GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Male and Female Imponderables - Black Fingernails, Red Wine

POSTED BY: MAGDALENA
UPDATED: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 05:32
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4522
PAGE 3 of 3

Monday, November 27, 2006 12:19 PM

DESKTOPHIPPIE


Just before bed, CMH, I'm going to totally ignore your current post and reply to one from the previous thread, because I didn't see it until just now. So apologies in advance!

You mentioned that killing was a much more natural act than sex, that people live without sex and don't die from it, and that both killing and sex are urges, not needs.

Sex is actually a very natural act - some would say THE most natural. It's true that people don't die from a lack of sex, but they do suffer from it - emotionally and socially. There are studies that say people who don't have sex are more likely to die earlier and suffer illness too, but I don't know too much about those, just vague stuff I've read in the papers.

Quite apart from the whole procreation thing, sex for pleasure is also an integral part of human evolution. Society and human interaction arose from our evolution from seasonal maters to "full time" maters. Humans - and other social animals like apes and chimps - don't have a mating season. Our sexuality is always switched on. This means that males and females interact with each other much more than with other species, which is what lead to us developing culture and society and all the wonderful stuff that comes with it.

That's a very, very simplified explanation which would make any biologist foam at the mouth, but in basic terms that's why sex is so important to us, and why it's a basic human need.

Is the urge to kill a part of evolution too? Sure. Can we rise above both sex and killing? Sure. And that's what a lot of religious beliefs are about. But at the end of the day what we lose through forsaking sex is much, much greater than what we lose through forsaking killing. And again I'm talking about sex for pleasure here, not having kids.

On your more recent post yes, people at gyms are irritating and yes, sweat and sceneted products are unmixy things. Better to shower thoroughly!




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 27, 2006 12:24 PM

JAMESTHEDARK


Gyms: Never did have that problem during the brief time I was trying to get into better shape. Of course, it was a fairly small, unpopulated gym, and I didn't go there very often (I pretty much stopped after injuring myself. Not bright, but I've never claimed to be)

D*C: I wish I could go. It's a bugger that I have no money.

And onto me... Well, ladies and gentlemen, it has become official: I am on medication. I start taking antidepressents in the morning. The chronic under-medicator in me is worried about what's coming, but I've got to keep going, now.
It's not wrong to worry about altering one's own brain chemistry, is it?

--------------
I ain't lookin' for help from on high. That's a damn long wait for a train don't come.

98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 27, 2006 12:28 PM

DESKTOPHIPPIE


No, it's not wrong. In fact, it's wise! I'm not saying that taking medication is wrong - a lot of the time it's the right thing to do - but it *is* important to be educated and aware. It's your body, you make the choice.

On the plus side, I took meds and got better. I am now completely normal!

Well, mostly normal.

Well, kinda normal.

Sort of.

A bit.

As normal as I was anyway.

Which isn't imortant. The important thing is that I got better, and I'm sure you will too. *hugs*




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 27, 2006 12:53 PM

CHRISMOORHEAD


I'd say the most natural act for humans would be breathing. Then eating. Then sleeping. Then shelter. Sex is very distant behind those.

People who suffer from lack of sex, suffer by their own choice. I know plenty of them. It's not like I'm completely devoid of human instinct myself, either. The difference between them and me is that I made a choice not to suffer. They know it's possible, they know that they can avoid it, but they let themselves suffer because of it. That is weakness, and I have no sympathy for anyone like that. So it is not a lack of sex that makes them suffer, it's a decision that they've made, to let it. And please no one try and compare that to starving people "letting" lack of food effect them. As I said before, food is a NEED, and any such comparison between a NEED and sex is completely moot.

As for your second point, dolphins mate for pleasure as well, and they have no greatly developed society. Conversely, ants are probably the most social creatures on Earth, complex and organized in every way, but are next to autonomous as far as sexuality goes. I'd say there's a lot more significant and meaningful factors in coming to the top of the food chain, and on that note, it's probably a great deal due to our ability to engineer implements of death. Where would we have gotten if we had never made weapons to kill what used to be our predators? In fact, might one say that the very first tools ever made were those used to kill, possibly starting the entire trend towards engineering? If humans mated purely out of instinct without any regard for pleasure, I think it would have effected us much less as a people than if we never killed and made tools for killing.

Assuming that humanity as a whole began to stop killing each other and no one decided to capitalize on the situation (Also human nature), there'd still be conceivably great consequences. The animals we stopped killing would over populate, and I don't think (could be wrong) that the Earth's capable of producing enough plant life to feed an entire world of vegetarians, much less the increasing number of herbivorous animals. Starvation, amongst other things, would become widespread.

People need to stop being wusses about the concept of death. One second you have everyone and their mother saying "I'm not afraid of death", and the next they're all talking about how horrible and unfortunate it is when someone dies. It happens, it's part of the cycle, get on with things. I can accept that sex is an integral part of the cycle, but it's been so trivialized that the original purpose of it has been all but bastardized and forgotten. And you know what happens, when you hold the pro-creative part above death? You make more and worse death. Famine, starvation, disease, crime, all of these things happen when the population gets too high. We need people to be killed, they don't die naturally fast enough, so we need war and death in more controlled conflicts waged by willing participants to prevent worse from happening to everyone.

[IMG]
Place my body on a ship and burn it on the sea,
Let my spirit rise, Valkyries carry me.
Take me to Valhalla where my brothers wait for me.
Fires burn into the sky, my spirit will never die.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 27, 2006 2:02 PM

NVGHOSTRIDER


Gosh folks. It seems I missed a whole thread (possibly more). 'Nets been out all day. Damn. And now I gotta run out for buisness. If I caught anyone, Hi. If I missed ya, hugs.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 27, 2006 3:23 PM

GED


Howdy folks, been somewhat of a crazy day at work.

LA29 - good to hear from you too!

DTH - hey there, how are you?

MSG - How are ya?

NVG - How goes it bud?



Oy, home from work and I'm so tired. Heroes is coming on soon so I'll be back!

__________________________________________________
This above all, — to thine ownself be true.
http://www.myspace.com/artv

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 27, 2006 4:16 PM

TRAVELER


Hello Everyone:

I'm always 100 posts behind by the time I get here.

My career choice was dictated by the Vietman War. It was either draft deferment or trudging through jungle with a 100 odd pounds on my back. No thank you. So I got in the first school who would have me and now I'm drawing tiny little valves that cut gas consumption. It pays the bills and a little extra.


Traveler

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 27, 2006 4:55 PM

JONNYQUEST

"Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?"


Quote:

Originally posted by ChrisMoorhead:
I'd say the most natural act for humans would be breathing. Then eating. Then sleeping. Then shelter. Sex is very distant behind those.


Agreed except on 1 1/2 points. (Fractions provided for MsG's benefit...) Breathing, then drinking, then eating. Sleeping and shelter are too close to call for me, so I cede the point; but I want to return to sleep in a bit. My 1/2 point exception is the word "distant".
Quote:

It's not like I'm completely devoid of human instinct myself, either...As I said before, food is a NEED, and any such comparison between a NEED and sex is completely moot.

If the instinct is present, how fine a line is it between the need and the want? As the instinct to eat may be overcome, so can the instinct to copulate. As the one is clearly detrimental to the organism, so is the other. The difference is in how, and the terminal gauge is not always the one that proves a point. Likewise the overindulgence of the eating instinct is bad for an individual and its sexual counterpart is not good either. There are two instincts that drive every single organism: preservation of self and preservation of the specie. The first I believe is pretty clear and straight-forward. Of course, there are those who have a distorted view of self and therefore self preservation. We aren't talking about those right now. The preservation of the specie takes on a bit complexity; it can be carried out in two ways: reproduction and protection. We are more familiar with the pop culture designations of Sex and Violence. Love and Death. Romance and Warfare. Us and Them. Them or Us. The two instincts while seemingly opposite in nature, fulfill the same purpose. And as such are completely analogous. The word hunger applies equally well to both. Both are needs that yearn to be satisfied. Either can be denied, but there are conceivably great consequences in doing so.

As for the "need" for sleep, we sleep to rest our minds. The body gets its rest from inactivity, most conveniently provided during sleep, but fatigue doesn't require sleep per se and as you could probably attest better than I, fatigue actually can hinder sleep. Mental fatigue however is the real cause of sleep. Our mind simply needs a timeout to process all the input. Sleep deprivation causes the mind to bug out which in turn can have adverse affects on the body. Is sleep a need? Mentally yes. Is sex a need? Is deprivation of sex a bad thing? Mentally, it can be. Is indulgence of the sex drive a bad thing? Mentally it can be. STD's of course make the indulgence a physical risk, too, but we're talking philosophically here, right.
Quote:

Conversely, ants are probably the most social creatures on Earth, complex and organized in every way, but are next to autonomous as far as sexuality goes...If humans mated purely out of instinct without any regard for pleasure, I think it would have effected us much less as a people than if we never killed and made tools for killing.

You said in another post that you believe evolution was a fact. Instincts develop because they are beneficial to either the organism or the continuance of the specie. While traits sometimes outlive their purpose, they originally had a purpose. The instinct to mate is vital to any species; it is a need. To help ensure the mating instinct is carried out, it was made pleasurable, that is to say, those that found it pleasurable did it more than those that didn't and over time, became the dominant members to the point of almost exclusivity. Ultimately as you say the procreative purpose is lost on the individual but it doesn't matter in the grand scheme; the purpose is carried out not only in spite of the dumb fks, but because of them!
Quote:

Assuming that humanity as a whole began to stop killing each other and no one decided to capitalize on the situation (Also human nature), there'd still be conceivably great consequences. The animals we stopped killing would over populate, and I don't think (could be wrong) that the Earth's capable of producing enough plant life to feed an entire world of vegetarians, much less the increasing number of herbivorous animals. Starvation, amongst other things, would become widespread.

Nature in all her ways tends toward equilibrium. If we extinct ourselves on the way to a higher peace, our various roles will be split up among those that remain. Our history here is short in comparison with the dinosaurs and microscopic compared to the insects. In the end, we all belong to the bacteria. What I mean is yes we might make things bad on Earth for a very long time even after we check out, but Terra is strong and will regroup.
Quote:

People need to stop being wusses about the concept of death. One second you have everyone and their mother saying "I'm not afraid of death", and the next they're all talking about how horrible and unfortunate it is when someone dies. It happens, it's part of the cycle, get on with things. I can accept that sex is an integral part of the cycle, but it's been so trivialized that the original purpose of it has been all but bastardized and forgotten. And you know what happens, when you hold the pro-creative part above death? You make more and worse death. Famine, starvation, disease, crime, all of these things happen when the population gets too high. We need people to be killed, they don't die naturally fast enough, so we need war and death in more controlled conflicts waged by willing participants to prevent worse from happening to everyone.

More to come.


"Well, here I am...Does that seem right to you?"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 27, 2006 11:50 PM

MAGDALENA

"No power in the 'verse can stop me!"


Hey you all! Hi Tristan How are you qing ren... we did miss you...

CMH... ah I decline to answer that 'portal' question on the grounds that I might... ah... oh look - what's that?

Hey Ged! It is so good to have you back around more! We did miss you - you have to save up for D*C Honey!

DTH you too! I am saving up from scratch, still paying off a loan and coming from further than you with less time to do it coz I'm a day ahead of you all so technically it is tomorrow already so you have an extra day that I don't have.... and... ah... oh look - what's that?

We did have fun with that 'Not at Dragon*Con' thread though - didn't we?

SpaceANGL!!! I can't wait to meet you at D*C!! I was so hoping that you could come along too!

Oooooooh - JohnnyQ You sweet talker, you! Have I ever mentioned that I have seriusly considered going into the ministry myownself? I don't know if I have as it is not on the radar at the moment - but it is not something I have entirely dismissed... just not the right time in my life to do so now!

This is really why I hit 'reply' though James - I know I am not the only one who's been where you are now! It is terrific to hear that you are taking this step, and I know it's scary, but assuming you are doing so in good care with your doctors monitoring and in conjunction with counselling I think you will find you're taking a step in the right direction! I pm'd you my email address, but if you don't get it for any reason you can leave me a message at my blogspot too.... crazypurplewombat.blogspot.com ... and you might find my most 'recent' (yeah - I know - it's a bit old now) post interesting - it deals with my own experiences around this area of my life!



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:24 AM

NICODEMUS


Time to take a trip into an area that may get dangerously close to RWED stuff, but I'm bringing it up so that (a) it isn't noticed by the RWED trolls and (b) I'd like to hear the viewpoints of this threads participants on it, especially the females.

During my most recent visit to whedonesque.com to read up on the possible cancellation of Flan II, I saw that they'd put a new book up on the sidebar, namely "The Modern Amazons : Warrior Women on Screen". When I followed the link to Amazon.com (no barely-clad females with pointy sticks there, just books and stuff), one of the comments mentioned 'Third-Wave Feminism'. Since I wasn't aware that feminism was divided into waves, I decided to look it up on the font of all knowledge in the 'verse (ie Wikipedia).

Before I get to my ponderance, and yes, there is one coming at the end of all this, here's a brief description of the three waves, as copied directly from the wiki entries.

Quote:

First-Wave Feminism
First-wave feminism refers to a period of feminist activity during the nineteenth century and early twentieth century in the United Kingdom and the United States. It primarily focused on gaining the right of women's suffrage. The term, "first-wave," was coined retroactively after the term second-wave feminism began to be used to describe a newer feminist movement. (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-wave_feminism )



Quote:

Second-Wave Feminism
Second Wave Feminism is generally identified with a period beginning in the early nineteen sixties and extending through the late nineteen eighties. Whereas first-wave feminism focused largely on de jure (officially mandated) inequalities, second wave feminism saw de jure and de facto (unofficial) inequalities as inextricably linked issues that had to be addressed in tandem.

The movement encouraged women to understand aspects of their own personal lives as deeply politicized, and reflective of a sexist structure of power. If first-wave feminism focused upon absolute rights such as suffrage, second-wave feminism was largely concerned with other issues of equality ranging from the economic to the reproductive. This latter reproduction issue came probably out with the marketing of the pill since 1960. (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-wave_feminism )



Quote:

Third-Wave Feminism
Third-wave feminism seeks to challenge or avoid what it deems the second wave's "essentialist" definitions of femininity, which (according to the third wave) often assumed a universal female identity and over-emphasized the experiences of upper middle class white women. A post-structuralist interpretation of gender and sexuality is also central to much of the third wave and helps to account for its heightened emphasis on the discursive power and fundamental ambiguity inherent in all gender terms and categories. Third wave theory usually encompasses queer theory, women-of-color consciousness, post-colonial theory, critical theory, transnationalism, ecofeminism, and new feminist theory.

Third wave feminists often focus on "micropolitics," writing about forms of gender expression and representation that are less explicitly political than their predecessors. They also challenged the second wave's paradigm as to what is, or is not, good for females. (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism )



Incidentally, Third-Wave Feminism also covers such areas as Buffy Studies.

Now, in the Third-Wave section was the following:
Some third-wave feminists such as Carol Adams reject the consumption of meat and analogize the use and objectification of animals to the use and objectification of women in society. This criticism focuses on societal construction of ties between women and the environment and references the fact that a large majority of livestock animals are female.

This statement almost made me snarf my cup of tea at the monitor. It appears to me as an example of taking things too far. I'm all for equality between the sexes, but I'm not concerned about knowing if my steak had balls when it was a live animal.

So my ponderance is this: What are the views of the ladies of this thread regarding feminism?

**************

(Thx to Desktop Hippie for the banner)
If you find yourself getting too worked up about stuff that isn't real (RP Threads etc), then go outside, breathe in some fresh air and try feeding the ducks. (Because ducks don't care about your politics, religion, skin colour, choice of music or even your haircut. They like everyone, provided you bring them food.)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:36 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


Refusing to eat meat does seem a bit silly. I think that, as equals, a woman should be able to eat (or not eat) whatever she pleases.
To me, feminism is the simple pursuit of equality. There are many, many ways this could come about, and it all comes down to everyone being able to chose to live their lives as they see fit. Some feminists scorn 'house wives' and I find that to be very wrong. Children need to be cared for, and if a woman truly wants to stay home and just do that, she should be free to. Likewise, a man should be free to do the same thing if he sees fit. I could go back to the marriage thing here, too. If a woman wants to take her husbands name, of course that is fine. If they both want to keep their given names or hyphenate (which I think is silly, but to each their own) that's fine too. If a man wants to take his wife's name, that should also be fine. If a woman wants to pursue a career and not have a family, she should be respected for that (men already tend to be) and be able to pursue it without having to fight through the ideas that women just can't do certain jobs.
Whatever someone of either gender wants to do, they should be able to do it.
How something like that got tied up with refusing to 'objectify' or consume animals eludes me, to be honest.


[]

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:55 AM

SPACEANJL


I'm the only woman at my place of work, and we have some mighty fine set-to's on this subject - we used to have a female student working here, who was just finding out about life and the like, plus an older chap (third marriage, working his way through the mail order, having had thai, phillipino, now Russian...) That was interesting.

Read Suzie McKee Charnas, Walk To The End of The World, for a really freaky take on the battle of the sexes. And the whole livestock issue.

Personally, I hold certain elements of 'feminism' to be self-evident. Why shouldn't people of the same experience/qualification have the same pay, regardless of gender? (This also holds true for colour.) My parents have never told me that I couldn't do anything as inappropriate for my gender. (My mother does not understand the sci-fi thing, mind. She thinks I'm a geek.) In fact, the fact that I elect to work part-time, because my husband has a higher salary, makes me worry that I am conforming to some kind of outmoded stereotype - except that I use my 'off time' to write instead. All my family can cook, (my brother semi-professionally) and the male members iron better than I do.

On the personal/political side, I wage an individual war against anything that seeks to oppress me in any way. Guess that's why I wear brown. I don't think you're going to find many 'happy homemakers' who have checked in their brains/personalities on this site - can't see Browncoats going in for the 'surrendered wife' schtick.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:53 AM

NICODEMUS


It was interesting to note that some of the early anti-feminists (often groups of conservative, bible-thumping ladies) claimed that equal rights between the sexes would destroy families and cause women to be drafted by the military.


**************

(Thx to Desktop Hippie for the banner)
If you find yourself getting too worked up about stuff that isn't real (RP Threads etc), then go outside, breathe in some fresh air and try feeding the ducks. (Because ducks don't care about your politics, religion, skin colour, choice of music or even your haircut. They like everyone, provided you bring them food.)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 2:11 AM

SPACEANJL


Ah, God and Guns...

As one who has studied history, gotta say, not impressed with humanity as a whole.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 2:30 AM

CHRISMOORHEAD


Quote:

Agreed except on 1 1/2 points. (Fractions provided for MsG's benefit...) Breathing, then drinking, then eating. Sleeping and shelter are too close to call for me, so I cede the point; but I want to return to sleep in a bit. My 1/2 point exception is the word "distant".


I wasn't so much trying to give a fully detailed list so much as make a distinction between physical needs and physical desires. Kind of like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

Quote:

If the instinct is present, how fine a line is it between the need and the want? As the instinct to eat may be overcome, so can the instinct to copulate. As the one is clearly detrimental to the organism, so is the other. The difference is in how, and the terminal gauge is not always the one that proves a point. Likewise the overindulgence of the eating instinct is bad for an individual and its sexual counterpart is not good either. There are two instincts that drive every single organism: preservation of self and preservation of the specie. The first I believe is pretty clear and straight-forward. Of course, there are those who have a distorted view of self and therefore self preservation. We aren't talking about those right now. The preservation of the specie takes on a bit complexity; it can be carried out in two ways: reproduction and protection. We are more familiar with the pop culture designations of Sex and Violence. Love and Death. Romance and Warfare. Us and Them. Them or Us. The two instincts while seemingly opposite in nature, fulfill the same purpose. And as such are completely analogous. The word hunger applies equally well to both. Both are needs that yearn to be satisfied. Either can be denied, but there are conceivably great consequences in doing so.


You're beginning to make my point for me, although I wouldn't really apply "hunger" to killing. But that's kind of my point. Killing when done out of "hunger" is done by lunatics, but when done out of necessity is done by heroes. However, when people fuck out of "hunger", it's become not only socially acceptable, but many would describe it as "beautiful" and other such flowery words. Where's the balance in that?

Quote:

As for the "need" for sleep, we sleep to rest our minds. The body gets its rest from inactivity, most conveniently provided during sleep, but fatigue doesn't require sleep per se and as you could probably attest better than I, fatigue actually can hinder sleep. Mental fatigue however is the real cause of sleep. Our mind simply needs a timeout to process all the input. Sleep deprivation causes the mind to bug out which in turn can have adverse affects on the body. Is sleep a need? Mentally yes. Is sex a need? Is deprivation of sex a bad thing? Mentally, it can be. Is indulgence of the sex drive a bad thing? Mentally it can be. STD's of course make the indulgence a physical risk, too, but we're talking philosophically here, right.


Actually, sleep deprivation will result in death. The brain performs functions in sleep that it can't do while awake and resting. Reproduction of white blood cells, sustainment of current white blood cells, decreased growth hormones essential to cellular replenishment, etc. In short, no sleep, no immune system. You'd die in about 3 weeks.

Anyone is capable of denying themselves sex without negative consequences. As I said before and will now say again, it is a choice of whether or not to let it effect you. There have been too many people who made a choice not to let it effect them for there to be any other side to the issue.

Quote:

You said in another post that you believe evolution was a fact. Instincts develop because they are beneficial to either the organism or the continuance of the specie. While traits sometimes outlive their purpose, they originally had a purpose. The instinct to mate is vital to any species; it is a need. To help ensure the mating instinct is carried out, it was made pleasurable, that is to say, those that found it pleasurable did it more than those that didn't and over time, became the dominant members to the point of almost exclusivity. Ultimately as you say the procreative purpose is lost on the individual but it doesn't matter in the grand scheme; the purpose is carried out not only in spite of the dumb fks, but because of them!


We have plenty of instincts left over from our former selves that would get us killed and arrested if we followed them. They must all be controlled and disciplined to some degree, the dividing point seems to be where to draw the line. If we went based purely on those instincts, men wouldn't bother asking women if they wanted to have sex. As it is, the law was made so that women have to consent, which is where most males are happy to drop their self control. Just enough to not be arrested. And some aren't even capable of that.

As for continuation of the species, we need to start thinking about that instead of just fucking for it. I already pointed out what overpopulation will lead to, never mind every piece of inbred trailer trash or inner city shitbag that squeezes out a few puppies to fuck up the same way their parents fucked them up. Sex will only make bodies; discipline will make humans.

Quote:

Nature in all her ways tends toward equilibrium. If we extinct ourselves on the way to a higher peace, our various roles will be split up among those that remain. Our history here is short in comparison with the dinosaurs and microscopic compared to the insects. In the end, we all belong to the bacteria. What I mean is yes we might make things bad on Earth for a very long time even after we check out, but Terra is strong and will regroup.


Weren't we just talking about continuation of the species a second ago? Who gives a flying crap about the Earth if we can't live on it? I mean, I'm cool with fatalist philosophy and all, but you can only go so far with it. If weren't not at least trying to survive, why should I even bother getting out of bed in the morning?

I know that I'm never going to have children. I mean, I know that, for a fact. But I'd still like to some day. Hope in the hopeless, that I might achieve the impossible is what drives me. I am a Browncoat, right?

[IMG]
Place my body on a ship and burn it on the sea,
Let my spirit rise, Valkyries carry me.
Take me to Valhalla where my brothers wait for me.
Fires burn into the sky, my spirit will never die.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 4:26 AM

TRISTAN


Morning, all.
Feminism. I got nothin'. I'm going to get some coffee and then wander around a bit.

CMH, you are a Browncoat.

______________________________________

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 4:59 AM

MSG


CMH- wait now I'm confused. How do you know you're not going to have kids...I mean even if there was a terrible accident, you can still adopt and all:)

Magda- feminism...hmm I'd consider myself and equalist. I think everyone should be treated as though they and their contribution are valuable. I think skills are skills and potential is potential. However, I don't believe that any requirements/qualifications should be waived for someone because of their gender or race. I really hate knowing that female firefighters have to carry less weight and run a shorter distance to qualify for the department. In an emergency I'd rather not get the person who can't lift as much or run as far.



"A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort."- Albright



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 5:06 AM

LITTLEALBATROSS29


Morning Ponderers.

On the subject of feminism , I do believe strongly in equality, and the importance of recognizing feminine strenghts .There's way too much misogyny in this world.

My brain is getting fuzzy from lack of food.I'm of to the pub.


Hi Tristan !

Bryce
*************************************




So unstable inside and out.Don't know how much longer I'll take it.If you'd like I'll sell you a ticket, or you can get in for free.Am I enough of a freak , to be worth paying to see ? -Marillion

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 5:10 AM

TRISTAN


Morning, MSG!

Morning, LA29!

And Magda, I seem to have missed saying a proper hello to you as well! Coffee-flavored, that one!

______________________________________

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 5:17 AM

RIVERISMYGODDESS


mornin Imponderables.

There is no way that I can catch up on all that you have been pondering since last I read these two threads, I just wanted to drop in and say hi.

Hello Magda! I keep meaning to respond to your e-mail, and hopefully will get into it tonight. :) How are you dear lady ?

LA29 - here's a gyro and a margarita.

Tristan - those bandoliers that BWTP have look perfect, I think they will help to increase the beverage capacity greatly

MSG - hope your coffee drink is tasty and that you aren't having too tough of a time with the bright, inquiring minds you are charged with influencing

~Jimi
jimi dot spettel at gmail dot com
Self-Proclaimed Grand Vizier of Georgia


- Animation by DesktopHippie

"Marijuana not only should be legal, it should be manditory." - Bill Hicks

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 5:26 AM

MSG


they're a bit squirrely today, but otherwise they are fine:)

"A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort."- Albright



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 5:27 AM

MSG


Tristan love...I'm thinking you may wish to begin a new thread:)

"A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort."- Albright



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 5:28 AM

TRISTAN


Yes, ma'am. Be right back.

-EDIT-
Our new home:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=25556


______________________________________

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 5:29 AM

JONNYQUEST

"Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?"


Quote:

Originally posted by ChrisMoorhead:
Quote:

My 1/2 point exception is the word "distant".

I wasn't so much trying to give a fully detailed list so much as make a distinction between physical needs and physical desires. Kind of like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.


Granted on the first point, but I still maintain the distance isn’t as far as you believe…
Quote:

Quote:

If the instinct is present, how fine a line is it between the need and the want? As the instinct to eat may be overcome, so can the instinct to copulate. As the one is clearly detrimental to the organism, so is the other. The difference is in how, and the terminal gauge is not always the one that proves a point. Likewise the overindulgence of the eating instinct is bad for an individual and its sexual counterpart is not good either. There are two instincts that drive every single organism: preservation of self and preservation of the specie...The two instincts while seemingly opposite in nature, fulfill the same purpose. And as such are completely analogous. The word hunger applies equally well to both. Both are needs that yearn to be satisfied. Either can be denied, but there are conceivably great consequences in doing so.

You're beginning to make my point for me, although I wouldn't really apply "hunger" to killing. But that's kind of my point. Killing when done out of "hunger" is done by lunatics, but when done out of necessity is done by heroes. However, when people fuck out of "hunger", it's become not only socially acceptable, but many would describe it as "beautiful" and other such flowery words. Where's the balance in that?


Don’t have a problem with much of what you say, so if I nearly making your point, I don’t count it as bad. The “hunger” I was speaking of was actual hunger for food, not killing, although to satisfy the hunger killing may be involved. Sorry I obscured my meaning. Having the hunger for sex is not wrong, and perhaps the flowery language that calls it beautiful is yet another construct derived directly from the instinct to ensure it occurs frequently enough to propagate the species. As are many of the Biblical directives regarding the matter. I do not doubt that you are a Christian as you claim to be, but it seems in this area you are denying the spiritual aspect of the matter. But I’ll pick up that point in the next section.
Quote:

Quote:

As for the "need" for sleep, we sleep to rest our minds. The body gets its rest from inactivity, most conveniently provided during sleep, but fatigue doesn't require sleep per se and as you could probably attest better than I, fatigue actually can hinder sleep. Mental fatigue however is the real cause of sleep. Our mind simply needs a timeout to process all the input. Sleep deprivation causes the mind to bug out which in turn can have adverse affects on the body. Is sleep a need? Mentally yes. Is sex a need? Is deprivation of sex a bad thing? Mentally, it can be. Is indulgence of the sex drive a bad thing? Mentally it can be. STD's of course make the indulgence a physical risk, too, but we're talking philosophically here, right.

Actually, sleep deprivation will result in death. The brain performs functions in sleep that it can't do while awake and resting. Reproduction of white blood cells, sustainment of current white blood cells, decreased growth hormones essential to cellular replenishment, etc. In short, no sleep, no immune system. You'd die in about 3 weeks.

Anyone is capable of denying themselves sex without negative consequences. As I said before and will now say again, it is a choice of whether or not to let it effect you. There have been too many people who made a choice not to let it effect them for there to be any other side to the issue.


Good to know about sleep deprivation. Sounds like a good reason to catch a few ZZZZ’s. I never need an excuse…But again it is the mind that need’s the rest so that it can catch up on the other activities it needs to do for the body but cannot during the conscious state. The body itself, not so much.

As to your point here: this is the one time that I can remember where I flat-out, completely disagree with you. Denying the sexual instinct always, always has a negative impact on you. You can learn to live with that as you can with anything else that isn’t “life threatening” in your life, or choose not to. I don’t think this is just a matter of semantics here either, although it may sound a bit like what you said. The denial DOES affect you, emotionally, psychologically, developmentally if you’re young enough, spiritually if you believe in spirituality. You don’t decide whether to let it affect you, you decide whether to notice or care if it affects you. If you pick abstinence, it is at a price. Just as if you choose promiscuity, there is a price. Either way you give up a bit of your humanity. You would agree with me about promiscuity, I wager; why wouldn’t it be the same at the other end of the spectrum.
Quote:

Quote:

You said in another post that you believe evolution was a fact. Instincts develop because they are beneficial to either the organism or the continuance of the specie. While traits sometimes outlive their purpose, they originally had a purpose. The instinct to mate is vital to any species; it is a need. To help ensure the mating instinct is carried out, it was made pleasurable, that is to say, those that found it pleasurable did it more than those that didn't and over time, became the dominant members to the point of almost exclusivity. Ultimately as you say the procreative purpose is lost on the individual but it doesn't matter in the grand scheme; the purpose is carried out not only in spite of the dumb fks, but because of them!


We have plenty of instincts left over from our former selves that would get us killed and arrested if we followed them. They must all be controlled and disciplined to some degree, the dividing point seems to be where to draw the line. If we went based purely on those instincts, men wouldn't bother asking women if they wanted to have sex. As it is, the law was made so that women have to consent, which is where most males are happy to drop their self control. Just enough to not be arrested. And some aren't even capable of that.

As for continuation of the species, we need to start thinking about that instead of just fucking for it. I already pointed out what overpopulation will lead to, never mind every piece of inbred trailer trash or inner city shitbag that squeezes out a few puppies to fuck up the same way their parents fucked them up. Sex will only make bodies; discipline will make humans.


Some males are actually happy not to exercise their need because they think it’s the right thing to do, regardless of the law.

Discipline is not to be underrated, but it is part of a larger whole: Nurturing. Discipline exists to maintain order, as are laws. Nurture goes beyond that and teaches us there is more to life than merely law and order; that there are bad ways to accomplish our ends, good ways and even better ways. Discipline teaches us the right way to behave; Nuture makes us want behave the right way.

And lest we forget, “every piece of inbred trailer trash or inner city shitbag” has the very same right to exist—and yes, even prosper—as any of us, regardless of how distasteful that might seem to us “higher humans”.
Quote:

Quote:

Nature in all her ways tends toward equilibrium. If we extinct ourselves on the way to a higher peace, our various roles will be split up among those that remain. Our history here is short in comparison with the dinosaurs and microscopic compared to the insects. In the end, we all belong to the bacteria. What I mean is yes we might make things bad on Earth for a very long time even after we check out, but Terra is strong and will regroup.

Weren't we just talking about continuation of the species a second ago? Who gives a flying crap about the Earth if we can't live on it? I mean, I'm cool with fatalist philosophy and all, but you can only go so far with it. If weren't not at least trying to survive, why should I even bother getting out of bed in the morning?

I know that I'm never going to have children. I mean, I know that, for a fact. But I'd still like to some day. Hope in the hopeless, that I might achieve the impossible is what drives me. I am a Browncoat, right?


Just because we’re not necessarily the last word in the Best Species Evar contest, doesn’t mean we should give up our given role. Could be the next species to arrive might feed on irredeemable waste plastic, something which only we could provide. Perhaps we only exist as fodder for the bacteria. That might be our noblest purpose but because of our vanity we refuse to accept it. Perhaps we exist solely as fodder for the cannons. We should care because we are a part. If you need a reason to get out of bed beyond the instinct to survive, it is because of a romantic notion that you and yours are worth something more, that there is a purpose involved here, and part of that purpose includes the need for you and yours to survive.

“Eat and screw: it’s what we’re meant to do.”
a short poem by Peter H. Kessler, a.k.a. JonnyQuest.

Are you a Browncoat? Among the truest of the true, my friend, if I am worthy to call you that. Have you ever read Don Quixote?



"Well, here I am...Does that seem right to you?"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 5:32 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


Gyro? Ooooh, can I have one too? That sounds soooo good.
It's been too long since I had a good gyro...

Good to see you again, RIMG!

*edit* And wowza were there a lot more posts than I expected there to be between your post and mine...


[]

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
76th Independent Battalion Part 48
Wed, November 13, 2019 09:30 - 1907 posts
Seamus Kennedys Tribute to the Armed Forces, Cheers!
Mon, November 11, 2019 22:11 - 1 posts
Wash is gonna be on the Rookie next week with our Captain.
Sun, November 10, 2019 23:18 - 1 posts
Rocker Ric Ocasek, The Frontman Of The Cars, Has Died
Sat, November 9, 2019 15:53 - 7 posts
Happy Halloween
Tue, October 29, 2019 10:20 - 10 posts
One shot on Ma(ude) Reynolds
Mon, October 21, 2019 15:02 - 1 posts
North Richland Hills, TX CSTS Event Sunday, October 13 2019. Serenity Charity Screening. Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog Charity Screening.
Sun, October 13, 2019 00:12 - 1 posts
THE ROOKIE PICKED UP
Mon, October 7, 2019 16:19 - 13 posts
Prodigal Son
Tue, October 1, 2019 20:47 - 4 posts
Nathan Fillion's The Rookie 2nd season starts 9/29/2019 10 pm eastern ABC
Sun, September 29, 2019 21:58 - 1 posts
Arcata,CA CSTS Event Sunday, Sept. 29th 2019. Serenity Charity Screening.
Fri, September 27, 2019 02:27 - 1 posts
Denver, CO CSTS Event Saturday, Sept. 28th 2019. Serenity Charity Screening.
Fri, September 27, 2019 02:15 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL