#19 posted by madfox
on 2009/12/13 19:05:34
after days of perplexity I can only wonder about my first fiducious reflex, not the subject.
is zwiffle a boy or a girl?
#20 posted by nonentity
on 2009/12/13 19:25:50
#21 posted by Zwiffle
on 2009/12/13 20:40:24
I'm a boy. =/
When I First Read The Title On This Thread
#22 posted by meTch
on 2009/12/13 22:03:41
about a week ago i thought it was "mortality" thread and i was not expecting such a shock
#23 posted by madfox
on 2009/12/13 22:21:46
If you could fuck yourself
wouldn't that be an awfull lot of waisting good girls?
My god, did I ever wrote this?
I admire your crazy idea, in fact it creeps in my head like a book I read once that went so crazy with people having chirugically implanted all their erogene zones everywhere on their bodies so they made much money with insurances for doing so that they could live by trade of the natural trust exposing eachothers extremest limb...
I couldn't read it out, my fault, shouldn't have started.
#24 posted by JPL
on 2009/12/14 14:02:27
... having a self-great-fuck (i.e masturbating or auto-fellatio) is the safest way to not get sexual disease... though
Oh Forgot To Mention...
#25 posted by JPL
on 2009/12/14 14:03:28
... it is also not deceiving as you have sex with somebody you love (generally) :P
#26 posted by Zwiffle
on 2009/12/14 15:13:27
I read that only about 1% of men can achieve auto fellatio. The rest are just not long enough and not flexible enough.
I fall in that 99%. :(
#27 posted by JPL
on 2009/12/14 19:18:12
... having a long dick does not help if you are not touching the edges, and also it is generally more interesting for a women to have a small vigourous "one", rather than a long soft "one"...
And I also fall in the 99%, and my wife is quite happy with what I provide her... though...
(Note: I should ask her if she's happy with my "one")
Anyway, if morality is just a matter of being able to self satisfy yourself.. "mouth-ly" speaking... then it is not immoral to kill people if you like it... though.. it is just a matter of point of view ;)
#28 posted by madfox
on 2009/12/14 21:54:31
the buck to screw morality in corners of sexuality and ambiguous in pervertious...
Here's my small problem I sometimes wonder about.
I like Quake and although in the start it looked ugly and satanic to me there was a pleasure to see that commics explode in blood.
Other thing, I would never buy a gun or pull a real trigger it kill another creature.
I think weapons shouldn't be sold, I would never join the army,
I'm a louzy pacifist but my ambigiousity is obvious the squad.
My morality that it's just game.
I Also Hate Violence
#29 posted by RickyT33
on 2009/12/14 22:06:50
I would rather say regretable things to get out of a fight than come to blows with someone.
Anyone here do martial arts? I got to "green tag" in Tai Kwon Do (which is 3/10ths of the way to blackbelt, took me one year to get there). The first thing they teach you is that its better to walk away, and then they teach you lots of blocks.
Then they teach you how to put your foot through a mans sternum.
I wouldnt join the army unless I got conscripted, or maybe if I strongly agreed with the cause for fighting.
I am glad I live in a country with strict gun-laws.
#30 posted by Zwiffle
on 2009/12/14 22:38:06
I wish we had stronger gun laws here in the states, and although I personally wouldn't want a gun other than maybe some cool antique hand cannons or something similar, I honestly don't mind the idea of people owning rifles (single shot, no automatics!) It's really handguns and semi/fully automatics and bazookas that worry me.
And also, even though I consider myself mostly a pacifist, there are times when force is necessary, though that mainly deals with people who can't be reasoned with such as crazy fundamentalists and the like.
So America has a very vocal fundamentalist population that demands we don't regulate guns - how would one reason with people like that?
Like These Crazy Dudes?
#31 posted by RickyT33
on 2009/12/14 22:42:52
#32 posted by meTch
on 2009/12/15 00:06:27
It's A Bit Rich
#33 posted by ijed
on 2009/12/15 02:31:25
When some paranoid schizophrenic sociopath can get his hands on a gun, and especially one designed for close quarter killing of individuals or groups.
God heates the world? Where are they going with that? Isn't it time for them to all drink the mystic kool-aid and cross over to leave the rest of us to get on with things.
There are quite alot of people who I'd happily kill if I had both the insanity (outsiderness) and a weapon and opportunity. Two of those are possible via patience.
Natural selection has changed, in my ideal world there'd be quite alot of people for the chopping block.
Right wing morals from a left winger.
#34 posted by ijed
on 2009/12/15 02:32:12
God is the sun, he heats the world.
#35 posted by JPL
on 2009/12/15 09:39:08
.. just a typo, no way to blame them ;)
#36 posted by nonentity
on 2009/12/15 11:47:52
I've never quite understood that one tbh. If god hates the world why did he make it like this?
god is flawed is not god?
#37 posted by madfox
on 2009/12/15 18:25:04
I think there's a moment in your live you suddenly think, strange...
from where this power to be able to think, have the oppertunity to sensitivity, consciousness to the world.
Does it really make me apart other creatures?
Maybe that's the only glimps of God.
Looking up I can only realize that's so high... so wide..,
I won't let my perception getting unclear by subscribing my God.
Before I would know I would be surounded by 6 miljards of Gods motivating eachother to hell.
Left are all the fauna and flora looking so vulnerable and blessed with animal grace to so many angry god-alikes beating eachother off the planet for their own sepperate, lost collective.
Your Post Are Full Of Potent Imagery
#38 posted by ijed
on 2009/12/15 21:27:18
. . . like gods beating each other off.
I think I see where you're going though - the immoral or truly free are one and the same. It's only the rest of us who believe the things we were taught and chose to believe, things like mercy, justice and so on.
They're concepts that evolution doesn't demand, only our bigger brain.
#39 posted by Zwiffle
on 2009/12/15 21:43:13
Well evolution does seem to favor those who are merciful and those with a sense of restraint in a societal creature. It's much easier to find mates in a society where one adheres to the rules of that society, and again, societies thrive when made up of those who are a bit on the altruistic side.
#40 posted by ijed
on 2009/12/15 22:18:10
easier to find mates withint he given system. What about that pervert who I forget the name of who kept his own daughters in a sex dungeon with the consent of his wife?
He mated (being father and grandfather in one) the physically and psychologically damaged offspring being part of evolution the same.
Altruism is just an ideal of one side of the current society. Every society thinks it the best one. Even though we can assume very easily that things socially will be the same as they are now in 100 years, but a bit better, I wouldn't bet a gnat's knacker on it.
#41 posted by Zwiffle
on 2009/12/15 22:44:32
That type of thing is virtually non-existent overall and IS NOT SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE. Just because he had consent from his wife does not mean he had consent from the daughter, which I doubt very much she would consent to something like that willingly.
That is called rape and is not really evolutionarily acceptable either, at least not in most human societies, because most modern countries have enough resources that we can more peaceably lead a comfortable life with a higher quality of living which generally leads to fewer numbers of healthier individuals. If you look at statistics, more intelligent couples have fewer numbers of kids, largely because of the wealth of resources and the quality of life being so high (higher quality demands more time and resources, after all.)
Now I can't really say anything about this pervert guy, but I'm willing to bet that he and his wife were probably raised in some fucked up shit hole household and have a whole heap of fucked up problems - something the majority of people who live in a society don't have precisely because they live in a society.
I wouldn't say every society thinks its the best one either. I'm under the impression that each form of government and society has its own strengths but also its own weaknesses, and are better under certain global and national situations. The American gov't and society are really fucked up right now, and a lot of us realize it.
Philosophy Thread Lives!
#42 posted by metlslime
on 2009/12/15 23:45:01
My Elephant Talk
#43 posted by madfox
on 2009/12/16 05:35:52
Still I'm abusivly surprised it took solong before I could get your idea out of my head.
I see morality temporary and is rooted in some cultural way.
Some things one can learn, others are just related to character.
The world a person grows up defines its relation to others.
Is it a violent world it makes me hard to believe things like morality will make a point, because surviving the world only means staying alive to all cost.
While in a peacefull world grown up ones attiude is more defined by study and understanding that different characters are other corners to the same vieuw.
And as morality always is something one should earn and learn somehow it always be an ambigious subject.
Is it a natural reaction, or an instinctive.
It seems animals do have a kind of empathy, so they don't always kill on surviving. There are cases they seem to care for mercy.