All Debates Summed Up! (In a cute video)

Ever wonder why we bicker about whether an OBE, or Lucid Dream, or a an Astral Projection is the same thing or not?

It's because we are just mere children arguing whether it's 'raining' or it's 'sprinkling'. Then it gets VIOLENT! And someone is bound to get 'poked in the heart'! :twisted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sKdDyyanGk

This video also pertains to debates on Religion, The Soul, Free-Will, and of course, the myriad of lucid dream experiences we experience without labels yet.

Is it possible to realize that we have been idiots this whole time, failing to realize the friendship we all have, coming together from all places in the world for one common experience we all share in this forum?

(I put this in the Debate Section... err... I mean... the Off-Topic Section). ;)

BUT IT SHOULDN'T BE THAT WAY!

By definition a debate is composed of to polar and opposed sides of an issue who thru verbal acuity on the topic vie for dominance and public support.

I personally prefer a good discussion where ideas are shared, considered and if of value adopted for further personal consideration. ;)

Because quite frankly no one here is going to provide me some great epiphany about the value of my personal faith. :roll:

nesgirl wrote: Too bad it is kind of late for me, because I likely got reported again. Although playing the 5 minute games on the Adult Swim websites help with the depression.

And Anti-Romance isn't religion BTW, it is Politics.

Also I have issues with making friends anyways, which is why I don't want to make them. I also have too many issues with my mood, so I don't want to make them.

And yet wise men "women" say, "Tis better to have loved and lost than to have never know love at all." I assume the same is true for great friendships even if it doesn't rhyme as well. ;)

nesgirl wrote:

buildit wrote: And yet wise men "women" say, "Tis better to have loved and lost than to have never know love at all." I assume the same is true for great friendships even if it doesn't rhyme as well. ;)

Unfortunately that isn't always true, especially when you get betrayed, it is like being jabbed right in the stomach.

Sure, so are lots of things in life. Yet if you stop experiencing.... risking... feeling you loose what makes you alive. Reason without curiosity is no better than a lap top computer running a virus scan. :lol:

I don't know if it's "Spwinkling" or "Wraining" anymore. I just feel Cat's and Dog's falling out of the sky and I'm going to grab my umbrella and run to shelter.

But before I run, isn't it interesting to analyze that video? It's one guy against twins, and both sides use authority figures to prove their points. (Their God... err... I mean mothers). We mature and grow out of it..... I hope.

And I like the twin sister who mediates it and takes control. (Of course she still takes the side of her God... I mean... Mother figure and denounces the fact that it is 'sprinkling' and proclaims that it is indeed, 'raining'.) But she, just like me, sees the two fighting and urges a compromise. (To no avail of course.....)

DO YOU REALIZE HOW RIDICULOUS WE ARE?! WE ARE NO DIFFERENT FROM CHILDREN OR EVEN DOGS FIGHTING OVER A BONE!

(wake up)

HAGART wrote: I don't know if it's "Spwinkling" or "Wraining" anymore. I just feel Cat's and Dog's falling out of the sky and I'm going to grab my umbrella and run to shelter.

But before I run, isn't it interesting to analyze that video? It's one guy against twins, and both sides use authority figures to prove their points. (Their God... err... I mean mothers). We mature and grow out of it..... I hope.

And I like the twin sister who mediates it and takes control. (Of course she still takes the side of her God... I mean... Mother figure and denounces the fact that it is 'sprinkling' and proclaims that it is indeed, 'raining'.) But she, just like me, sees the two fighting and urges a compromise. (To no avail of course.....)

DO YOU REALIZE HOW RIDICULOUS WE ARE?! WE ARE NO DIFFERENT FROM CHILDREN OR EVEN DOGS FIGHTING OVER A BONE!

(wake up)

And like animals we do things to establish order, build skills for future conflicts and as an excuse to interact with others.

As for Nesgrl's comment. I already have a 100 lb doberman, a great friend but his conversation skills are still infantile even if we do have a great bond. The biggest down side is when you animal friends reach the end of their time. I've already had two best friend pass in my loving arms in order to save them the pain and suffering of old age, I'm not looking forward to the third. :cry:

There are NO easy answers and anyone who said life would be fair lied to you. The best we have is the comfort of those who know our pain and are willing to empathizes with us. :|

First of all, we don't all share friendship. Second, even friends don't always see eye to eye. Third, disagreements should always be expressed. Fourth, debates are productive and intriguing when there is passion involved. Fifth, we primarily evolved to argue before reaching reason. Sixth, don't be arrogant but above all do not be afraid to come across as arrogant.

I like it when people see what I see and agree with me. But I also like opponents. Defy me with all your might if you are 100% sure about your position. Come up against me without pulling any punches because you might just sway me. But to sway me you need evidence and reason.

Once swayed, I'll start making concessions...

Btw, sorry nesgirl but I'm with buildit when it comes to romance. Despite dolorous lessons in life, despite suffering in romance, at least you experienced it and can empathise with others in similar situations. You can derive strength from past experience and help others. And, at least, you know you can love and use your head at the same time.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Now this is the kind of response I appreciate. You just repudiated my black and white claim that you must participate in romance in order to give advice and empathise with romantics when in actual fact experience can be obtauned vicariously and from this one can still form an opinion. And this is why I have learned something. Your response is unexpected and I thank you for that. Although I still disagree with your solution as well as what you think is the real problem. I don't think it's romance. I think it's people and their differences. I think ultimately is ego. The solution may lie in compromising with one another. Thus, sexuals can still lead sexual lives in a more mature, empathetic and compassionate way; and asexuals can also refrain from engaging in any sort of sexual activity or relationship if they wish.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Summerlander wrote: The solution may lie in compromising with one another. Thus, sexuals can still lead sexual lives in a more mature, empathetic and compassionate way; and asexuals can also refrain from engaging in any sort of sexual activity or relationship if they wish.

Why not just suggest people learn the difference between love and lust? ;) People say they know but it seems most are incapable of seeing that difference when they are the ones affected. :lol:

The kids were arguing because they differed on two counts: the definition of terms and the perception of experience.

People have varying experiences; this we know and accept to be true. Debate is simply the collision of opposing experiences, with the hope that each member (or at least one member) and each observer comes away with a more enlightened and broadened understanding of other experiences. (This rarely happens, of course, because people far too often neglect to genuinely consider opposing viewpoints with an open open.) It is also true that some people don't understand the terms that are subject to debate--just as the kids didn't understand that "sprinkling" and "raining" were essentially the same things, and where there were differences between the two, they were not aware.

For example, consider the debate on whether evolution is "true" or not. We still (sadly) have to debate this because most people who don't "believe" in evolution haven't fully understood the basics of evolutionary theory. I'd wager that most anti-evolutionists have never seriously sat down, with an open mind, and read literature on evolution (that was not written by another anti-evolutionist), and followed the reasoning behind it for themselves.

So, in many ways, debates are exercises in lucidity and reason. Two of the most important things we have.

However, experience is NOT everything. Your perception of reality does not dictate reality. Suppose you were to take some hallucinogenic drug that distorted your visual perception, giving everything this sort of swollen-up fish-eye effect. If a pencil was then held up in front of you, it would look enormous. But that does not change the fact that, if one were to hold a ruler up to the pencil, one would discover that the pencil is still only 6 inches long. In fact, one's personal experience shouldn't even really be a factor in serious debate--because outside of our experience there exists an irrefutable reality. Note that I said shouldn't. Debate exists solely because people do have opposing experiences, and thus don't understand that there is only one reality, and the terms of that reality are constant and uniform.

Why do we have different experiences and perceptions? Because both experience and perception are inherently warped. We are trapped within the flawed, organic confines of our brain’s capacity. If we were able to truly understand all things, without the plague of former biases and beliefs, we would surely never disagree on anything.

Here is a phenomenon that continues to occur in our modern world: A little girl is brutally raped. After she goes home and cries to her father about the horrible ordeal, her father proceeds to cut her head off with a machete. According to this man’s religious beliefs, killing his daughter was totally moral, warranted, and even holy--since the girl was now not a virgin without being married (Islam). According to my beliefs, the father’s actions were immoral, unwarranted, and even insane. But, wholly regardless of both of our experiences, it does not change the fact that it is still intrinsically wrong to behave in such a manner (hopefully all of those present can agree on that).

So, yes … perhaps debate really is a pointless, irrational affair. But humans are pointless, irrational beings--and so debate and discourse amongst one another is vitally important.

DeschainXIX, I love you :-*

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Nesgirl, I think most people have suffered the things you mentioned. I myself experienced my parent's destructive divorce and I had the intelligence to realize that it did not occur as an inevitable consequence of romance. And if by "certain types of abuse" you mean rape or sexual abuse, it is wholly false to presume that the majority of people who embrace their sexuality are rapists. Marriage runs the risk of divorce, true. Sexuality runs the risk of rape, true. But literally every action you could possibly conceive of runs some risk. It's a risky, dangerous world. Do you advocate the prohibition of ocean-swimming for fear of shark attacks? Also, your admittance that the tragedies of romance and sexuality (that befall us all) have made you bitter and subsequently initiated your conversion to anti-romance, has only confirmed my previous statement about your ideals: that they are, at their core, purely reactionary and have no intellectual basis.

Summerlander wrote: DeschainXIX, I love you :-*

:mrgreen: Likewise

Yeah, she saw the comment. She likes deschainXIX, too. And don't worry. We are not rapists. :-)

[ Post made via Android ] Image

...

nesgirl wrote: And these risks unfortunately are terribly high, much too high for my liking. It isn't just those that made me anti-romantic by the way. I never developed any feelings for romance (like many anti-romantics never have, something about the hormones), so I never understood them. It only made things worse when I was shown the negative things about romance as a teenager, so I learned to hate romance. Keep in mind also I was badly bullied in middle school. If one is badly bullied, abused, or hurt in any situation, they would value personal space very much.

You're saying that traumatic experiences in a person's life, if left untreated, can stimulate the development of psychological deficiencies and impediments that result in a tendency to flinch away from, ward off, and frankly hate ordinarily natural human behavior and characteristics. All very true statements. None of which, however, bear any real support for anti-romance as a legitimate school of thought or a legitimate, intellectual remedy for society's problems. In fact, you're just adding more supporting evidence to the fact that all of this is emotional nonsense.
(With that last comment there, you're being very psychologically revealing; your reasoning is essentially: "I've become an introvert as a result of my experience, so ALL people should become introverts, or else they're not allowed to live in my society!")

Summerlander wrote: DeschainXIX, I love you :-*

I read DeschainXIX's eloquent reply, and recent posts about religion and 'soul', and I must say I am starting to fall in love too. Being a sleeping dog on a couch that would be considered bestiality. I hope nesgirl accepts my sexual orientation. ;)

HAGART wrote:

Summerlander wrote:DeschainXIX, I love you :-*

I read DeschainXIX's eloquent reply, and recent posts about religion and 'soul', and I must say I am starting to fall in love too. Being a sleeping dog on a couch that would be considered bestiality. I hope nesgirl accepts my sexual orientation. ;)

Don't be falling in love with me. Because you know how I feel about that.

Well at least I already know where in my arguments most others stances are going to be. However I am NOT changing my mind. I still will NEVER change my mind on how I feel on romance or friendship. Let me put it in another way, I CANNOT make friends, and I don't trust anyone, so why would I want to be stuck slaving myself to someone I distrust for the rest of my life? Personally, it is so much easier taking care of a pet. You feed them, you water them, you clean up after them, they don't cost hardly anything, and they treat you with affection and kindness in return and you can even talk to them. Now they are worth having around.

We accept you for who you are, nesgirl, but I don't think you treat us with the same courtesy. You also unfairly pigeonhole us as sex monsters when we haven't committed any sex offence. I know there are sickos who sexually assault others, but this doesn't mean that everyone who is sexual is as unscrupulous as that. There is consensual sex which is pleasurable for both/all parties involved and it is a good recipe for a healthy romantic relationship. ;)

Yeah, it's time I confessed to everyone. It may explain why my replies sometimes take a long time. I have to wait for my owner to leave the room to quickly type on his laptop (he doesn't yet know I'm sentient) :D But, yes, as I've said every step of the way, nesgirl, your asexuality is totally fine and acceptable with me--in many ways I admire it. But the combination of creating serious ideals out of your sexual orientation then forcing those ideals on others, and your clearly articulated sentiments about having a totally rigid, inelastic opinion about it all are where there's a problem. :)

Love, I love a good nap, I love a wonderful dinner, I love my house, my motorcycles, my big old dog. None of this love is even similar to the lust I had for several women in my life. Maybe someday the English language will find better words for the many types of love that exist, like Eskimos have for various types of snow.

We are not telling you to be sexual. We know it is against your nature. But you urge us to embrace asexuality before our sex lives turn us into psychos and rapists. And you affirm that one day I will feel the sting of being in a romantic relationship.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

buildit wrote: Maybe someday the English language will find better words for the many types of love that exist, like Eskimos have for various types of snow.

There are apparently 4 main kinds: Agape, Philia, Storge, and Eros.

(I did a quick Google search and that's all I know!) :mrgreen:

HAGART wrote:

buildit wrote:Maybe someday the English language will find better words for the many types of love that exist, like Eskimos have for various types of snow.

There are apparently 4 main kinds: Agape, Philia, Storge, and Eros.

(I did a quick Google search and that's all I know!) :mrgreen:

Well, maybe we need to start using them? ;) Nice find dude. :D