A Question for you Humans

[Tlaceceyaya]

How?

Humanity is explained by more than just physics alone.

Yeah. Biology. Which is just applied chemistry. Which is just applied physics.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Humanity is explained by more than just physics alone.

Where's the additional information come from?

[Condunum]

Well see, my reasoning is the typical reasoning, with rather little insight into it. I like relationships because the thought of being alone is frightening to me. This creates a problem for me, because I have an innate fear of people as well as a fear of betrayal. That aside, the emotional aspect (biological basis aside) is enough for me to feel comfortable in a relationship. In this modern society, your partner is you friend. A good partner is closer than any family member; they are your family. Trust, or perhaps the need for it, plays a key role in my desire for a relationship.
Where was I? I drifted for a moment... Ahh. Perhaps it's the pack instinct that drives us to maintain a relationship? If you twist sociological definitions enough, you can get that pack mentality to mean some sort of need for a more secure relationship. But now I'm probably talking out of my ass.

[SD_Film Artists]

Humanity is explained by more than just physics alone.

Where's the additional information come from?

What makes you dislike sex? As it looks like you're over-analysing it.

[Socialist States Owen]

The ability to give or withdraw consent implies free will. If no such ability (free will) exists then the entire argument around what rape is and is not becomes void.

If free will doesn't exist, then there is no consent. Therefore, ALL sex lacks consent. Sex without consent is rape. Ergo, if free will does not exist, all sex is rape.

If free will does not exist, then neither does consent. But then by default, neither does rape, whether you define it as sex without consent/sex against someones free will, meaning that sex cannot be rape.

So your argument, which is partly based on the belief that all sex is rape (which was also held by a radical feminist blogger a while back that got a thread on NSG - although she was more of a moron than someone overthinking this) is inadvertently suggesting no sex can be rape whatsoever.

Huh. Your entire theory is pretty flawed anyway - you declare free will irrelevant as a mental process and yet you hold to the values you have described earlier, and in the thread in your sig, which really shows that using biological processes in the mind being used as a part of your argument is...it's just flawed.

You also pointed out that we do not need sex to reproduce as a species anymore...this is not realistically feasible, even if we have the technology for it. How would we even be here in the first place without sexual reproduction? If thats the case, could you please join the rest of us in revoking our existence with a nice plummet from a bridge, or is that a little too impractical.

Anyway, in summary of my main point, your entire theory is largely held up by beliefs which are the result of mental processes, yet you dismiss beliefs which are the result of mental processes when they disagree with your own views.

Troll harder.

[Four-sided Triangles]

If free will does not exist, then neither does consent. But then by default, neither does rape, whether you define it as sex without consent/sex against someones free will, meaning that sex cannot be rape.

So your argument, which is partly based on the belief that all sex is rape (which was also held by a radical feminist blogger a while back that got a thread on NSG - although she was more of a moron than someone overthinking this) is inadvertently suggesting no sex can be rape whatsoever.

Huh. Your entire theory is pretty flawed anyway - you declare free will irrelevant as a mental process and yet you hold to the values you have described earlier, and in the thread in your sig, which really shows that using biological processes in the mind being used as a part of your argument is...it's just flawed.

You also pointed out that we do not need sex to reproduce as a species anymore...this is not realistically feasible, even if we have the technology for it. How would we even be here in the first place without sexual reproduction? If thats the case, could you please join the rest of us in revoking our existence with a nice plummet from a bridge, or is that a little too impractical.

Anyway, in summary of my main point, your entire theory is largely held up by beliefs which are the result of mental processes, yet you dismiss beliefs which are the result of mental processes when they disagree with your own views.

Troll harder.

There's a lot of logical fallacies here. I'll give a more detailed response later.

[Samuraikoku]

Humanity is explained by more than just physics alone.

Where's the additional information come from?

That's the exact question you're asking at the very bottom of this, since you - in your own words - can't understand anything else beyond physical processes, and thus ask about purposes.

[Four-sided Triangles]

That's the exact question you're asking at the very bottom of this, since you - in your own words - can't understand anything else beyond physical processes, and thus ask about purposes.

There's nothing magically special about humans that allows them to be outside of the same laws that apply to absolutely everything else in the universe.

[SD_Film Artists]

That's the exact question you're asking at the very bottom of this, since you - in your own words - can't understand anything else beyond physical processes, and thus ask about purposes.

There's nothing magically special about humans that allows them to be outside of the same laws that apply to absolutely everything else in the universe.

You mean physics? No, humans don't break physics.

[Socialist States Owen]

If free will doesn't exist, then there is no consent. Therefore, ALL sex lacks consent. Sex without consent is rape. Ergo, if free will does not exist, all sex is rape.

If free will does not exist, then neither does consent. But then by default, neither does rape, whether you define it as sex without consent/sex against someones free will, meaning that sex cannot be rape.

So your argument, which is partly based on the belief that all sex is rape (which was also held by a radical feminist blogger a while back that got a thread on NSG - although she was more of a moron than someone overthinking this) is inadvertently suggesting no sex can be rape whatsoever.

Huh. Your entire theory is pretty flawed anyway - you declare free will irrelevant as a mental process and yet you hold to the values you have described earlier, and in the thread in your sig, which really shows that using biological processes in the mind being used as a part of your argument is...it's just flawed.

You also pointed out that we do not need sex to reproduce as a species anymore...this is not realistically feasible, even if we have the technology for it. How would we even be here in the first place without sexual reproduction? If thats the case, could you please join the rest of us in revoking our existence with a nice plummet from a bridge, or is that a little too impractical.

Anyway, in summary of my main point, your entire theory is largely held up by beliefs which are the result of mental processes, yet you dismiss beliefs which are the result of mental processes when they disagree with your own views.

Troll harder.

There's a lot of logical fallacies here. I'll give a more detailed response later.[/quote]

I could say the same for you (My post was rushed, busy, but w.e)

I forgot to ask in my post what someone (I think) posted on this page or the previous one. What is your actual issue with sex? And yes, I've read the other thread.

[Samuraikoku]

That's the exact question you're asking at the very bottom of this, since you - in your own words - can't understand anything else beyond physical processes, and thus ask about purposes.

There's nothing magically special about humans that allows them to be outside of the same laws that apply to absolutely everything else in the universe.

And yet you can't understand a human relationship, so something's amiss.

[Tlaceceyaya]

There's nothing magically special about humans that allows them to be outside of the same laws that apply to absolutely everything else in the universe.

And yet you can't understand a human relationship, so something's amiss.

Relationships are physical processes - chemicals, mostly.

[SD_Film Artists]

And yet you can't understand a human relationship, so something's amiss.

Relationships are physical processes - chemicals, mostly.

Sounds like a lovely valentines card..

[Samuraikoku]

And yet you can't understand a human relationship, so something's amiss.

Relationships are physical processes - chemicals, mostly.

I'm not arguing that, but can you actually explain what produces those chemical reactions in your brain?

[Condunum]

Honestly, is there one FST relationship/sex thred on NSG in recent times that hasn't boiled down to "sex is bad/not is isn't?"
No offense FST, but your standpoint is completely irrational and needs serious help. I'll stop now, because my desire to mini-mod this thing is growing.
Edit: Struck out a needless stab at FST.

[1000 Cats]

That's the exact question you're asking at the very bottom of this, since you - in your own words - can't understand anything else beyond physical processes, and thus ask about purposes.

There's nothing magically special about humans that allows them to be outside of the same laws that apply to absolutely everything else in the universe.

No, but psychology and neurology are incredibly complex. They are two of the least accurate sciences in the academic world. They have everything that a science needs to be a science, but yet everything in it has exceptions. There are more potential connections in the human brain than there are atoms in the entire universe. It behooves us to treat the human psyche in a different fashion than we do the rest of the universe, because breaking it down into even smaller parts would make its study completely useless. I believe this is the point here: even if we deny everything but the theoretically explicable material, it requires more than physics to explain human behaviour.

And since this discussion seems to have gone back to going around in the same circles as have been gone around the past dozen threads, I'll remind you that I'm still always up for a more progressive conversation via TG.

[Tubbsalot]

I'm not arguing that, but can you actually explain what produces those chemical reactions in your brain?

Can you explain what causes massive particles to gravitate towards each other?

No?

THEN GRAVITY DOESN'T EXIST.

[Natapoc]

How?

Humanity is explained by more than just physics alone.

Humanity is explained by more than just the physics we understand alone. But there is no reason that a more complete, perfect version of physics could not explain all behavior. There is every reason to believe that we will continue to get closer and closer to that version of physics.

However, just because we are governed by physical laws does not mean choice cannot exist. Only that if choice exists it must operate within the confines of physical laws (which would be consistent with our experiences) There could be a physical mechanism behind choice which allows an organism of sufficient complexity the ability to make "choices".

[Samuraikoku]

I'm not arguing that, but can you actually explain what produces those chemical reactions in your brain?

Can you explain what causes massive particles to gravitate towards each other?

No?

THEN GRAVITY DOESN'T EXIST.

But I am not contending the existence of the physical/chemical processes inside the brain. I understand they happen. My point is that they happen for something else than just physics.

[The Archregimancy]

Locked for review.

Edit:
I'm unlocking this because no rules have been broken.

The last few pages have gone off the rails somewhat, but even that derail was broadly germane to the topic.

Furthermore, I would note for those of you inclined to complain about this turning into another Four Sided Triangles sex thread that it was Mavorpen who brought up 'sex is evil', not 4ST. Alright, 4ST did reply to that theme once someone brought it up, but this thread was coasting along perfectly well for 10 pages until someone else raised the issue.

And anyway - as already noted - no rules have been broken by anyone, so there's no reason for a lock.

But I would like to urge everyone to return more directly to the OP topic.

[Chinese Regions]

Rape and consent are concepts invented within the "physical laws" of our brains. You're mixing apples and oranges. But it's been a while since we've had such a creative troll, so it's all good.

Consent is an idea arising out of our assumption that free will really exists.

Past events caused someone to consent

[Chinese Regions]

That's the exact question you're asking at the very bottom of this, since you - in your own words - can't understand anything else beyond physical processes, and thus ask about purposes.

There's nothing magically special about humans that allows them to be outside of the same laws that apply to absolutely everything else in the universe.

See, now you are being a hypocrite for believing morality.
"Sex iz baaaad" is not a law in the same way laws of physics are. Moral laws require a metaphysical entity, be it a being such as a god or a supernatural binding force, neither exist.
Also, what will happen huh, what is the punishment for having sex and breaking your moral code? Eternal damnation from hell? Separation from god? Why should we obey it if there is no punishment?
And the laws of physics, etc. it is not the law in the sense of crime or whatever. It is just something you cannot do, that is not able to do.

[The Archregimancy]

I really wanted to give this a chance - but even conceding that two posts in an hour and a half may not be wholly representative of what NSG might have done given more time, in that hour and a half there's been no sense that this thread will return directly to the OP topic.