NationStates Jolt Archive

wtf.....

that's all i have to say

I agree, procreation is bad.
But cum on! Ban SEX?
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here! Indeed procreation is probably one of the most destructive things imaginable (along with religon and money) because, lets face it, if it weren't for procreation there would be no war. No famine. Hell TV probably wouldn't have been invented!
But sex is incredible. Why punish everybody for the actions of Zillions? Don't make me stop fucking because the human race hasn't evolved enough to omit procreation!
Seems a bit heavy handed to me.

You are being sarcastic...right?

One last thoguht: Maybe we should use science to perfect sex. Make it yet more pleasurable for both genders and make diseases less common rather than eliminating pleasure.

Banning sex is like banning chewing food. We've been doing it since we existed and before then. It'd change everything.

And I have a question for you. Would you make the animals stop having sex, or would you just call them primitive beasts? Or even exterminate them for being too primitive for your 'new world' without sex?

And I think you've been watching Demolition Man too much.

You can't control animals, and it would be too expensive to have them reproduce artificially, so no.

One last thoguht: Maybe we should use science to perfect sex. Make it yet more pleasurable for both genders and make diseases less common rather than eliminating pleasure.

We have a winner!

One last thoguht: Maybe we should use science to perfect sex. Make it yet more pleasurable for both genders and make diseases less common rather than eliminating pleasure.

How about we avoid the disgusting affair called sex all together, and gain pleasure through other means?

How about we avoid the disgusting affair called sex all together, and gain pleasure through other means?
Give me 5 more pleasurable things that don't involve sex in any way and I'll make you a deal to not have it and spread your repulsive argument.

To sum up my criticism of sex:
1. It is disgusting to place your genitalia into someone elses; especially considering these genitalia also produce human waste.
Well, the genetalia do not produce much waste. The urethra is merely where waste, primarily urea, is excreted. And the vagina is separate from the urethra, so that doesn't apply to women.

2. It is a waste of time and effort. Other means of pleasure can be provided without resorting to such disgusting actions.
No, I doubt that. The only thing that could probably be equivalent to having sex is some pretty serious drugs. I haven't ever done either, but I'd guess that's pretty true. I mean, it's insane! I love someone more than I love entomology and virology... What is wrong with me?!?

3. It is an exchange of bodily fluids.
Are you against breat feeding? How about blood transfusions?

4. Humanity will someday perfect artificial inseminatio technology, and should not rely on time wasting and disgusting reproduction efforts when that time is reached.
Nope. Humans love sex too much. All children are produced in vitro in Brave New World, yet they have more sex than we do.

5. Sex causes vast harm to society. It makes some people obsessed with it, and drains their intelligence. It costs people money. (through many ways: prsotitution, contraception, abortion) It overrides their reasoning instincts. And finally, it leads to many accidents, ranging from unwanted pregnancies to sexually transmitted diseases.
OMFG!!!!11!!!1 53X W1LL DR41N UR 1NT3LL1G3NC3!!!

Seriously, though, sex has no effect on intelligence. There are few people actually "obsessed with sex", that's a large exaggeration. Everything that people do cost money, pretty much nothing's free now. And cars lead to more accidents, and cost more money than sex does.

That's easy.
1. Power
2. Luxury
3. Eating
4. Performing good (charity work, etc.)
5. Reading
6. Creating (Anything)

The need to procreate is next to fear as the most evil of the primative human instincts, and is, indeed, the most basic instinct. I say we enforce a worldwide ban on all sex, and reproduce using artificial semination only.

Does this mean I will no lonager to take matters into my own hand and cum up with a solution? :fluffle:

No, I doubt that. The only thing that could probably be equivalent to having sex is some pretty serious drugs. I haven't ever done either, but I'd guess that's pretty true. I mean, it's insane! I love someone more than I love entomology and virology... What is wrong with me?!?
I have some pretty big druggy friends and they still prefer sex to the hardest of drugs.

That's easy.
1. Power
2. Luxury
3. Eating
4. Performing good (charity work, etc.)
5. Reading
6. Creating (Anything)

No, because sex is love. I'd rather lvoe than have power
No, same as above.
No way!
Possibly in some ways, though I do both.
No.
No.

That's easy.
1. Power
2. Luxury
3. Eating
4. Performing good (charity work, etc.)
5. Reading
6. Creating (Anything)
1. Only if you're monomanic
2. That's even more hedonistic than sex is, and isn't nearly as enjoyable
3. That's a more disgusting way to get pleasure than sex is, and is much worse for one's health
4. Sometimes...but it really doesn't release many endorphins, it is merely psychological, not physiological.
5. As pleasurable as that is, I'd wager all my college savings it's not as good as sex
6. Then God must be constantly having orgasms. And all mothers. And writers. Et certera.

I have some pretty big druggy friends and they still prefer sex to the hardest of drugs.
I'd wager both (depending on the drug, of course), is even better ;) .

6. Then God must be constantly having orgasms. And all mothers. And writers. Et certera.
that's possibly the best comment on this board. I'm gonna go make dinner now. Goodnight.

That's easy.
1. Power
2. Luxury
3. Eating
4. Performing good (charity work, etc.)
5. Reading
6. Creating (Anything)


Pleasure from power will lead to megalomaniacal communities.

A lot of people aren't wealthy enough to experience true luxury.

Pleasure from eating could very well lead to obesity.

Charity work is just that to a large majority: Work. They'd rather be getting paid for it.

There a tons of people who hate reading. I actually love it. My brother dreads it as well as most other people my age. In a world where technology is bringing new ways of telling stories (video games for instance, would be a much better example for a large amount of people my age).

Creating? Anything? Well, sex is creating. So that doesn't count.

To me, you just sound like someone who wishes to view the world through rose-colored glasses.

nseminatio technology, and should not rely on time wasting and disgusting reproduction efforts when that time is reached.

Has anyone here seen Gattica or read Robots of Dawn?

To sum up my criticism of sex:
1. It is disgusting to place your genitalia into someone elses; especially considering these genitalia also produce human waste.
2. It is a waste of time and effort. Other means of pleasure can be provided without resorting to such disgusting actions.
3. It is an exchange of bodily fluids.
4. Humanity will someday perfect artificial inseminatio technology, and should not rely on time wasting and disgusting reproduction efforts when that time is reached.
5. Sex causes vast harm to society. It makes some people obsessed with it, and drains their intelligence. It costs people money. (through many ways: prsotitution, contraception, abortion) It overrides their reasoning instincts. And finally, it leads to many accidents, ranging from unwanted pregnancies to sexually transmitted diseases.


1. Yes, genatalia are also used to excrete stuff. This is what the shower is for.

3. what's wrong with bodily fluids? also, this is what contraception is for.

5. I fail to see how sex negatively affects society. People get obsessed with many things, but i suspect you will find more alcoholics than nimphomaniacs.

To those of you who find sex in some way repulsive, well, i feel sorry for you. I'm not meaning to be patronising with that, either, i honestly feel you would be happier if you didn't.

You have a problem. I wouldn't be suprised to find that it is in some way coming from an insecurity. Body-image and shame is a serious problem.
I honestly recommend that those of you who are frightened or repulsed by love-making and peoples bodies get to better know and be comfortable with your own.

Sex is not simply about pleasure, either. It is about wanting to make another human being feel good, it's as much about giving pleasure as receiving.

And there is more to sex than genitals. ;)

To me, you just sound like someone who wishes to view the world through rose-colored glasses.
And all he sees is.........BLOOD!!!

But, seriously, isn't it "rosey-hued glasses"?

dude... you've been watching to much Demolition Man. You remember how much that world sucked. Everyone was a weak pussy and when one person who wasn't came along he damm neer took over the city. you need to relax find a woman and enjoy life a little more. don't shit in gods lawn. he made it that way for a reason. don't bring on the lords wrath. or mine. you are making me angry. you wouldn't like me when I'm angry... :mp5:
and by the way, if you ever took a health class you'd know that the waste on thefemale body comes out a different hole.

Well, the genetalia do not produce much waste. The urethra is merely where waste, primarily urea, is excreted. And the vagina is separate from the urethra, so that doesn't apply to women.
I'm referring to the genital area in general. After all, a male reproductive organ transmits both semen and urine.

No, I doubt that. The only thing that could probably be equivalent to having sex is some pretty serious drugs. I haven't ever done either, but I'd guess that's pretty true. I mean, it's insane! I love someone more than I love entomology and virology... What is wrong with me?!?.
I disagree. I can find an infinite amount of pleasure and satisfaction through many things, ranging from political power to religion.


Are you against breat feeding? How about blood transfusions?

I was being too vague, I admit. I mean specifically seminal and vaginal fluids.


Nope. Humans love sex too much. All children are produced in vitro in Brave New World, yet they have more sex than we do.

I'm talking about the future, which can't be predicted by a book.

OMFG!!!!11!!!1 53X W1LL DR41N UR 1NT3LL1G3NC3!!!

Seriously, though, sex has no effect on intelligence. There are few people actually "obsessed with sex", that's a large exaggeration. Everything that people do cost money, pretty much nothing's free now. And cars lead to more accidents, and cost more money than sex does.
Actually, there are quite a few who think of nothing else. Aren't you a teacher? Apparently you haven't been in a boys' locker room...As for the money, yes, everything you do costs money. But money spent on sex is money wasted.

dude... you've been watching to much Demolition Man. You remember how much that world sucked. Everyone was a weak pussy and when one person who wasn't came along he damm neer took over the city. you need to relax find a woman and enjoy life a little more. don't shit in gods lawn. he made it that way for a reason. don't bring on the lords wrath. or mine. you are making me angry. you wouldn't like me when I'm angry... :mp5:
and by the way, if you ever took a health class you'd know that the waste on thefemale body comes out a different hole.


I know, I said he watched it too much too. Yeah, that world definitely sucked majorly

1. I can represent people's interests without sharing their background. I mean, look at John Kerry and George W. Bush. Both come from extremely wealthy families, and had priviledged lives. (I'm not faulting them for that, by the way. Just making a point.)
2. As I said before, I hope that someday in the future humanity can outgrow its desire for sex. It would not be part of my platform, and would not even be mentioned.
3. I don't need a family to have charisma. I can't be an objective judge of my charisma, but I don't seem to be that bad of a person. I mean, I'm trying to be polite here, despite being called everything from a freak to a bigot on this board.

Speak to a Catholic Priest. You sound like an excellent candidate for a Convent. Many, many Nuns believe the way you do and help humanity.

Has anyone here seen Gattica or read Robots of Dawn?
It's "Gattaca". That's easy to remember, because it all the letters are abbreviations for nitrogenous bases. These are C, G, A, T (and U). So there isn't an "I".

And all he sees is.........BLOOD!!!

But, seriously, isn't it "rosey-hued glasses"?


Same idea.

Speak to a Catholic Priest. You sound like an excellent candidate for a Convent. Many, many Nuns believe the way you do and help humanity.
I am not a woman, and I'm far too ambitious anyway.

I have to be honest that 1984 was part of my inspiration, if only because that anti sex league had cool sashes. But think about it: isn't sex primative? Do we ever want to move away from the primative?

Eating is a primitive instinct too. Do you propose we use stomach tubes or IV from now on?

Eating in moderation is not harmful. Sex is.

I'm referring to the genital area in general. After all, a male reproductive organ transmits both semen and urine.


I disagree. I can find an infinite amount of pleasure and satisfaction through many things, ranging from political power to religion.


I was being too vague, I admit. I mean specifically seminal and vaginal fluids.


I'm talking about the future, which can't be predicted by a book.

Actually, there are quite a few who think of nothing else. Aren't you a teacher? Apparently you haven't been in a boys' locker room...As for the money, yes, everything you do costs money. But money spent on sex is money wasted.

Bodily fluids, waste or otherwise simply aren't an issue unless your partner has serious personal hygene problems. :)

I forget, due to the amount of people in this thread, but Cheese, were you one of the Sex-fearing virgins from earlier, or another camp? Assuming you haven't infact made love before all i can say is that you are hardly in a position to say if the pleasures in your life can match that of sharing the intamacy of your body with someone you truly care about.

We all know all about boy's locker rooms. Most of that rampant obsession with sex is due to the hormones and the mystery attatched to sex.
And, to be frank, the immaturity of your average 15 year old. Frankly, i fail to see what 15 year olds have to do with the benefits of sex. :p

I'm referring to the genital area in general. After all, a male reproductive organ transmits both semen and urine.
That's true, but I honsetly fail to see the big problem. Urea will not and cannot be ingested through the vulva.

I disagree. I can find an infinite amount of pleasure and satisfaction through many things, ranging from political power to religion.
So...you're a megalomaniac? Political power is a corrupting influence.

I was being too vague, I admit. I mean specifically seminal and vaginal fluids.
Which, interestingly enough, humans evolved to do.

I'm talking about the future, which can't be predicted by a book.
That's true, but I personally believe Aldous Huxley way before you.

Actually, there are quite a few who think of nothing else. Aren't you a teacher? Apparently you haven't been in a boys' locker room...As for the money, yes, everything you do costs money. But money spent on sex is money wasted.
I am a 15 year-old boy. I have been in a boys' locker room, I assure you. And giving adolescent males as an example for who is obsessed with sex is pretty pathetic. The majority of the population is beyond adolescence, believe it or not. And I won't argue with the "money spent on sex is money wasted". That's just a differing of opinion, and I don't see that anything'll come out of it. At least for me, since I really can't speak for sex as well as some other people, since I'm virginal.

Eating in moderation is not harmful. Sex is.
How is sex harmful?

Well, this has been quite interesting, but I have to leave. Thanks to all of you who politely debated my ideas. And while your comments about my "fundamentalist parents" and "feelings of guilt" and "sad, lonely life" are completely off of the mark, I appreciate the kind thought.

Wow, there seems to be quite a one-sided liberal hoarde at work again.

If sex is so perfect and flawless, explain why it's innocent when it:
1. Causes murders (rape, etc.)
2. Can ruin young people's lives (young pregnancies)
3. Tear apart families (same as #2, but when parents find out)
4. Spreads dieseases killing tens of millions (if you've ever been to South Africa and spent 15 minutes observing the lines of sick and dying people, you understand what I mean)
5. Can lead to suicide, depression, and violence
6. necessitates the murdering of unborn children
7. Spreads ignorance, through temptation- advertisements of products, etc. using sex appeal to have us consume their goods.
8. Makes people ignore the truer values of human qualities such as love and compassion. People flock to impress those most ignorant and stupid, so long as they are attractive, meanwhile those with true virtues of personality and intelligence are ignored and tortured, wondering what they ever did wrong (tell me if you've never seen this happen.)

Did sex win America indepence from the British? Or inspire Ghandi and free India? Or help Einstein with his theory of relativity?

When one 'appreciates sex', they become in tune with a thought process that is concerned with outer values, throws morals out the window in favor of what they personally desire (there were sadistic rape-murderers who said they enjoyed every minute of their work), and puts the self above what's good for people. If that's a sense of value, than the ignorant beer guzzling, vulgar, howling unshaven nose picking wife beating construction worker American is the most moral, principaled, and happiest man in existence.

How is sex harmful?
Apaprently it kills brain cells. Keep up with the times, man!

Eating in moderation is not harmful. Sex is.


Sex isn't always harmful, especially in moderation. Its only really harmful when one partner has a disease(and of course when its forced;rape). As increasingly common as it is, I'd agree with others, we should look for ways to fix the diseases, not to ban sex. And sex in moderation is actually healthy for the body. And as for male genitals, when the semen comes out, the urine is blocked away.

Sex is harmful! Dude did you catch your parents doing it or somthing when you were a kid cheese? you seem to be dealing with some issues. or are you saying this just cause you can't get any! :p

It's "Gattaca". That's easy to remember, because it all the letters are abbreviations for nitrogenous bases. These are C, G, A, T (and U). So there isn't an "I".
thanks for the correction. cytocene guanine atanine and thyamine WHOOPEE THE GLORY OF GENETICS AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THEM

ps... how do you insert emoticons into replys? the new forum layout is weird...

Eating in moderation is not harmful. Sex is.

Sex, like eating or drinking is not harmful in the right setting and in the right proportions. Anything is bad for you if you use it dangerously or in too large an alotment--even oxygen can kill you.

How is sex harmful?
To sum up my criticism of sex:
1. It is disgusting to place your genitalia into someone elses; especially considering these genitalia also produce human waste.
2. It is a waste of time and effort. Other means of pleasure can be provided without resorting to such disgusting actions.
3. It is an exchange of bodily fluids.
4. Humanity will someday perfect artificial inseminatio technology, and should not rely on time wasting and disgusting reproduction efforts when that time is reached.
5. Sex causes vast harm to society. It makes some people obsessed with it, and drains their intelligence. It costs people money. (through many ways: prsotitution, contraception, abortion) It overrides their reasoning instincts. And finally, it leads to many accidents, ranging from unwanted pregnancies to sexually transmitted diseases.

Sex, like eating or drinking is not harmful in the right setting and in the right proportions. Anything is bad for you if you use it dangerously or in too large an alotment--even oxygen can kill you.


Thats basically what my dad says when I ask "Is this food 'bad' for you"

Sex in moderation is not harmfull. this is self evident, as all the saints and all the decent people of the world to date have had some exposure to sex, or sexuality.

I'm sure even mother teresa touched herself, at some point.

Bodily fluids, waste or otherwise simply aren't an issue unless your partner has serious personal hygene problems. :)

I forget, due to the amount of people in this thread, but Cheese, were you one of the Sex-fearing virgins from earlier, or another camp? Assuming you haven't infact made love before all i can say is that you are hardly in a position to say if the pleasures in your life can match that of sharing the intamacy of your body with someone you truly care about.

We all know all about boy's locker rooms. Most of that rampant obsession with sex is due to the hormones and the mystery attatched to sex.
And, to be frank, the immaturity of your average 15 year old. Frankly, i fail to see what 15 year olds have to do with the benefits of sex. :p
Exactly. If you really love someone you would trade anything for them. Germophobics will trade germs to be with people they love enough, even. Love is a strong thing. I personally would do anything, disgusting, harmful or otherwise for my fiance.
Agree with the second part also. All of your "pleasures" were nothing compared to it.

thanks for the correction. cytocene guanine atanine and thyamine WHOOPEE THE GLORY OF GENETICS AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THEM
And uracil. The RNA nitrogenous base equivaled of thymine.

Edit:
By the way, they're spelled adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine

by bannind sex u can destroy all life i mean u could have someone else carry the baby but u r saying to bad that as well u need ppl doing it so we can create life and have the future of humanity to keep evoving

"If sex is so perfect and flawless, explain why it's innocent when it..."

I feel obligated to point out that sex doesn't cause any of these things. People, their certain mental disorders, their carelessness and their weakness cause these things, along with influences from modern culture and advertising.

Would you blame the tree if a person fell out of it and was seriously injured?

To sum up my criticism of sex:
1. It is disgusting to place your genitalia into someone elses; especially considering these genitalia also produce human waste.
2. It is a waste of time and effort. Other means of pleasure can be provided without resorting to such disgusting actions.
3. It is an exchange of bodily fluids.
4. Humanity will someday perfect artificial inseminatio technology, and should not rely on time wasting and disgusting reproduction efforts when that time is reached.
5. Sex causes vast harm to society. It makes some people obsessed with it, and drains their intelligence. It costs people money. (through many ways: prsotitution, contraception, abortion) It overrides their reasoning instincts. And finally, it leads to many accidents, ranging from unwanted pregnancies to sexually transmitted diseases.
The only part fo this I agree is a problem is abortion and jazz like that and then disease, both of which are not sex itself. Those problems are not problem of sex, they are problems of their own.

I am not a woman, and I'm far too ambitious anyway.

Ok! Become a Priest, someday you could become Pope. Will that satisfy your ambitions?

Look at all the power the Pope has, all the charitable work he does, all the reading he must do, the food at all those social functions, the luxury of living at the Vatican, and the Pope must be a very creative person. There you go, you have it all in one job. Go for it.

Would you blame the tree if a person fell out of it and was seriously injured?
Yes! Silvicide all the way! Damn those life-giving trees!

Wow, there seems to be quite a one-sided liberal hoarde at work again.

If sex is so perfect and flawless, explain why it's innocent when it:
1. Causes murders (rape, etc.)
2. Can ruin young people's lives (young pregnancies)
3. Tear apart families (same as #2, but when parents find out)
4. Spreads dieseases killing tens of millions (if you've ever been to South Africa and spent 15 minutes observing the lines of sick and dying people, you understand what I mean)
5. Can lead to suicide, depression, and violence
6. necessitates the murdering of unborn children
7. Spreads ignorance, through temptation- advertisements of products, etc. using sex appeal to have us consume their goods.
8. Makes people ignore the truer values of human qualities such as love and compassion. People flock to impress those most ignorant and stupid, so long as they are attractive, meanwhile those with true virtues of personality and intelligence are ignored and tortured, wondering what they ever did wrong (tell me if you've never seen this happen.)


Republicans have caused millions of deaths and murders too. So has eating fatty foods as it clogs our arteries and leads to the number one cause of death in the US. Should we ban these thigns as well?

Sex is like most things, good in moderation, bad when taken to extremes and not something the government has any business regulating beyond making it a crime to have sex when consent is not given.


Did sex win America indepence from the British? Or inspire Ghandi and free India? Or help Einstein with his theory of relativity?


Well, since none of those would've existed without sex, I think I can say yes, sex did help those things to occur.


When one 'appreciates sex', they become in tune with a thought process that is concerned with outer values, throws morals out the window in favor of what they personally desire (there were sadistic rape-murderers who said they enjoyed every minute of their work), and puts the self above what's good for people. If that's a sense of value, than the ignorant beer guzzling, vulgar, howling unshaven nose picking wife beating construction worker American is the most moral, principaled, and happiest man in existence.

Whose morals are thrown out the windows? My morals have no problems with people having sex in the right conditions (those of mutal consent). That doesnt' harm you or anyone. Somehow you equate people who enjoy sex with rapists and murderes and sadists. Not all people who enjoy sex are those things. This seems to be a typical fundamentalist Christian arguement that what people do in their bedrooms is wrong if it is not what you yourself choose to do.

Sex that is consentual harms no one.

"If sex is so perfect and flawless, explain why it's innocent when it..."

I feel obligated to point out that sex doesn't cause any of these things. People, their certain mental disorders, their carelessness and their weakness cause these things.

Would you blame the tree if a person fell out of it and was seriously injured?
Simple logic here: if there were no trees, people wouldn't fall out of them.

Explain to me how my post is inacurrate, or how temptation has never ever led to bad things (sex being the highest form of temptation) and I'll be on your side.

Bunglejinx, my man... a few things. Murderers and rapists usualy had really mind warping things happen to them. second most of the stuff you listed is because people are imiture about it. yws accidents do happen and it can ruin lives. God however has a reason for everything and car accidents can ruin lives to. Trust me... I have one friend crippled in on and onother is dead. is that fair? Probubly not, but it happens for a reason. so quit your bitchen and shut up about it! AND THIRD IF THERE WERE NO TREES THE EARTH WOULD BE COMPLEATLY COVERD IN WATER! ROOTS HOLD DIRT.

"03-12-2004, 2:15 AM
New Anthrus: I've never dated in my life."


Shocking!

*cough* loser *cough*

To sum up my criticism of sex:
5. Sex causes vast harm to society. It makes some people obsessed with it, and drains their intelligence. It costs people money. (through many ways: prsotitution, contraception, abortion) It overrides their reasoning instincts. And finally, it leads to many accidents, ranging from unwanted pregnancies to sexually transmitted diseases.

Major league sports vause vast harm to society. Some people become obsessed with it and it drains their intelligence. It costs people money. (through many ways: tickets, popcorn, betting on games, cable TV) It overrides their reasoning instincts. And finally, it leads to many accidents, ranging from fans throughing things at athletes to increased chance of catching the flu in a crowded stadium.

Sex that is consentual harms no one.

You're trying to change the focus here. We weren't talking just consentual (which has its downsides too, as I have proven). We are talking sex. And about sex being responsible for the revolution, give me a break.

Simple logic here: if there were no trees, people wouldn't fall out of them.

Explain to me how my post is inacurrate, or how temptation has never ever led to bad things (sex being the highest form of temptation) and I'll be on your side.
Temptation can be good, as much as it can be bad. I was TEMPTED to express my love for my fiance and we therefore have a child on the way, which is a good thing. If you don't like that example, I can think of more for you.

Simple logic here: if there were no trees, people wouldn't fall out of them.

Explain to me how my post is inacurrate, or how temptation has never ever led to bad things (sex being the highest form of temptation) and I'll be on your side.


You seem to forget that without trees we would all die. Maybe not now or in the future where they can make oxygen (but as someone said, pure oxygen is deadly) and without the trees to begin with we wouldn't have been alive to learn how to create the oxygen. Or are you suggesting we should all live off some other gas?

If your objecting to sex wouldn't you be objecting to your own existance? (Unless you were conceived in a testube) and even then you indirectly came from the genitalia of another...

Major league sports vause vast harm to society. Some people become obsessed with it and it drains their intelligence. It costs people money. (through many ways: tickets, popcorn, betting on games, cable TV) It overrides their reasoning instincts. And finally, it leads to many accidents, ranging from fans throughing things at athletes to increased chance of catching the flu in a crowded stadium.
Thats a good point

Ok! Become a Priest, someday you could become Pope. Will that satisfy your ambitions?

Look at all the power the Pope has, all the charitable work he does, all the reading he must do, the food at all those social functions, the luxury of living at the Vatican, and the Pope must be a very creative person. There you go, you have it all in one job. Go for it.

Nah, the Pope has no military power. Besides, I doubt they would accept someone as violent and controversial as me. The Pope has to be calm ad uncontroversial; I'm too much of a firebrand. Geez, I tried to leave, thinking this topic is dead, but it seems to keep on drawing me in.

And uracil. The RNA nitrogenous base equivaled of thymine.

Edit:
By the way, they're spelled adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine

noted. alright i give up i'm never going to be a biologist and i took bio three years ago anyway i'll shut up now.

seriously, though, I pose the question to the would-be-banners-of-sex whether you are only against the physical act of heterosexual intecourse, or are you including everything falling under the category of foreplay?

And about sex being responsible for the revolution, give me a break.
Sex is responsible for anything dealing with humans. There would be no humans without sex. We are far too complex for asexual reproduction.

Simple logic here: if there were no trees, people wouldn't fall out of them.

Explain to me how my post is inacurrate, or how temptation has never ever led to bad things (sex being the highest form of temptation) and I'll be on your side.

Everything is a temptation from watching TV, to eating, to playing with your children. Shoudlw e ban everything that someone could potentially abuse or spend too much time doing? If you say yes, I hate to break it to you that you should immediately cease breathing.

Simple logic here: if there were no trees, people wouldn't fall out of them.

Explain to me how my post is inacurrate, or how temptation has never ever led to bad things (sex being the highest form of temptation) and I'll be on your side.

Well, for a start, if we had no tree's we'd be very short on oxygen. ;)

Temptation can and does lead to bad things. Sometimes it can lead to good things. Strength of character would be to recognise when it would be bad, and resist the urge. You can blame temptation as much as you want, but it's people that give in to temptation in the end. They're the cause of these bad things, not the object itself.

The need to procreate is next to fear as the most evil of the primative human instincts, and is, indeed, the most basic instinct. I say we enforce a worldwide ban on all sex, and reproduce using artificial semination only.
Sorry but no, I'll do what I please, be it primitive or not you big brother loving rights killer!
Oh yeah by the way :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

I think I'll stick to jogging. Less chance of contracting diseases and creating children I'm not ready to support.

oh the wit! i love it!



btw, my views on sex:

God given... yes,

way to enjoy ourselves... yes

within marriage... preferable (its a very special thing u know!)

to be abused by people just wanting to have fun.... you see thats where all the problems come from!! ah!!! enlightenment

Thats a good point

You do realize that I was employing satire I hope?

Bunglejinx, my man... a few things. Murderers and rapists usualy had really mind warping things happen to them. second most of the stuff you listed is because people are imiture about it. yws accidents do happen and it can ruin lives. God however has a reason for everything and car accidents can ruin lives to. Trust me... I have one friend crippled in on and onother is dead. is that fair? Probubly not, but it happens for a reason. so quit your bitchen and shut up about it!

Rapists and murders are simply those that appreciate sex and let the temptation overwhelm them so that they'll do bad things for it. And don't put words in my mouth, please. I'm not saying that all the sex-is-perfect paraders on this forum are sex offenders or want to be (although deep down, their startling rush to defend sex is suggestive.)

I was simply using it to illustrate a point. It's temptation, and to every degree which you are tempted, you are sacrificing your true values. The more you are tempted, the more wreckless you are. What about my construction worker example? The one who appreciates sex more than anyone. Is he moral? Does he have a good sense of value?

Well, you should be referring to banner of sex, in the singular form. I'm one against many. Anyway, I would ban anything falling under the banner of sexual interaction. Homo, hetero, bi, and mono sexual experiences would be thrown out of the window.

You do realize that I was employing satire I hope?
yes, exactly what I was commenting on

The need to procreate is next to fear as the most evil of the primative human instincts, and is, indeed, the most basic instinct. I say we enforce a worldwide ban on all sex, and reproduce using artificial semination only.

Sounds like someone's having trouble getting laid.

Well, you should be referring to banner of sex, in the singular form. I'm one against many. Anyway, I would ban anything falling under the banner of sexual interaction. Homo, hetero, bi, and mono sexual experiences would be thrown out of the window.
Please, "uni". "Homo" is bad enough, seeming as it is derived from the Greek homos, "same", and "sex" is derived from the Latin sexus, bastardising the word. In Latin, homo means "man". "Bi-" is a Latin prefix so it's fine. And "hetero-" is both Latin and Greek.

Sounds like someone's having trouble getting laid.
We've already told them how pathetic it is that they don't date and are talking abou tsex thoguh they've never experiences it.

Please, "uni". "Homo" is bad enough, seeming as it is derived from the Greek homos, "same", and "sex" is derived from the Latin sexus, bastardising the word. In Latin, homo means "man". "Bi-" is a Latin prefix so it's fine. And "hetero-" is both Latin and Greek.
If you don't mind, I'm going to post a good quote about this, brb

Sounds like someone's having trouble getting laid.
The number of times that has been said on this forum=2376
the number of times some one has come up with something original=17

The number of times that has been said on this forum=2376
the number of times some one has come up with something original=17

You know, if quite a large number of people have said that, then maybe you should consider the possibility that it is the truth.

I believe that it is possible in this age of technology.


O.K. so if I read this properly.....either you hope to have sex with machines and not people eventually? Or, you're hoping a large ANTI-sex robot rips out your reproductive organs, thereby eliminating your desire to have sex? You really think this will catch on eh?

"I'd rather be thought of as someone quite sensitive who could understand women in a way that wasn't really sexual. I hate men who can only see women in a sexual way - to me that's criminal and I want to change that. I don't recognise such terms as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual and I think it's important that there's someone in pop music who's like that. These words do great damage, they confuse people and they make people feel unhappy so I want to do away with them."

The number of times that has been said on this forum=2376
the number of times some one has come up with something original=17

Its not because people are intentionally copying each other, its that they are typing the same thing at the same time or haven't read the previous posts- which I don't blame them because 39 pages of posting is ALOT to read.

You know, if quite a large number of people have said that, then maybe you should consider the possibility that it is the truth.
If you read you would already know it's true, because they have already admitted it

O.K. so if I read this properly.....either you hope to have sex with machines and not people eventually? Or, you're hoping a large ANTI-sex robot rips out your reproductive organs, thereby eliminating your desire to have sex? You really think this will catch on eh?
Well, in his defence, in vitro fertalisation could most likely be developed to a fully functional point, and neutering people is very easy. For a doctor to physically do, that is.

Well, you should be referring to banner of sex, in the singular form. I'm one against many. Anyway, I would ban anything falling under the banner of sexual interaction. Homo, hetero, bi, and mono sexual experiences would be thrown out of the window.
I hate to break it to you, but pretty much all of your physical-related arguments (disease, unwanted pregnancy, the like) are almost entirely the result of intercourse, except for some diseases which are transmissible by touch (like herpes). The rest are results of problems other than sex, i.e. power obsessions, poverty, and all sorts of other fun things (I'm not saying deseases result from sex, but they are unfortunately spread by it). everything else is perfectly fine (assuming it's consentualy) and banning it would take away one of the biggest reasons for being alive, imho.

Its not because people are intentionally copying each other, its that they are typing the same thing at the same time or haven't read the previous posts- which I don't blame them because 39 pages of posting is ALOT to read.
I know, but considering how many pages it has, and how it is such a controversial sunject they might consider that it has been said, I would

Everything is a temptation from watching TV, to eating, to playing with your children. Shoudlw e ban everything that someone could potentially abuse or spend too much time doing? If you say yes, I hate to break it to you that you should immediately cease breathing.

First off I apologize if I can't get to all these posts, this forum moves quick.

But I want to point out, it is startling here that you are saying everything is temptation. This demonstrates exactly what I am talking about. That's a perfect example of my construction worker man, where nothing is seen but personal values, whether right or wrong.

No, we shouldn't ban everything that could potentially be abused, I never was saying that. But there are specific things which ingrain in people a system of value which cares more for the ride of the moment than what is actually right. It's a perfect example of what is wrong with Americans. We criticize our society for being lazy and inconsiderate, and refuse to acknowledge that the reason we are an ignorant and inconsiderate society is because we've built up these values that are more important than everything else.

What else is sex more important than? Would you kill someone to keep the act of sex? Would you kill a thousand people? Would you torture someone? The terrifying thing here is, some of you are going to say yes.

Every bad thing wasn't done just to be bad. All bad is motivated by a beleif that there is benefit in it, and as long as we keep beleiving there are things that are 100% good we'll keep wondering why there are so many bad people in the world.

"I'd rather be thought of as someone quite sensitive who could understand women in a way that wasn't really sexual. I hate men who can only see women in a sexual way - to me that's criminal and I want to change that. I don't recognise such terms as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual and I think it's important that there's someone in pop music who's like that. These words do great damage, they confuse people and they make people feel unhappy so I want to do away with them."
Morrissey was a whiney pain in the ass dude.

ps... how do you insert emoticons into replys? the new forum layout is weird...

I went here http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/misc.php?s=&action=faq and printed out the page. :fluffle:

Well, in his defence, in vitro fertalisation could most likely be developed to a fully functional point, and neutering people is very easy. For a doctor to physically do, that is.
that wouldnt solve anything, it would make ppl more violent. by studying animals, when they are neutered they become more sexually active and also more violent because of their lacking.

I know, but considering how many pages it has, and how it is such a controversial sunject they might consider that it has been said, I would


Yes, but they've got no way to know for sure unless they read it all or post it.

Oh, and btw, I love your 'location'...lol

i don't think you should ban sex, i mean if you do and do the invitro fertilization, then this whole world is going to be made up of test tube babies. who wants to be a test tube baby? if you ask me, nature made it possible for us to have sex, and its a good thing to have legal, if you ban it and have all these scientists artificially insemendated, then your only giving these clinics huge amounts of money, and who wants to pay to have this done? don't the people already pay enough as is? you also give the whole scientific world a large amount of control

With all this talk about banning sex, I wonder if the original poster would be amiable to a different approach: a well-funded, comprehensive awareness education system that taught everybody the dangers of unprotected sex, greatly reducing the risk of STD's unwanted pregnancies and abortions and general maturing of the population in terms of tolerating differences in sexual orientation and in terms of responsibility when engaging in sexual relations.

Since banning sex will most likely increase the amount of rape and sex-related murder, would the above not be a better over-all solution? Or am I missing a vital part of the original argument here?

Morrissey was a whiney pain in the ass dude.
Are you kidding me?! That's just about the biggest insult someone can say to me. A whiney pain in the ass? A whiney pain in the ass?! and also WAS? He's still alive and kickin' in case you haven't noticed.

Wow, there seems to be quite a one-sided liberal hoarde at work again.

If sex is so perfect and flawless, explain why it's innocent when it:
1. Causes murders (rape, etc.)
2. Can ruin young people's lives (young pregnancies)
3. Tear apart families (same as #2, but when parents find out)
4. Spreads dieseases killing tens of millions (if you've ever been to South Africa and spent 15 minutes observing the lines of sick and dying people, you understand what I mean)
5. Can lead to suicide, depression, and violence
6. necessitates the murdering of unborn children
7. Spreads ignorance, through temptation- advertisements of products, etc. using sex appeal to have us consume their goods.
8. Makes people ignore the truer values of human qualities such as love and compassion. People flock to impress those most ignorant and stupid, so long as they are attractive, meanwhile those with true virtues of personality and intelligence are ignored and tortured, wondering what they ever did wrong (tell me if you've never seen this happen.)

Did sex win America indepence from the British? Or inspire Ghandi and free India? Or help Einstein with his theory of relativity?

When one 'appreciates sex', they become in tune with a thought process that is concerned with outer values, throws morals out the window in favor of what they personally desire (there were sadistic rape-murderers who said they enjoyed every minute of their work), and puts the self above what's good for people. If that's a sense of value, than the ignorant beer guzzling, vulgar, howling unshaven nose picking wife beating construction worker American is the most moral, principaled, and happiest man in existence.

1. Sex does not cause murder, it may well be involved, such as in cases of unfaithfullness, but the problem in cases such as that are betrayal, and so on, not the sex.

2. Sex doesn't ruin young peoples lives, mistakes do. Ie, not taking precautions, choosing your partner poorly, etc

3. Sex does not tear families apart. Choice of partner, lack of responsibility (ie, having sex underage, which is of course illegal)

4. Yes, Sex can spread disease. STD's are best compared to Virus's (in the computer sense). Email, the Web, etc, can all help to transmit many nasty infections between computers. However, the computers are not the problem, and neither are Email's, or the Web. Stopping Email and the Web altogether would help to curb virus's, but not completely. Also, No-one is sensibly claiming that banning email and the internet is a desirable thing.
The key is to take the proper precautions, instal an antivirus programme, run a firewall, and wear a condom.

5. this is a new one on me. I fail to see how sex can directly lead to suicide or depression. A lack of, perhaps, could lead to feelings of inadequasy, which could spiral. Bad experiences involving sex could possibly also cause problems, but then bad experiences happen in every field of life.
Sex doesn't cause violence, hate and ignorance does.

6.Sex does not necessitate the murder of anyone, not even unborn children. This is what contraceptives are for, and no-one ever said that abortion is, or ever should be compulsary. Even unwanted pregnancies result in loved children.

7. Spreads ignorance? i'm sorry, but that is ridiculous. Sex can be used as a tool to exploit the ignorant, such as with sleazy advertising, etc, but sex does not cause ignorance.

8. Sex makes us ignore love and compation? Sex is the ultimate EXPRESSION of love, and compation.
These last two complaints seem more suitably targeted to Mass media, and avertising than Sex, i really don't see how sex has anything to do with them. :P

Sex is not about personal pleasure. if personal pleasure was all that was important, then i'd simply Wank. Sex, and Making Love, is about sharing pleasure, and is a much more complex matter than simply inserting genitalia.

Yes, but they've got no way to know for sure unless they read it all or post it.

Oh, and btw, I love your 'location'...lol
they just need to read the first and last two pages
Thanks

that wouldnt solve anything, it would make ppl more violent. by studying animals, when they are neutered they become more sexually active and also more violent because of their lacking.

Thats not true, not if they are neutered at the right time, if they are neutered to late then yes it is true, but otherwise it has much the opposite effect. I have seen feral (unhandleable) cats become tame after being neutered

Are you kidding me?! That's just about the biggest insult someone can say to me. A whiney pain in the ass? A whiney pain in the ass?! and also WAS? He's still alive and kickin' in case you haven't noticed.
Your right, he IS a whiney pain in the ass. ;)

Sex is responsible for anything dealing with humans. There would be no humans without sex. We are far too complex for asexual reproduction.

Completley beside the point. We aren't talking the technical terms here. We're talking about more than the physical act. We're talking what it implies about our values and us as people, and where and what, philosophically or otherwise it has done for us that is good. Immanuel Kant is one of the greatest philosophers ever to exist, and forever changed the world. He had contributions to make to the world, lives to change, mysteries to unravel. Maybe it's only that geniuses understand what is truly great, and pursue it. Maybe it's that we keep pursuing irrelevant indulgencies that keep us from ever realizing what we as humans are really capable of through compassion, and intellegence if we let ourselves realize it. Immanuel Kant died a virgin, for your information.

That's the damage. That's what I'm talking about. We could be contributing to the world. We could be making something of our lives, making a difference. If we had our head out of the gutters and up at the stars (and it sickens me to think that we are 'in the stars' or some other emotional phrase relating to it, and we tie such ideas to sex and not real acts of virtue) we could change to world in ways beyond what we can currently imagine.,

Rapists and murders are simply those that appreciate sex and let the temptation overwhelm them so that they'll do bad things for it. And don't put words in my mouth, please. I'm not saying that all the sex-is-perfect paraders on this forum are sex offenders or want to be (although deep down, their startling rush to defend sex is suggestive.)

I was simply using it to illustrate a point. It's temptation, and to every degree which you are tempted, you are sacrificing your true values. The more you are tempted, the more wreckless you are. What about my construction worker example? The one who appreciates sex more than anyone. Is he moral? Does he have a good sense of value?

Probubly not. but thats not what I'm talking about. I already said that bad things happen if your imiture about it.
Well, you should be referring to banner of sex, in the singular form. I'm one against many. Anyway, I would ban anything falling under the banner of sexual interaction. Homo, hetero, bi, and mono sexual experiences would be thrown out of the window.

you must be one lonly loser. you dare ban what god created? I'm sure he didn't just make it so we would have temptation. Belive what you want I don't have to belive what you belive, and trust me... I won't.

Sex is not about personal pleasure. if personal pleasure was all that was important, then i'd simply Wank. Sex, and Making Love, is about sharing pleasure, and is a much more complex matter than simply inserting genitalia.
Not that you don't of course... *lol*

that wouldnt solve anything, it would make ppl more violent. by studying animals, when they are neutered they become more sexually active and also more violent because of their lacking.
Oh, I'm not saying that I support it, just saying that it probably will become possible to do. And my dog has been less violent (not that he was all that violent before) after he was neutered. I think that humans would be more violent, probably , if they couldn't release stress and anxiety through sexual means, but it doesn't seem to be true with dogs, at least.

Completley beside the point. We aren't talking the technical terms here. We're talking about more than the physical act. We're talking what it implies about our values and us as people, and where and what, philosophically or otherwise it has done for us that is good. Immanuel Kant is one of the greatest philosophers ever to exist, and forever changed the world. He had contributions to make to the world, lives to change, mysteries to unravel. Maybe it's only that geniuses understand what is truly great, and pursue it. Maybe it's that we keep pursuing irrelevant indulgencies that keep us from ever realizing what we as humans are really capable of through compassion, and intellegence if we let ourselves realize it. Immanuel Kant died a virgin, for your information.

That's the damage. That's what I'm talking about. We could be contributing to the world. We could be making something of our lives, making a difference. If we had our head out of the gutters and up at the stars (and it sickens me to think that we are 'in the stars' or some other emotional phrase relating to it, and we tie such ideas to sex and not real acts of virtue) we could change to world in ways beyond what we can currently imagine.,

Right. Immanuel Kant died a virgin. okay.

So, you know for sure whether or not he ever wanked, right? :) Because it's all part of the same issue. Everyone is sexual, everyone has sexual feelings. doesn't hurt any, on it's own.

Well, at least if we banned sex and only used artificial insemination we could keep the really stupid people from procreating. ;)

And while sex can be a little "dangerous" - given all the possible emotional and physical consequences - banning it wouldn't do anybody any good. An uprising would insue. "Bring back the SEX!" would be the cry of the masses. :fluffle: The whole situation would make for some interesting documentaries, though... following the lives of the sexually repressed housewives, congressmen, hip-hop stars, college students... :D haha.
Sex is more beneficial than harmful, IMO.

I vote no.

Your right, he IS a whiney pain in the ass. ;)
He IS one of the musical and lyrical genuises of the modern word. He IS intelligent and not afraid of satire. I'll continue in a second...
I will give you some credit for knowing it was him and who he is, though.

Oh, I'm not saying that I support it, just saying that it probably will become possible to do. And my dog has been less violent (not that he was all that violent before) after he was neutered. I think that humans would be more violent, probably , if they couldn't release stress and anxiety through sexual means, but it doesn't seem to be true with dogs, at least.
I have volunteered at a veterinary since I was 12 (i'm 17 now) and that is almost always the case. with the exception of mental illness

Your right, he IS a whiney pain in the ass. ;)
So far from the truth... He's probably the celebrity that I respect most as a person with values and thoughts all of his own.

Completley beside the point. We aren't talking the technical terms here. We're talking about more than the physical act. We're talking what it implies about our values and us as people, and where and what, philosophically or otherwise it has done for us that is good. Immanuel Kant is one of the greatest philosophers ever to exist, and forever changed the world. He had contributions to make to the world, lives to change, mysteries to unravel. Maybe it's only that geniuses understand what is truly great, and pursue it. Maybe it's that we keep pursuing irrelevant indulgencies that keep us from ever realizing what we as humans are really capable of through compassion, and intellegence if we let ourselves realize it. Immanuel Kant died a virgin, for your information.

That's the damage. That's what I'm talking about. We could be contributing to the world. We could be making something of our lives, making a difference. If we had our head out of the gutters and up at the stars (and it sickens me to think that we are 'in the stars' or some other emotional phrase relating to it, and we tie such ideas to sex and not real acts of virtue) we could change to world in ways beyond what we can currently imagine.,

first, would you happen to know a vulgar, whiny completely one sided little bitch named Dom Deluca, cause you sound just like him. you both are being completely blind to the other side of the arguement. Think of the other great phiosiphers we could have had if he hadn't died a virgin.

I guess the Morrissey hating chick (maybe it was a guy, I don't remember ever finding out) left...

Or are you suggesting we should all live off some other gas?

Nitrous oxide anyone? :) :) :) :)

... if you ban your own sex life. That may be even the best in this case. ;-)

Wine, good food and better sex instead of none. *g*

Munschjap is the state for all of this.

ban sex???
ban this: :sniper: :gundge: :mp5: :upyours:
not this: :fluffle: :)

Nitrous oxide anyone? :) :) :) :)
we should end on this line. everyone here needs a good laugh. :p

1. Sex does not cause murder, it may well be involved, such as in cases of unfaithfullness, but the problem in cases such as that are betrayal, and so on, not the sex.

2. Sex doesn't ruin young peoples lives, mistakes do. Ie, not taking precautions, choosing your partner poorly, etc

3. Sex does not tear families apart. Choice of partner, lack of responsibility (ie, having sex underage, which is of course illegal)

4. Yes, Sex can spread disease. STD's are best compared to Virus's (in the computer sense). Email, the Web, etc, can all help to transmit many nasty infections between computers. However, the computers are not the problem, and neither are Email's, or the Web. Stopping Email and the Web altogether would help to curb virus's, but not completely. Also, No-one is sensibly claiming that banning email and the internet is a desirable thing.
The key is to take the proper precautions, instal an antivirus programme, run a firewall, and wear a condom.

5. this is a new one on me. I fail to see how sex can directly lead to suicide or depression. A lack of, perhaps, could lead to feelings of inadequasy, which could spiral. Bad experiences involving sex could possibly also cause problems, but then bad experiences happen in every field of life.
Sex doesn't cause violence, hate and ignorance does.

6.Sex does not necessitate the murder of anyone, not even unborn children. This is what contraceptives are for, and no-one ever said that abortion is, or ever should be compulsary. Even unwanted pregnancies result in loved children.

7. Spreads ignorance? i'm sorry, but that is ridiculous. Sex can be used as a tool to exploit the ignorant, such as with sleazy advertising, etc, but sex does not cause ignorance.

8. Sex makes us ignore love and compation? Sex is the ultimate EXPRESSION of love, and compation.
These last two complaints seem more suitably targeted to Mass media, and avertising than Sex, i really don't see how sex has anything to do with them. :P

Sex is not about personal pleasure. if personal pleasure was all that was important, then i'd simply Wank. Sex, and Making Love, is about sharing pleasure, and is a much more complex matter than simply inserting genitalia.

1. You know what I'm saying. Sex is completly an element of it, that if, removed, would have prevented it.
2. You mean it never happens to perfectly responsible people? God makes those who fall to temptation feel the wrongdoing of their act, no matter who they choose.
3. If you are saying personal responsibility was in no way influenced by sex, I can't take that seriously.
4. That's quite a loaded and particular defense, when we were first talking about sex on all terms. The case is starting to crack open. First we were saying it's all good. And then, 'oh, in this and this instance it's bad' and now we have several requirements and the like which we need to just to justify its act.
5. I do mean lack of sex. Again its the temptation, and this ties back in with #1. I used to be a secretary for a special-victims unit back in Sacremento. And most of the offenders WERE depraved. "it's not sex it's mental illness" you say? What caused this 'illness', this strange way of behaving? Depravity.
6. You're avoiding my point. I'm talking about abortion. People murder their children (I don't remember which, but 1/3 of one of the younger generations has been murdered.) as a way of trying to get around the fact that they were doing wrong.
7. Yes spreads ignorants, and this is most important of all. The construction worker, remember? He appreciates sex more than anyone. And he learns that that is the way things are supposed to be valued. All that matters is what happens to me. I get what I want. And a whole entire system of values, morality, and ignorance comes out of it.
8. Again, my point stands. People with actual qualities of heart, compassion, and intelligence will never be noticed if there isn't some level of sexuality in them

If your objecting to sex wouldn't you be objecting to your own existance? (Unless you were conceived in a testube) and even then you indirectly came from the genitalia of another...

If your objecting to sex wouldn't you be objecting to your own existance? (Unless you were conceived in a testube) and even then you indirectly came from the genitalia of another...
You've already said that!

we should end on this line. everyone here needs a good laugh. :p
Perhaps we would all laugh if we had that?

Rapists and murders are simply those that appreciate sex and let the temptation overwhelm them so that they'll do bad things for it.

Rape is not about sex, it is about power. :headbang:

Rape is not about sex, it is about power. :headbang:
Not always, but I know what you're getting at, generally it is.

Not always, but I know what you're getting at, generally it is.
only about 1% of the time

You've already said that!

I thought it was worth saying twice

Right. Immanuel Kant died a virgin. okay.

So, you know for sure whether or not he ever wanked, right? :) Because it's all part of the same issue. Everyone is sexual, everyone has sexual feelings. doesn't hurt any, on it's own.

Honestly, he did. And while we're on the subject, Da Vinci as well was known for being disgusted by sex (read: Leonardo Da Vinci and a Memory of His Childhood, Freud).

And Plato? If you've read some of his works, they as well warn severly against temptation. For example:

Plato on Guardians (Politicians):

[The Guardians] alone, therefore, of all the citizens are
forbidden to touch or handle silver or gold; they must not
come under the same roof as them, nor wear them as ornaments,
nor drink from vessels made of them. Upon this their safety
and that of the state depends. If they acquire private
property in land, houses, or money, they will become farmers
and men of business instead of Guardians, and harsh tyrants
instead of partners in their dealings with their fellow
citizens, with whom they will live on terms of mutual hatred
and suspicion; they will be more afraid of internal revolt
than external attack, and be heading fast for destruction that
overwhelm themselves and the whole community.

Well, you should be referring to banner of sex, in the singular form. I'm one against many. Anyway, I would ban anything falling under the banner of sexual interaction. Homo, hetero, bi, and mono sexual experiences would be thrown out of the window.

What? No more taking problem in hand and cumming up with a solution? I this this "bodily fluids" again? Hell, that sounds like Col. Jack Ripper in the movie Dr. Strangeglove.

Honestly, he did. And while we're on the subject, Da Vinci as well was known for being disgusted by sex (read: Leonardo Da Vinci and a Memory of His Childhood, Freud).

And Plato? If you've read some of his works, they as well warn severly against temptation. For example:

What about the parents of these people? :)

What? No more taking problem in hand and cumming up with a solution? I this this "bodily fluids" again? Hell, that sounds like Col. Jack Ripper in the movie Dr. Strangeglove.
Wow, talk about a pun

The need to procreate is next to fear as the most evil of the primative human instincts, and is, indeed, the most basic instinct. I say we enforce a worldwide ban on all sex, and reproduce using artificial semination only.


NOOOO! ANYTHING BUT THAT! PLEASE GOD NO!

NOOOO! ANYTHING BUT THAT! PLEASE GOD NO!
how about you get castrated, thats anything but but banning sex

What? No more taking problem in hand and cumming up with a solution? I this this "bodily fluids" again? Hell, that sounds like Col. Jack Ripper in the movie Dr. Strangeglove.
I used the cumming joke earlier.

Not always, but I know what you're getting at, generally it is.

That's a bit closer to the truth. It is a mixture of temptations rolled into one dangerous, violent mixture. If it's simply about power it could be many other acts besides sex, and I do agree that power is a big part of it, but so is sexual temptation. Is the fact that attractive blue eyed blondes weighing 110 are 40+% of the victims a coincidence?

I used the cumming joke earlier.
I saw that but it wasn't as good

What about the parents of these people? :)

The parents themselves were poor, unsuccessful people, and had little to do with Da Vinci's success in life, which illustrates my point.

That's a bit closer to the truth. It is a mixture of temptations rolled into one dangerous, violent mixture. If it's simply about power it could be many other acts besides sex, and I do agree that power is a big part of it, but so is sexual temptation. Is the fact that attractive blue eyed blondes weighing 110 are 40+% of the victims a coincidence?
that stat was totally made up, they are almost never the victim

I saw that but it wasn't as good
Thanks... Whatever. Mine was less joke-like and more critisizing.

The parents themselves were poor, unsuccessful people, and had little to do with Da Vinci's success in life, which illustrates my point.

No, it doesn't. Da Vinci didn't just appear out of thin air. He was a product of sexual interaction. One that would most likely not have occured if his two poor, unsuccessful parents didn't concieve him with each other. I could spin that argument a little further and say that all the genius in the world is the product of centuries of sex.

Honestly, he did. And while we're on the subject, Da Vinci as well was known for being disgusted by sex (read: Leonardo Da Vinci and a Memory of His Childhood, Freud).

And Plato? If you've read some of his works, they as well warn severly against temptation. For example:

Plato on Guardians (Politicians):

[The Guardians] alone, therefore, of all the citizens are
forbidden to touch or handle silver or gold; they must not
come under the same roof as them, nor wear them as ornaments,
nor drink from vessels made of them. Upon this their safety
and that of the state depends. If they acquire private
property in land, houses, or money, they will become farmers
and men of business instead of Guardians, and harsh tyrants
instead of partners in their dealings with their fellow
citizens, with whom they will live on terms of mutual hatred
and suspicion; they will be more afraid of internal revolt
than external attack, and be heading fast for destruction that
overwhelm themselves and the whole community.
First off, why are we talking about philosiphers. Just cause they're virgins? they're dead. they didn't like sex, they didn't have it. good for them. are you them? No, you are not. why do you hate it? cause you think its imoral. well some is, some isn't. get over it. nothing is black and white. there is a grey area and thats where most things are. now i have to go. but think that over.

First off, why are we talking about philosiphers. Just cause they're virgins? they're dead. they didn't like sex, they didn't have it. good for them. are you them? No, you are not. why do you hate it? cause you think its imoral. well some is, some isn't. get over it. nothing is black and white. there is a grey area and thats where most things are. now i have to go. but think that over.
I didn't understand that, either...

that stat was totally made up, they are almost never the victim
and 77% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

that stat was totally made up, they are almost never the victim

Actually where I worked at least (Sacremento), it was around that.

and 77% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
I thought it was 53%

and 77% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
lol

I've never dated in my life.

how old are you 1?!?!?!/

No, it doesn't. Da Vinci didn't just appear out of thin air. He was a product of sexual interaction. One that would most likely not have occured if his two poor, unsuccessful parents didn't concieve him with each other. I could spin that argument a little further and say that all the genius in the world is the product of centuries of sex.

Again we stray from the actual points to try and talk about the literal terms which have little to do with da vinci's inspiration for flying machines, or 3d landscape drawing. But if we must: if their parents had a vision and true understanding of life, humanity, and what humans are capable of they themselves could have been the da vinci's. But that they would create him is an example of their misaligned values, and thus they wouldn't be capable of realizing any worthy contribution to humanity.

So, like, we implant a minature camera into the tip of each man's penis so we can instantly know when he is in danger of copulating. Then we push a button and blow his dick off. Or, do you have any better ideas on how to enforce this remarkably stupid proposal??

I am not obsessed with sex, but reading all this has made me very horney. I think I'll sign off and find some sex around here. Here kitty, kitty, kitty! :p

well this is going off topic faster than when my parents leave parent teacher night.

anywho ijran has a say in this and here whats what.

Sex, is not always a good thing but without it our world would be deprived of new life, why ban sex? how will new babies be born? the stork? santa? Seriously sex being banned is probably the worst idea since roll on eyebrows

Again we stray from the actual points to try and talk about the literal terms which have little to do with da vinci's inspiration for flying machines, or 3d landscape drawing. But if we must: if their parents had a vision and true understanding of life, humanity, and what humans are capable of they themselves could have been the da vinci's. But that they would create him is an example of their misaligned values, and thus they wouldn't be capable of realizing any worthy contribution to humanity.
i don't get it. I think you might have made some typos...

All i have to say is that it'll never happen. Unless everything dies.

Well, God also made us able to go to hell. He made us imperfect for a reason, and that was to see what humanity could overcome. Sex is a major one. He knows we'll overcome it, and it'll begin in my lifetime.

But sex can't be a sin. If sex was banned worldwide, then there would be no natural reproduction. I, for one, think that artificial insemination is wrong. It would be sad to find out that you were a tesat tube baby because people think that sex is one of humanities imperfections.

I am not obsessed with sex, but reading all this has made me very horney. I think I'll sign off and find some sex around here. Here kitty, kitty, kitty! :p
I hope its only a shaved cat you seek, cause that could turn out messy :eek:

If you don't want sex, that is your choice. :gundge: If you want sex, that is your and consentioning adult's sole decision too. :fluffle:


Would be an assult on your freedom to say otherwise.

1. You know what I'm saying. Sex is completly an element of it, that if, removed, would have prevented it.
2. You mean it never happens to perfectly responsible people? God makes those who fall to temptation feel the wrongdoing of their act, no matter who they choose.
3. If you are saying personal responsibility was in no way influenced by sex, I can't take that seriously.
4. That's quite a loaded and particular defense, when we were first talking about sex on all terms. The case is starting to crack open. First we were saying it's all good. And then, 'oh, in this and this instance it's bad' and now we have several requirements and the like which we need to just to justify its act.
5. I do mean lack of sex. Again its the temptation, and this ties back in with #1. I used to be a secretary for a special-victims unit back in Sacremento. And most of the offenders WERE depraved. "it's not sex it's mental illness" you say? What caused this 'illness', this strange way of behaving? Depravity.
6. You're avoiding my point. I'm talking about abortion. People murder their children (I don't remember which, but 1/3 of one of the younger generations has been murdered.) as a way of trying to get around the fact that they were doing wrong.
7. Yes spreads ignorants, and this is most important of all. The construction worker, remember? He appreciates sex more than anyone. And he learns that that is the way things are supposed to be valued. All that matters is what happens to me. I get what I want. And a whole entire system of values, morality, and ignorance comes out of it.
8. Again, my point stands. People with actual qualities of heart, compassion, and intelligence will never be noticed if there isn't some level of sexuality in them

1. people will kill over anything, given the right circumstances. Sex does not cause murder, even when murder has something to do with sex.
In my opinion, anyway. :)
2. It isn't the sex that ruins these young peoples lives,in many cases it's the fall-out. It's people's reaction to them, being judgemental or seeking to punish them for it. Sex isn't bad simply because some people who aren't ready for it make a mistake. the problem there, is ignorance. the kind of ignorance you get from fearing sex, and trying to preach abstinence not only over any other method of safety, but also simply refusing to teach the other methods.
3. People are influenced by lots of things. Is the diamond responsible for being stolen, on account of it being too sparkly?
4. Sexualy transmitted diseases are a genuine problem, it's true. what i was saying is, it's not a sensible conclusion to therefor say that sex is inherantly wrong. Sex is not something to be treated lightly, even between two consenting adults. Proper awareness of contraceptives and, where apropriate, measures to limit the chances of exposure to STD's is essential.
I fail to see where saying Sex is a good thing, and that one must be responsible about it, contradict each other.
5. Your fifth point still confuses me. So, you are saying that sex is bad, because it causes rape, and rape victims get depressed and commit suicide, and that also Sex causes mental illness?
Okay.
O_o.
Firstly, Rape has nothing to do with sex, it's an act of agression and possesiveness.
Mental illness is not cause by "Depravity". Mental illnesses are just that, illnesses of the brain, whether genetic flukes, the tragic result of abuse, or whatever.

6. Abortion, i know what you're talking about. But you claimed that Sex made Abortion necessary. It doesn't. Some women decide that it is an option for them, based on personal situation and beliefs. I support their right to choose, even if i would usually disagree with their choice.
Sex does not cause abortion simply because abortion has a relationship with sex. There are plenty of alternatives, such as adoption or simply having the child, and caring for it as your own.

This thread is not about Abortion, this is about Sex itself.

7. I disagree with your opinion on this, and frankly that is all it is. Sex does not, in my own opinion, spread ignorance. Ignorance, Ie, the lack of knoledge (or not valueing knoledge, however you want to define it) is not sexually transmitted.

8. Yeah, cause no-one pays any attention to that Steven Hawkins guy. Yeah, i can't think of a single person i respect who doesn't have really i hot tits, like that Richard Branson Chick. Man, is she fine.

Nitrous oxide anyone? :) :) :) :)
Sulphur and carbon and hydrogen sulphide and lime

Would this ban include masterbation? I am not hurting anyone else when I do. Unless you count the woman in shackles, getting spanked by my wife.

Sulphur and carbon and hydrogen sulphide and lime
But if done wrong, can turn out very bad

I have to be honest that 1984 was part of my inspiration, if only because that anti sex league had cool sashes. But think about it: isn't sex primative? Do we ever want to move away from the primative?

No. That's a... tradition that we should always keep.

Would this ban include masterbation? I am not hurting anyone else when I do. Unless you count the woman in shackles, getting spanked by my wife.
and you sound like a boy who hit puberty about 20 minutes ago

except that he implied he has a wife. Which would mean he hit puberty pretty late on.


:D

There are 4 reasons I am against banning sex.

Firstly, we have a large enough problem with prostitution as it is. Banning sex would multiply that problem hundredfold. So I think that all "benefits" in terms of disease are nonexistent.

Secondly, sex is a natural thing. I dont mean dont mess with nature. I mean if you locked a girl and a boy in a room with food and water, eventually they will have sex, without any prompting. Teenagers will fool around and have sex and telling them not to would only add a sense of the forrbidden.

Thirdly, I think eliminating natural procreation will severely weaken humanity. Should a disaster occur, the effects would be much larger. Imagine, a chemical needed runs short. Or a group of people lost in the forest, doomed to die out.

Lastly, I think that no matter what, sex will be more efficent. So if you had an anti and a pro sex community. The pro sex comminity will overpopulate the world.

Thirdly, I think eliminating natural procreation will severely weaken humanity. Should a disaster occur, the effects would be much larger. Imagine, a chemical needed runs short. Or a group of people lost in the forest, doomed to die out.

Not to mention that when a baby is in the mothers womb, it gets some of her antibodies for diseases

mmmmmm.....anti-bodies.

wow... i never thought i'd see a thread so freakin pointless...
this even worse than the pro/anti gay threads!

how about you get castrated, thats anything but but banning sex

I think someone needs a hug...

To sum up my criticism of sex:
1. It is disgusting to place your genitalia into someone elses; especially considering these genitalia also produce human waste.
2. It is a waste of time and effort. Other means of pleasure can be provided without resorting to such disgusting actions.
3. It is an exchange of bodily fluids.
4. Humanity will someday perfect artificial inseminatio technology, and should not rely on time wasting and disgusting reproduction efforts when that time is reached.
5. Sex causes vast harm to society. It makes some people obsessed with it, and drains their intelligence. It costs people money. (through many ways: prsotitution, contraception, abortion) It overrides their reasoning instincts. And finally, it leads to many accidents, ranging from unwanted pregnancies to sexually transmitted diseases.
1. This is a value judgement based on your concepts of aesthetic, sensory, and other beauty. I'll say that sex is pretty weird-looking, but if it's between two loving people expressing that love, it's beautiful nontheless. Additionally, do you know what other oriface in your body transmits waste? Your mouth. There is a small amount of uric acid (the only ingredient in urine aside from water and salt) in saliva.
2. Patently wrong. You cannot compare other enjoyable activities with sex; it provides too much pleasure on too many levels at once. Again, as always, I only refer to consentual lovemaking.
3. So is artificial insemination. Still gotta get the semen in there, you're just using a different method.
4. Artificial insemination takes more time, more money, more effort by more people, and creates more of a hassle than sex. It also creates stress, which sex reduces, and does not provide the simultaneous health benefits (exercise, in particular) that sex does. Sounds to me like sex is far more efficient.
5. So do sports teams, so do cars, do do video games, so does greed for money and/or power (sound familiar?), so does just about anything you care to name.

That's easy.
1. Power
2. Luxury
3. Eating
4. Performing good (charity work, etc.)
5. Reading
6. Creating (Anything)
Don't make me laugh. Power in and of itself gives no pleasure unless you happen to be already obsessed with it. Luxury is the same (this is why not all rich people are content or happy). Eating too much directly leads to health problems, and only provides sensory pleasure. Performing good only provides intellectual (and, depending, spiritual) pleasure, and sometimes won't even do that. Reading; again, only intellectual pleasure. Creating is the only one of these I would say comes close, because it can be pleasurable on so many levels. However, it does not provide the ultimate feeling of release, of love, of passion, of emotional and yes, spiritual connection, that loving, consentual sex can. That's why sex is different from masturbation: masturbating only provides pleasure on the physical level, whereas sex goes so far beyond that, it's really impossible to describe.

Not to mention that when a baby is in the mothers womb, it gets some of her antibodies for diseases
ooo that's a good one... i never thought of that.

Would this ban include masterbation? I am not hurting anyone else when I do. Unless you count the woman in shackles, getting spanked by my wife.
They included masturbation...
*lol*

I think someone needs a hug...
I DON'T NEED A GOD DAMNED HUG I NEED A RIFLE!!!!!!!











just kidding

Well if sex overrides reason, then if we didn't have sex that lack of reason would ten fold, because like you say, it is a basic instinct
But an unecessary one. Instinct does not need to rule thought.

i believe the post in the first page where the creater of this stated he has never dated in his life, explains it all

But if done wrong, can turn out very bad
That was a quote from "Breathe", from Roger Waters's 1970 solo album Music From the Body. I swear, that ahs to be one of my favourite songs.

Breathe in the air
Make for the meadow and savour the grass while it lasts
By and by
Spidery fingers of industry reach for the sky
Brick upon brick, stone upon stone they grow
Choking the atmosphere, oh, so incredibly slowly
Sulphur and carbon and hydrogen sulphide and lime
Fever, corrosion, and cover your cities with grime
Something is killing the land before your eyes
And the sunshine
Is not to blame
Could be the insane, inhumane games we play
Day by day
Riddle and fool
Mushrooming home in a crowd, I'm alone
Close your eyes, lie still
You are a mountain stream and I am a hill
Far, far away
There is a field of blossom and bees and new mown hay
Breathe in the air
Breathe in the air
Breathe in the air
Breathe in the air

But an unecessary one. Instinct does not need to rule thought.
But instinct does rule thought

But an unecessary one. Instinct does not need to rule thought.

It doesn't.

That was a quote from "Breathe", from Roger Waters's 1970 solo album Music From the Body. I swear, that ahs to be one of my favourite songs.

I have never heard of that song

But instinct does rule thought

The instinct, on seeing food when hungry is to eat. are you capable of not eating, when hungry?

You see a woman across the road, the instinct is to mate. Do you, always and instantly mate?

It doesn't.

Humans have instinct. They can make a conscious decision to act upon it or not, though. It influences thought, but will has the final say.

The instinct, on seeing food when hungry is to eat. are you capable of not eating, when hungry?

You see a woman across the road, the instinct is to mate. Do you, always and instantly mate?
Point taken

Wow! In two hours, this thread grew by fifteen pages. This is simply unbelievable, but I am extremely glad that so many are posting. Sorry if I couldn't respond to most of the new ones, as there was just far too much to read.

Wow! In two hours, this thread grew by fifteen pages. This is simply unbelievable, but I am extremely glad that so many are posting. Sorry if I couldn't respond to most of the new ones, as there was just far too much to read.
I'm just trying to get 500 posts

1. people will kill over anything, given the right circumstances. Sex does not cause murder, even when murder has something to do with sex.
In my opinion, anyway. :)
2. It isn't the sex that ruins these young peoples lives,in many cases it's the fall-out. It's people's reaction to them, being judgemental or seeking to punish them for it. Sex isn't bad simply because some people who aren't ready for it make a mistake. the problem there, is ignorance. the kind of ignorance you get from fearing sex, and trying to preach abstinence not only over any other method of safety, but also simply refusing to teach the other methods.
3. People are influenced by lots of things. Is the diamond responsible for being stolen, on account of it being too sparkly?
4. Sexualy transmitted diseases are a genuine problem, it's true. what i was saying is, it's not a sensible conclusion to therefor say that sex is inherantly wrong. Sex is not something to be treated lightly, even between two consenting adults. Proper awareness of contraceptives and, where apropriate, measures to limit the chances of exposure to STD's is essential.
I fail to see where saying Sex is a good thing, and that one must be responsible about it, contradict each other.
5. Your fifth point still confuses me. So, you are saying that sex is bad, because it causes rape, and rape victims get depressed and commit suicide, and that also Sex causes mental illness?
Okay.
O_o.
Firstly, Rape has nothing to do with sex, it's an act of agression and possesiveness.
Mental illness is not cause by "Depravity". Mental illnesses are just that, illnesses of the brain, whether genetic flukes, the tragic result of abuse, or whatever.

6. Abortion, i know what you're talking about. But you claimed that Sex made Abortion necessary. It doesn't. Some women decide that it is an option for them, based on personal situation and beliefs. I support their right to choose, even if i would usually disagree with their choice.
Sex does not cause abortion simply because abortion has a relationship with sex. There are plenty of alternatives, such as adoption or simply having the child, and caring for it as your own.

This thread is not about Abortion, this is about Sex itself.

7. I disagree with your opinion on this, and frankly that is all it is. Sex does not, in my own opinion, spread ignorance. Ignorance, Ie, the lack of knoledge (or not valueing knoledge, however you want to define it) is not sexually transmitted.

8. Yeah, cause no-one pays any attention to that Steven Hawkins guy. Yeah, i can't think of a single person i respect who doesn't have really i hot tits, like that Richard Branson Chick. Man, is she fine.
1. People won't kill over anything. They'll kill over conflicting interests, as an attempt to eliminate the conflict. This has happened in people's relationships, people who normally would never be turned to violence.
2. I actually have faith that people aren't inherently ignorant. I think people exist trying to do good, and that humanity itself is a kind of child. But I do also think that there are forces of evil that are too strong and just corrupt us. I have personally grown up knowing young girls that had 'filled in' well at a young age, perfectly innocent and intelligent, who then changed completley. You haven't seen this? They start becoming more obnoxious, mean, doing drugs, not caring about themselves, and becoming pregnant and dropping out, their life a web of failed dreams. Sex doesn't just ruin irresponsible people, it ruins responsible people who were just trying to find their way along and do good. We can't leave sex in the hands of people who don't know what they are doing, it will inevitably cause damage.
3. Getting there. People are a product of the world and influences around them. That's pretty basic. Their influences were help them build their morals, and this is why its critical to keep children away from bad influences, for the permanent damage it can cause them. Sex is different from a diamond, in that people can choose to or choose not to have sex. They can't choose to make a diamond sparkly. And knowing full well the consequences, they will have sex anyway. And from the decisions like that, you can begin to understand why and how all bad decisions were ever made.
4. I have already proven this beyond argument.
5. Have you read hamlet? Depravity, extremeness of emotion can in fact drive people to insanity. It's a fact.
6. That's avoiding the point. Sex creates a situation where abortion becomes feasible. Where killing a child becomes a decent idea. One could never enter this mindset without having first beleived that sex is a worthy and non harmful use of time, which then goes on to reinforce other stances of ignorance which spirals into the depraved wife beating construction worker american which is so easy to find in homes across america.
7. It completley does. It reinforces a system of values that puts personal benefit above what is the right thing to do.
8. That an extreme, rare example. I'm talking about the finer shades of grey. What people call charismatic could in actuality be nothing besides the patterns of facial expression and voice tone. This is science. Job employers are more likely to higher you if you don't have a beard. People will sacrifice true values and ignore morals for the quick fix of the instant, which in turn narrows thier focus of value to only that which is immedeatly beneficial, and the actions spread.

Your points thoroughly de-bunked, I might now remind you to look back at my other posts to see several other points I have made which no one could answer for (including: would you kill to keep the act of sex) among others.

But instinct does rule thought
It does, but it doesn't need to. In fact, some instincts need to go. I feel, however, that some need to stay. Sex does not, and neither does passion.

only 49 more

But an unecessary one. Instinct does not need to rule thought.
The instinct to procreate is the Secondary Directive. You are being naive if you think it can be sucessfully overridden in all humanity. Do you intend to override the instinct to survive as well? It would be next (and last) on the list, after all.

Thanks for not responding to my previous posts to you, by the way. That was keen; I love taking the time to write out that much and having it ignored.

It does, but it doesn't need to. In fact, some instincts need to go. I feel, however, that some need to stay. Sex does not, and neither does passion.
But do you have any idea how bad of an idea it is to make a law like you want?
It would be way to easy to wipe out large regions. Not only to mention rape would go way up and crime would be at an all time high. Because people would dissobey the law because it is stupid. I know me and my Girlfriend would

The instinct to procreate is the Secondary Directive. You are being naive if you think it can be sucessfully overridden in all humanity. Do you intend to override the instinct to survive as well? It would be next (and last) on the list, after all.
Yes, I do want to override the procreation instinct. People need to realize that they can realize that creating babies does not require instinct, but thought. Some want babies for the joy, others want it for the legacy, and some just want more welfare (I hope not too many of them are out there). These thoughts do not have to derive from instinct, but from reasonable applications, and perhaps even desire (which is not as primal as it may sound).
BTW, the instinct to survive must be replaced by a reason to survive. The survival instinct makes one do stupid things. It's obviously hard to override them, but I have faith in humanity. We have gone through leaps and bounds in mind conquest.

banning sex???? u must be nuts.

But do you have any idea how bad of an idea it is to make a law like you want?
It would be way to easy to wipe out large regions. Not only to mention rape would go way up and crime would be at an all time high. Because people would dissobey the law because it is stupid. I know me and my Girlfriend would
As I said, the ban part was just to attract posters. But sex, I feel, can and must go.

As I said, the ban part was just to attract posters. But sex, I feel, can and must go.
then how would it go without banning it?

It does, but it doesn't need to. In fact, some instincts need to go. I feel, however, that some need to stay. Sex does not, and neither does passion.
So, you'd prefer for us to be robots? Since, as we all know, passion has never produced anything worthwhile...

<snip>

6. That's avoiding the point. Sex creates a situation where abortion becomes feasible.

<snip>

Your points thoroughly de-bunked...

You didn't de-bunk anything. Your replies aren't very logical at all. Everything you're arguing can be put down to human nature and mordern culture. Lack of proper education sometimes leads to unprotected sex. Unprotected sex sometimes leads to unwanted pregnancies. Unwanted pregnancies sometimes lead to abortions.

What leads to lack of proper education? Well, sometimes it's parents trying to shield their child from unwanted or "immoral" influences. Avoiding talking about sex with them, for example.

As I said, the ban part was just to attract posters. But sex, I feel, can and must go.

If only more people saw the depth and wisdom of these words, our society to-day might be producing the geniuses like Immanuel Kant and Da Vinci, rather than Micheal Moore and Hillary Clinton

then how would it go without banning it?
I believe that the best, most liberatarian way, is to gather a following of other philosophers, and teach it to other humans. I suppose that an idea like this may gain traction in the future, and it may have a following now.

If only more people saw the depth and wisdom of these words, our society to-day might be producing the geniuses like Immanuel Kant and Da Vinci, rather than Micheal Moore and Hillary Clinton

I've come to the conclusion that you're not being serious at all. :rolleyes:

I believe that the best, most liberatarian way, is to gather a following of other philosophers, and teach it to other humans. I suppose that an idea like this may gain traction in the future, and it may have a following now.
So in other words you want everyone to hold the views of everyone else aka a robot society. Everything would be the same nobody would have free thoughts?

So, you'd prefer for us to be robots? Since, as we all know, passion has never produced anything worthwhile...
It has, but in the process, it destroys the mind and spirit. Not all great things, however, come from passion. I know I'm naturally very ambitious, and like to get things done. There's no constant passion in that.

1. People won't kill over anything. They'll kill over conflicting interests, as an attempt to eliminate the conflict. This has happened in people's relationships, people who normally would never be turned to violence.
2. I actually have faith that people aren't inherently ignorant. I think people exist trying to do good, and that humanity itself is a kind of child. But I do also think that there are forces of evil that are too strong and just corrupt us. I have personally grown up knowing young girls that had 'filled in' well at a young age, perfectly innocent and intelligent, who then changed completley. You haven't seen this? They start becoming more obnoxious, mean, doing drugs, not caring about themselves, and becoming pregnant and dropping out, their life a web of failed dreams. Sex doesn't just ruin irresponsible people, it ruins responsible people who were just trying to find their way along and do good. We can't leave sex in the hands of people who don't know what they are doing, it will inevitably cause damage.
3. Getting there. People are a product of the world and influences around them. That's pretty basic. Their influences were help them build their morals, and this is why its critical to keep children away from bad influences, for the permanent damage it can cause them. Sex is different from a diamond, in that people can choose to or choose not to have sex. They can't choose to make a diamond sparkly. And knowing full well the consequences, they will have sex anyway. And from the decisions like that, you can begin to understand why and how all bad decisions were ever made.
4. I have already proven this beyond argument.
5. Have you read hamlet? Depravity, extremeness of emotion can in fact drive people to insanity. It's a fact.
6. That's avoiding the point. Sex creates a situation where abortion becomes feasible. Where killing a child becomes a decent idea. One could never enter this mindset without having first beleived that sex is a worthy and non harmful use of time, which then goes on to reinforce other stances of ignorance which spirals into the depraved wife beating construction worker american which is so easy to find in homes across america.
7. It completley does. It reinforces a system of values that puts personal benefit above what is the right thing to do.
8. That an extreme, rare example. I'm talking about the finer shades of grey. What people call charismatic could in actuality be nothing besides the patterns of facial expression and voice tone. This is science. Job employers are more likely to higher you if you don't have a beard. People will sacrifice true values and ignore morals for the quick fix of the instant, which in turn narrows thier focus of value to only that which is immedeatly beneficial, and the actions spread.

Your points thoroughly de-bunked, I might now remind you to look back at my other posts to see several other points I have made which no one could answer for (including: would you kill to keep the act of sex) among others.


Oh-ho, i'm thoroughly de-bunked eh? :D sure, bucko, whatever you say. :)

Considering most of your points are (badly informed Opinion), rather than actual points, I can't help but laugh.

Well, as you have proven it all beyoned the faintest of doubts, i'll make just one or two more comments, before riding off into the sunset thoroughly routed. :D

5. No, i have not read hamlet. perhaps if i had known that it was considered the definitive text-book/thesis on all forms of mental illness in the modern world, i would have looked it up. :D

7. sex creates a system of values that puts personal benefit ahead of all else? You must be a really considerate lover, between the sheets.


Yours, Hairy construction worker,
69 cliche lane.

If only more people saw the depth and wisdom of these words, our society to-day might be producing the geniuses like Immanuel Kant and Da Vinci, rather than Micheal Moore and Hillary Clinton
What? Either you're being sarcastic or something, or you are just a little unbalanced in the head. What does Leonardo da Vinci have to do with banning sex? What do Michael Moore or Hillary Clinton? The only difference is that none of them would exist if it weren't for sex.

So in other words you want everyone to hold the views of everyone else aka a robot society. Everything would be the same nobody would have free thoughts?
Free thought is not produced by instinct, but restricted by it. Humans would be so much better off if they could think with a clear mind, and not be polluted by passion, lust, or fear.

Free thought is not produced by instinct, but restricted by it. Humans would be so much better off if they could think with a clear mind, and not be polluted by passion, lust, or fear.

Ever seen Equilibrium?

What? Either you're being sarcastic or something, or you are just a little unbalanced in the head. What does Leonardo da Vinci have to do with banning sex? What do Michael Moore or Hillary Clinton? The only difference is that none of them would exist if it weren't for sex.
Well that wouldn't be true today, dear. And maybe not for Michael Moore. I'm not sure of his age, but when he was born, it might have been possible to conceive ex utero.

5. No, i have not read hamlet. perhaps if i had known that it was considered the definitive text-book/thesis on all forms of mental illness in the modern world, i would have looked it up. :D
Well, you really should, it's a wonderful play. At least see it performed. Shakespeare has to be one of the most adept writers in any language...he was incredible.

I have to go eat dinner, but Free thought would not exist if people all held the views you speak of

Ever seen Equilibrium?
No, but I heard it was the same as 1984, which I read. I think it was a flaw in Orwell's thinking to assume that instinct is a panacea. How can we trust a guy who openly stated that he hated intellectual thought?

Well that wouldn't be true today, dear. And maybe not for Michael Moore. I'm not sure of his age, but when he was born, it might have been possible to conceive ex utero.
That's it, I have just stumbled upon something. There's something wrong with your life view and/or brain. You actually believe that in vitro fertalisation is superior. You really need to watch Gattaca. Sex is part of being human, and to take it away is to take away part of one's humanity.

I have to go eat dinner, but Free thought would not exist if people all held the views you speak of
Sure it would, but it'd be governed by logic and reason, not animal instinct. But not everyone would hold my views. Some opposition always needs to exist. I'm a bit of a liberatarian, you see. I guess, however, I'm more of the Objectivist wing of liberatarianism.

Are you serious? You actually believe that there should be a worldwide ban on sex? Hey, buddy, have you ever read the book 1984? If you have, you understand how shitty it would be to live in that world, yes? By banning sex, not only is our free world giving way to some fucked-up, purely systematic, no-flaws-in-the-system civilization nightmare, your are taking away what it means to be human. Plus it's fun as hell, and underage sex is the best way to rebel. Would you like to take that away?

How dare you even consider banning sex! If everyone in this world had sex at least three times a week there wouldn't be any fighting, because everyone would feel great. who want's to fight when they feel good??? any one that want's to ban sex, should be banned from being allowed to be alive.

That's it, I have just stumbled upon something. There's something wrong with your life view and/or brain. You actually believe that in vitro fertalisation is superior. You really need to watch Gattaca. Sex is part of being human, and to take it away is to take away part of one's humanity.
The only thing we'd take away are feelings governed solely by the physical environment, which are volatile, and as I've been harping on, they can and often do override reason. Life would be far better without sex, or sexual thoughts. Love should not be based on this, either, but rather a sense of mutual intimacy and committment. Love based on physical feelings is dangerous to any human involved.

Sure it would, but it'd be governed by logic and reason, not animal instinct.

This is a critical error in logic. You're casting a blanket generalisation over the entire race based on a hypothetical situation that has no basis in foundation. You may be governed by animal instinct, but I am not. In psychological terms, what you're doing is called projection.

How dare you even consider banning sex! If everyone in this world had sex at least three times a week there wouldn't be any fighting, because everyone would feel great. who want's to fight when they feel good??? any one that want's to ban sex, should be banned from being allowed to be alive.
The feeling would wear off on different people. Also, it'd be a far more violent world, as people fight for mates.

Oh-ho, i'm thoroughly de-bunked eh? :D sure, bucko, whatever you say. :)

Considering most of your points are (badly informed Opinion), rather than actual points, I can't help but laugh.

Well, as you have proven it all beyoned the faintest of doubts, i'll make just one or two more comments, before riding off into the sunset thoroughly routed. :D

5. No, i have not read hamlet. perhaps if i had known that it was considered the definitive text-book/thesis on all forms of mental illness in the modern world, i would have looked it up. :D

7. sex creates a system of values that puts personal benefit ahead of all else? You must be a really considerate lover, between the sheets.


Yours, Hairy construction worker,
69 cliche lane.

Actually hamlet is a definitive work on human emotion written by one of the most emotionally provocative writers to ever exist, and it shows a very understandable and explainable scenario where the main character starts to go insane because of extreme emotional issues. I was just using it to illustrate a point.

Again, on #7, that's my point. Yes, I've had sex, but not in years, because I know better now. I don't see how you disprove my statement.

And enough with the low blows, please.

This is a critical error in logic. You're casting a blanket generalisation over the entire race based on a hypothetical situation that has no basis in foundation. You may be governed by animal instinct, but I am not. In psychological terms, what you're doing is called projection.
Maybe some humans aren't. If you aren't, I commend you. But quite a few humans are.

It has, but in the process, it destroys the mind and spirit. Not all great things, however, come from passion. I know I'm naturally very ambitious, and like to get things done. There's no constant passion in that.
Ambition is a passionate quality. Nothing good has ever come without passion. Would Einstein have revolutionised physics without his passion for the science? Would there be any great musicians, without their passion for music? Passion does not destroy the mind and spirit, it enriches them. Obsessive passion can have detrimental consequences occasionally, that's true, but it is so wonderful. Have you ever loved someone? Is there any better feeling? Before I fell in love just a scant few months ago (I'm 15), I thought there was nothing greater than the intellectual thrill of realising something huge from reading scientists and philosophers. But now that I've fallen in love, I've realised that there's nothing better. I love the girl more than I love ants, and viruses. Even though I don't think I'll ever be able to be in a relationship with her, at least not for quite a while, it is still one of the best feeling I've ever had. What you propose is to turn humans into androids bereft of feelings. That will utterly destroy us if that happens.

What? Either you're being sarcastic or something, or you are just a little unbalanced in the head. What does Leonardo da Vinci have to do with banning sex? What do Michael Moore or Hillary Clinton? The only difference is that none of them would exist if it weren't for sex.

Read the other posts. Kant and Da Vinci are some of the greatest minds ever to exist. Kant was a virgin until death and Da Vinci despised sex.

I used Micheal Moore and Hillary Clinton to show some examples of our current day 'heroes', who also just happen to be shining examples of liberal hypocrisy at it's best, but that's another subject.

Bottom line: Moore is no Kant and Clinton no Da Vinci.

Ambition is a passionate quality. Nothing good has ever come without passion. Would Einstein have revolutionised physics without his passion for the science? Would there be any great musicians, without their passion for music? Passion does not destroy the mind and spirit, it enriches them. Obsessive passion can have detrimental consequences occasionally, that's true, but it is so wonderful. Have you ever loved someone? Is there any better feeling? Before I fell in love just a scant few months ago (I'm 15), I thought there was nothing greater than the intellectual thrill of realising something huge from reading scientists and philosophers. But now that I've fallen in love, I've realised that there's nothing better. I love the girl more than I love ants, and viruses. Even though I don't think I'll ever be able to be in a relationship with her, at least not for quite a while, it is still one of the best feeling I've ever had. What you propose is to turn humans into androids bereft of feelings. That will utterly destroy us if that happens.
I do not propose that. If taking away sex destroys us, why are some people happily celibate?

Edit:
Passion the emotion and passion in the English language are two different things. Passion is the emotional manifestation of the physical. The passion of the English language is describing ability, and love for a subject. That is not exactly passion.

Maybe some humans aren't. If you aren't, I commend you. But quite a few humans are.

You're still in error. Even the most primitive of human cultures aren't governed by animal instinct. That is what makes them human and not animals. Do you understand?

If you're saying that, on average, humans are weak in the face of temptation, I'll agree. That, however, is not being governed by instinct. That is making a conscious decision. That is free will saying, "Hey, you know this might not be the best thing to do with my time, but I really want to do it. Sorry." A human governed by animal instinct would not even have a choice in the matter.

One thing that I think is important to mention is that a big debate seems to be whether or not it is "moral" to have sex. Well, let's step outside the box for a moment and look in, shall we?

Morality is not a judgment for government to make, and it never will be, as long as I have breath in my lungs. Government is about preserving the rights and freedoms of the people supporting it. In-Vitro fertilization is offered, as is artificial insemination, and other techniques such as gene combination are being researched, but it should be individuals' choices as to what avenue they choose to walk with their own genetic composition. If it is moral or not isn't a winnable argument, because morality comes down to one's own beliefs. I think it is immoral to murder, but apparently Gacy, Manson, and Hitler didn't. This isn't a "right or wrong" issue, because to speculate is just that: speculation. We do not know what things would be like without sex, so speculation just makes one look like an ass. However, trusting people to utilize their own personal freedoms is admirable...and what the founding fathers of the United States believed.

Actually hamlet is a definitive work on human emotion written by one of the most emotionally provocative writers to ever exist, and it shows a very understandable and explainable scenario where the main character starts to go insane because of extreme emotional issues. I was just using it to illustrate a point.

Again, on #7, that's my point. Yes, I've had sex, but not in years, because I know better now. I don't see how you disprove my statement.

And enough with the low blows, please.

As good as Shakespear is, Hamlet is neither factual nor relavent.

as for the illustrious number 7, i wasn't even trying to disprove your statement there, i was merely posing a hypothesis of my own, based on your aparent understanding of sex.
If sex, to you, is all about personal benefit...then frankly you are the worst kind of lover. :)

Yours, Hairy Construction Worker,
69, Cliche Lane.

Read the other posts. Kant and Da Vinci are some of the greatest minds ever to exist. Kant was a virgin until death and Da Vinci despised sex.

I used Micheal Moore and Hillary Clinton to show some examples of our current day 'heroes', who also just happen to be shining examples of liberal hypocrisy at it's best, but that's another subject.

Bottom line: Moore is no Kant and Clinton no Da Vinci.

Thats a rather pointless analogy.

Picasso was a relative addict, i recall.

You're still in error. Even the most primitive of human cultures aren't governed by animal instinct. That is what makes them human and not animals. Do you understand?

If you're saying that, on average, humans are weak in the face of temptation, I'll agree. That, however, is not being governed by instinct. That is making a conscious decision. That is free will saying, "Hey, you know this might not be the best thing to do with my time, but I really want to do it. Sorry." A human governed by animal instinct would not even have a choice in the matter.
Oh I agree that we have shed some animal instincts, especially since the Neolithic revolution. However, we haven't shed all of them, like the need to procreate, or the need to be dominant. I'm sure we are better off, however, that we don't have the instinct of always being contented with ourselves. The need to advance in life is how we got to the top of the foodchain (or at least pretty damn close).

Read the other posts. Kant and Da Vinci are some of the greatest minds ever to exist. Kant was a virgin until death and Da Vinci despised sex.

I used Micheal Moore and Hillary Clinton to show some examples of our current day 'heroes', who also just happen to be shining examples of liberal hypocrisy at it's best, but that's another subject.

Bottom line: Moore is no Kant and Clinton no Da Vinci.

Your examples are very selective. Tell me, did Shakespeare have sex? Kant and Da Vinci were not "heroes" because they didn't have sex. They were "heroes" because that's who they were. Coincidentally, they didn't have sex. It did not make them great, they were great already.

Hell, following your logic, I should have come up with a contribution to man-kind by now. So should the rest of us virgins. Your examples only show that it is possible to live without sex and be successful. It does not in any way show that life without sex is always successful or that life without success is full of sex.

If sex, to you, is all about personal benefit...then frankly you are the worst kind of lover.

God forbid anyone see a woman as anything more than a peice of meat :rolleyes:

Oh I agree that we have shed some animal instincts, especially since the Neolithic revolution. However, we haven't shed all of them, like the need to procreate, or the need to be dominant. I'm sure we are better off, however, that we don't have the instinct of always being contented with ourselves. The need to advance in life is how we got to the top of the foodchain (or at least pretty damn close).

Why do we need to shed them? I'm all for living in harmony with nature and the rest of humanity. I'm first in line to sign the "Bring back Utopia" petition. But, uh, why can't we achieve all this with sex?

God forbid anyone see a woman as anything more than a peice of meat :rolleyes:

my point exactly.


[nb, for woman, read member of the oposite sex, or whatever else is apropriate]

I do not propose that. If taking away sex destroys us, why are some people happily celibate?
There are some who are, and some who could never be. What I meant is taking away passion. That would destroy us.

Edit:
Passion the emotion and passion in the English language are two different things. Passion is the emotional manifestation of the physical. The passion of the English language is describing ability, and love for a subject. That is not exactly passion.
Without passion, what good has ever been done? Without passion, there is little motivation, and thus nothing great is ever accomplished. And passion is a direct result of emotion, so taking away passion necessarily takes away emotion, in which we become nothing more than husks. Not to mention the impossibility of that situation. Huxley had the way to do it, and that is to make every just use up all of their passion so that it really is so mild it no longer matters.

Your examples are very selective. Tell me, did Shakespeare have sex? Kant and Da Vinci were not "heroes" because they didn't have sex. They were "heroes" because that's who they were. Coincidentally, they didn't have sex. It did not make them great, they were great already.

Hell, following your logic, I should have come up with a contribution to man-kind by now. So should the rest of us virgins. Your examples only show that it is possible to live without sex and be successful. It does not in any way show that life without sex is always successful or that life without success is full of sex.

You're taking it to the absolute and opposite extreme, and putting words in my mouth.

Not having sex can help you to keep from corrupting your world vision of morals and virtue, but it won't automatically get you there, as you unfairly assumed I was saying. Not having sex doesn't just give you heroic qualities. And I'm not saying that that's why Kant and Da Vinci were who they where. Why is this so hard to beleive? It was a part of their life philosophy, and it was held by a system of values that enabled them to realize what life truly is about and to make actual contributions to world because of it.

Abstinence won't automatically get you there, but can help keep your vision and appreciation of others, and of things besides yourself, uncorrupted.

Why do we need to shed them? I'm all for living in harmony with nature and the rest of humanity. I'm first in line to sign the "Bring back Utopia" petition. But, uh, why can't we achieve all this with sex?
We can't be one with nature. We were designed to one day conquer nature. The environmental problems of today affect us less than even a hundred years ago. In a few hundred years, nature will be reduced to pure aesthetic value, and growing our food will be absolutely no problem.

What and outrage! ban sex, what would be worse than a world without sex?

Without passion, what good has ever been done? Without passion, there is little motivation, and thus nothing great is ever accomplished. And passion is a direct result of emotion, so taking away passion necessarily takes away emotion, in which we become nothing more than husks. Not to mention the impossibility of that situation. Huxley had the way to do it, and that is to make every just use up all of their passion so that it really is so mild it no longer matters.
But that was taking away all other emotions. Besides, passion is more physical in nature than emotional. But just for you, maybe I should call the feeling something different. Maybe dillusion? Orgasms? Schizophrenia? Hell, why not we call it the Anthrus disease. You know, I found out that the Greek word anthros means man.

We can't be one with nature. We were designed to one day conquer nature. The environmental problems of today affect us less than even a hundred years ago. In a few hundred years, nature will be reduced to pure aesthetic value, and growing our food will be absolutely no problem.

Exactly. And instead of pointless indulsions into the irrelevant 'joys' of nature, geniuses like Da Vinci saw where humans were going and what they were capable of, and was centuries ahead of his time because he simply dedicated his life to more relevant things that would live on beyond his own minute existence. Had he spent all his time exploring sex and whatever other trivial 'values' he might enjoy, he would never have been able to realize or spend time on things of actual meaning and use to the world.

What's hard to understand about that?

But that was taking away all other emotions. Besides, passion is more physical in nature than emotional. But just for you, maybe I should call the feeling something different. Maybe dillusion? Orgasms? Schizophrenia? Hell, why not we call it the Anthrus disease. You know, I found out that the Greek word anthros means man.

Passion is not your disease. Your disease is something else entirely. :D

You're taking it to the absolute and opposite extreme, and putting words in my mouth.

Not having sex can help you to keep from corrupting your world vision of morals and virtue, but it won't automatically get you there, as you unfairly assumed I was saying. Not having sex doesn't just give you heroic qualities. And I'm not saying that that's why Kant and Da Vinci were who they where. Why is this so hard to beleive? It was a part of their life philosophy, and it was held by a system of values that enabled them to realize what life truly is about and to make actual contributions to world because of it.

Abstinence won't automatically get you there, but can help keep your vision and appreciation of others, and of things besides yourself, uncorrupted.

It's possible to appreciate others, to keep up your moral values and realise what life is really about and still have sex. Why is that so hard to believe?

You seem to be the one taking things to extremes, I'm only extending your logic in the other direction to give you an example of how your arguments sound to me. What you suggest might work for some people, it also might be detrimental to others. You have no way of knowing.

Sure it would, but it'd be governed by logic and reason, not animal instinct. But not everyone would hold my views. Some opposition always needs to exist. I'm a bit of a liberatarian, you see. I guess, however, I'm more of the Objectivist wing of liberatarianism.
But then if not everyone held your views then they would see that sex is essential, so the only way to enforce it would to be to ban it, or have everyone follow your views.

the point, i believe, was that whether or not Da Vinci got it off is entirely irrelavent to his success as a human being. it may, or may not have changed anything. to say otherwise is pure speculation.

Celebacy has nothing to do with greatness at all. Sex certainly didn't hold Picasso back.

The need to procreate is next to fear as the most evil of the primative human instincts, and is, indeed, the most basic instinct. I say we enforce a worldwide ban on all sex, and reproduce using artificial semination only.


Woah. Dude...I know how this goes. I saw that movie. It's called equilibrium.

Exactly. And instead of pointless indulsions into the irrelevant 'joys' of nature, geniuses like Da Vinci saw where humans were going and what they were capable of, and was centuries ahead of his time because he simply dedicated his life to more relevant things that would live on beyond his own minute existence. Had he spent all his time exploring sex and whatever other trivial 'values' he might enjoy, he would never have been able to realize or spend time on things of actual meaning and use to the world.

What's hard to understand about that?
Exactly. He may have even given someone like me the heads-up. Rumors fly that he was gay, as he never married. But isn't it possible that he liked the idea of bachelorhood? I think that he'd be a far more ardent philosopher had not the Church and the Medicis been around.

We can't be one with nature. We were designed to one day conquer nature. The environmental problems of today affect us less than even a hundred years ago. In a few hundred years, nature will be reduced to pure aesthetic value, and growing our food will be absolutely no problem.
MY F**KING GOD! That is by far the most infuriating thing I have ever read on these boards. Ever. That statement is so...so wrong...goodness, you dumbf**k, never say that again! I can barely articulate...I am so pissed off right now. We are part of nature. We can never f**king conquer it. WE CAN NEVER F**KING CONQUER NATURE!!! NEVER!!! It is impossible. That is the most fallacious mindset I have ever witnessed. You...you have no understanding of ecology whatsoever. That is so...so ignorant I cannot fully express my anger through words. You'll have to guess how pissed I am. ECOLOGY IS NOT A SUPERFLUOUS SCIENCE!!! it is a very important and vital one. Humans cannot live healthily without nature. Nature will never be reduced to æsthetic value. You...just...god...how... WE WILL NEVER CONQUER NATURE! WE NEED NATURE! WE ARE A PART OF NATURE! WE RELY ON NATURE! STUDY ECOLOGY! YOU ARE WRONG ON SO MANY F**KING LEVELS!!!!

New Anthrus - your views, as we have heard them, are anything but Libertarian.

But then if not everyone held your views then they would see that sex is essential, so the only way to enforce it would to be to ban it, or have everyone follow your views.
All things can be done with a bit of patience. I really don't want to ban anything, and I believe that the best way to get humanity away from sex is through education, thus weaning them from these desires. I want to engrain this into a moral code, not law. In fact, if it were law, it'd be perverted and bastardized by greedy politicians (they always find a way).

are you out of your mind, just cuz you had some bad date or something doesnt mean that rest of the world has to suffer... :fluffle: undefinedundefinedundefined

We can't be one with nature. We were designed to one day conquer nature. The environmental problems of today affect us less than even a hundred years ago. In a few hundred years, nature will be reduced to pure aesthetic value, and growing our food will be absolutely no problem.

Especially when all the coastal cities drown and we are hit by mega-hurricanes evrery other week and arable land gets eaten up by deserts. Yeah it'll be a swell time for growing stuff and wishing we couuld conquere nature.

[QUOTE=Gnostikos]<snip>
But one day we won't. I think you are just too emotionally attached to nature to imagine how we can conquer it, and how we have made significant inroads in the past.

You guys are wacked. Think about it. Humans are the ultimate pleasure seeking creature on earth. Everythign we do, everything we've built and invented is all to make our lives easier, therefore more time for pleasure. Sex is the basic pleasure ,yes, but if we didn't still ahve some of those basic instincts would we still be humans?

Especially when all the coastal cities drown and we are hit by mega-hurricanes evrery other week and arable land gets eaten up by deserts. Yeah it'll be a swell time for growing stuff and wishing we couuld conquere nature.
A.) This is only the worse case scenario for global warming, but more importantly, B.) humans have always found a way. I have great faith in the human spirit.

The point G was probably trying to impress on you is that nature isn't something to be conquered or otherwise.

It simply is.

All things can be done with a bit of patience. I really don't want to ban anything, and I believe that the best way to get humanity away from sex is through education, thus weaning them from these desires. I want to engrain this into a moral code, not law. In fact, if it were law, it'd be perverted and bastardized by greedy politicians (they always find a way).
But thats the point. We, as a race, will never step down from this savage trait just by belief. It will not sell in the minds of the people. We will never get enough people educated to do this, and not infringe on human rights.

The need to procreate is next to fear as the most evil of the primative human instincts, and is, indeed, the most basic instinct. I say we enforce a worldwide ban on all sex, and reproduce using artificial semination only.
Sex is a human thing, whether the intention is pleasure or reproduction. Humans were given a sex drive for a reason.

[QUOTE=Gnostikos]<snip>
But one day we won't. I think you are just too emotionally attached to nature to imagine how we can conquer it, and how we have made significant inroads in the past.

The universe is nature. We're not even close to understanding the universe. As for nature on Earth, one would have to be totally without any appreciation for beauty, appreciation for life and have serious delusions of grandeur to consider "conoquering" nature. You contradict yourself.

Edit - Spelling

But thats the point. We, as a race, will never step down from this savage trait just by belief. It will not sell in the minds of the people. We will never get enough people educated to do this, and not infringe on human rights.
However, it'll happen quicker if it shows results, and I firmly believe that it will.

Preaching abstinence over responsible sex is one of many problems complicating things in the third world, as they try to combat the Aids epidemic.

[QUOTE=Gnostikos]<snip>
But one day we won't. I think you are just too emotionally attached to nature to imagine how we can conquer it, and how we have made significant inroads in the past.
No, I know very well that it is impossible. I started another thread on this. My ramblings ar enot meant for this thread...

However, it'll happen quicker if it shows results, and I firmly believe that it will.
But there will always be the peole who don't pay attention, skip, and what not. results of what?

How can you be stupid enough to ask this?

But there will always be the peole who don't pay attention, skip, and what not. results of what?
As this thread clearly shows, there will also be the vast majority who flat out disagree.

many of them experts on the matter, such as the sexual education teacher many pages earlier.

The universe is nature. We're not even close to understanding the universe. As for nature on Earth, one would have to be totally without any appreciation for beauty, appreciation for life and have serious delusions on grandeur to consider "conoquering" nature. You contradict yourself.
I'm sure that not everyone who loves a zoo is a tree-hugging hippy. I'm not, yet I enjoy an occaisonal walk in the woods. It'd be even better if we were able to remove those thorny objects from the woods, or make them spring up in a few seconds on demand. That is, I believe, where we are heading. And I'm not crazy to suggest this. If this was a hundred years ago, and I told you that a man would walk on the moon, phone calls can be beamed across the planet, and a weapon that could destroy humanity did exist, you'd think I was mad.

No, I know very well that it is impossible. I started another thread on this. My ramblings ar enot meant for this thread...
I see. I'll visit it, but not tonight. I have to study for my next exam tonight, and need to detach myself from this machine.

But that was taking away all other emotions. Besides, passion is more physical in nature than emotional. But just for you, maybe I should call the feeling something different. Maybe dillusion? Orgasms? Schizophrenia? Hell, why not we call it the Anthrus disease. You know, I found out that the Greek word anthros means man.
Passion is physical in nature? Interesting. It seems you are operating under a bit of a warped definition of passion. Here's mine, which is coincidentally also dictionary.com's...

1.A powerful emotion, such as love, joy, hatred, or anger.
a.Ardent love.
b.Strong sexual desire; lust.
c.The object of such love or desire.
2.Boundless enthusiasm: His skills as a player don't quite match his passion for the game.
a.The object of such enthusiasm: Soccer is her passion.
b.An abandoned display of emotion, especially of anger: He's been known to fly into a passion without warning.
Dillusion is something else entirely, more connected with misinformation on some level. Schizophrenia is a mental illness. Orgasm is an action. None of these are equivalent to passion in any way. By including schizophrenia in the list, you are displaying your personal biases and injecting an obvious attempt at biased issue framing. Please do not attempt to redefine words which do not redefining.

ANd you still haven't responded to the post I spent the most time, thought, and yes, passion, on. I would appreciate at least some sort of response.