?

Nature does not "insure" anything, nature is blind and not capable of caring one way or another for the survival of any single life-form or any sum of life-forms, including the totality of "nature itself".

The reason we have nature/life is because of natural selection, meaning: there is an availability of potential resources (energy trapped in atomic form; molecules) and certain more complex organizations of other matter/"life" compete for the ability to consume those resources. Competition means that only some organisms will survive, ensuring that those who are less survivable will logically have less opportunity to procreate. Procreation itself is nothing but the fact that such organisms are capable of passing on a certain amount of their own form/structure to the next generation, via genes. This is also a necessary basic component of the whole setup, otherwise life would never have made it past a single generation.

DNA is the basis of organic life, and is able to outlast the actual organism that it gives cause to be built. DNA "escapes" the organism (via sperm/egg, or whatever other seed) while it is still alive and gives cause to create more organisms elsewhere after its own pattern. This is the basic set-up. It isn't as if some God or "benevolence of nature" or implicit universal intelligence decreed it thusly to be set-up in this manner, this is just the only way it could naturally (accidentally, arbitrarily, without "design") just happen to arise in order that what we know of as life might be possible to form. And logically anywhere that such a remote possibility actualizes is where such life is going to find itself, for it to wonder later how it happens to be so "lucky" as to have been birthed by such a rare accident. It is a common logical fallacy to assume that humans/life in general is special or privileged because it just happened to form by the "luck" it had; any region of space without such a rare chance congruence of factors would be unable to lead to the formation of life, and thus nothing exists in those regions to wonder about how "lucky or unlucky" they are.

Quote :
How about equip them with a reward based system that causes them to be obsessed with the opposite sex and copulation as often as possible?  Human life is but an elaborate mating ritual.  Look at the animal world, they reproduce at a time, some organisms give birth to 1000s of offspring in a batch, life is a numbers game.  If I was not equipped with hormones and all the chemicals in which during puberty make me horny and attracted to females and wanting to orgasm, I dont see why I would ever have 'sexual tendencies', I dont even know if I would come up with ideas of beauty on myself, the beauty of proportions and curves and symmetry and meat.  And I dont know why I wouldnt find that same attraction with another animal, or a tree or bush, or a puddle of mud, there is beauty all around.  

Beauty is not an instinct, it is a product of ideas. Sexual attraction, at the instinctive level, is based on a cruder recognition of forms sufficient to stimulate that instinct to trigger. The programing of this formality is basically centered around physical attributes of health, which programing is the result of natural selection working upon the instincts (i.e. those individuals whose sexual instinct happened to be triggered more around members of the opposite sex who displayed more signs of physical healthiness tended more to reproduce with those healthier members, thus tended to reproduce healthier offspring). This explains the basic set-up of the instincts with respect to attraction to the "beauty" of human form, but beauty itself is an aesthetic and an idea, a rational construct.

It is important to understand that Reason/the ideas forms a kind of middle-ground between instincts and thought. Concepts are ways to regulate the intersection of instinct and thinking; thinking itself is only a kind of secondary, more derivative and contained process of instinct-like automatic responses going on inside the brain. Thought produces its own cause to certain kind of perceptions in the mind, just as instinct also produces its own cause to certain but different kinds of perceptions in the mind. And of course "mind" being the higher/most derivative and "tip" of the entire process, looking back at that from which it came as a partial perspective upon the entire process and in particular upon the most removed/end parts of the process.

A dog, a worm, an eagle, a lion has no concept of beauty. It only has an instinctive capacity to respond with sexual impulse more to certain perceived forms than to other perceived forms. We have this capacity too, but on top of that humans add new layers of complexity-- we add concepts, language, cultural ideas. These form their own internal universe in the mind as well as mediate with the deeper levels of instinct, and you get a sum effect that human experience is a construct of both instincts and thoughts, feelings/impulses and ideas. Likewise with "emotions", an emotion is also such a middle-ground construct but which takes its form more from instinct-feeling than from thought-ideas (i.e. it is centered more in the operations of hormones than in the operation of neurons).  

Quote :
So this is a battle of the being and nature.  Nature designed the being with the evolved inclination to be horny.  A prodding in the direction of procreation.  And now just like nature equipped the being with legs for running and arms for moving to survive and do whats necessary, we also do things for fun, like make sport, or have sex for pleasure.

No, nature did not "design this" with any intent or purpose. We happened to evolved the way we are because those species and individuals which represented too-great deviations from this way ended up failing to reproduce successfully and thus their forms faded from existence. And nature "itself" is nothing but an abstraction-idea that we've created to indicate or represent the totality of all living things and all physical laws by which we see such living things coming into existence, living and dying.

The way we exist is logically the best way for us to have existed with respect to the entire past of our struggles with the environment and each other. Every environmental or social pressure creates conditions that delimit living activity. Life is the response to these conditions.

 

___________
"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"Do you hold out hope, then?" ... "I hold out dignity." ... "She will need opiates before long, for the pain. She will cease being who she is." ... "Then I will love who she becomes."  --Penny Dreadful
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Imafungi
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22

PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality   Thu Jan 23, 2014 7:37 pm

Capable wrote:


No, nature did not "design this" with any intent or purpose. We happened to evolved the way we are because those species and individuals which represented too-great deviations from this way ended up failing to reproduce successfully and thus their forms faded from existence. And nature "itself" is nothing but an abstraction-idea that we've created to indicate or represent the totality of all living things and all physical laws by which we see such living things coming into existence, living and dying.

The way we exist is logically the best way for us to have existed with respect to the entire past of our struggles with the environment and each other. Every environmental or social pressure creates conditions that delimit living activity. Life is the response to these conditions.

It was not my intention to imply nature did those things as if it were an intelligent being, and therefore having you get caught up on that instead of what I was trying to imply. When I said nature designed, I meant yes the totality of natural processes designed life and DNA, and if you look at all the doubled sexed species of life, most of them procreate via sex, they have their internal DNA producer and combiner, and they have sex and reproduce. I was focusing on the existence of pleasure in sexual intercourse at all, as a reward system, when I said 'how would nature insure creatures reproduce'? How about making it feel good, just like 'nature' discovered in its capitalistic kinda way, that if you make fruits and foods 'taste good', bring pleasure to the animal that may eat it, it is also good insurance in survival. Thats all I was trying to say, the bottom most base necessary aspect of life, is life, everything else comes after, so I disagree that anyone can think that at base and most profoundly, sex exists other then as a system of procreation. I am well aware people do many things with sex other then procreation.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3335
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality   Fri Jan 24, 2014 12:11 am

Ah ok, it is good to see we generally agree then.

I would still draw the distinction between sexual instincts/pleasure and the potential effects of that instinct/pleasure, they are not the same thing but as you say they are certainly related. I do not ascribe telos to a thing merely because that thing may or must lead to certain effects - basically, I think "functionalism" is bullshit. But obviously pleasure has developed throughout the history of life because in causing the organism to act in survival-aiding ways those pleasure systems inadvertently lead to their own continuing to survive, and even to grow with time. To me that is not indicative of a "purpose" but simply a statement about the conditions under which a thing (in this case, pleasure/pain instinct systems) has developed.

It would sort of be like saying that dirt exists for the purpose of allowing seeds to germinate, to say that sexual pleasure exists to allow for procreation to occur. You see how sexual instincts are tied in with the procreative act as rendering that analogy inaccurate, perhaps, but I do not; I see this connection as incidental only, although obviously real and significant, and quite interesting a subject to explore.

Basically, any time someone says that a thing exists or is made "for a purpose" that person is making an ontological mistake, I think. Except (maybe) when the thing being discussed is something made by a human being .

 

___________
"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"Do you hold out hope, then?" ... "I hold out dignity." ... "She will need opiates before long, for the pain. She will cease being who she is." ... "Then I will love who she becomes."  --Penny Dreadful
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Homosexuality   

Back to top Go down
 
Homosexuality
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 3 of 4Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Before The Light :: Tree :: Psychology-
Jump to: