Sufi vs Rapture.
Results 51 to 75 of 102
Humans being animals is a fact. Accept and move on.
It was. Take a look at my first response to you. Everything has already been mentioned before.
I did not.
And this negates its use in this discussion why? Oh, because it was break your entire defense. Besides, plenty of murders have happened outside of political reasons.
Again, here you are still arguing that we're no better than animals and while I will agree that we are more destructive than animals, in normal conditions, animals act aggressive due to them being more instinctual beings rather than humans.
I already mentioned that a human possesses free will to preserve or destroy, I'm not quantifying the overall wrongdoings, I'm talking about how we generally act in our environments.
There's always a reason, otherwise it wouldn't be doing it.
More agreements. Further evidence that this entire ordeal was a miscommunication on your part.
What a petty way to back out of the argument. You sohuld have just left that unquoted.
I'm the one backing out?
Let's see, your original post:
Normality arguments is a fallacy to begin with. Give me a citation showing humans go 'crazy' less often than animals do. Additionally, no, wrong, that's not an unfair comparison. It's completely valid and you know it.
Firstly, you quoted "crazy" when I didn't even say that (talk about irony). I said they go "wild"...wild is also a reference to instincts. Which is a fact and common sense. Now whether there's a study on it or not, doesn't matter because it's still logical. I'm not the one backing out, you just don't know how else to defy it and are now going for the old "prove it" approach.
I don't know why truth is valuable either."
Note: Opinions can be wrong. Despite my possibly disagreement, gravity still pulls me to the Earth. Humans do have sex just like animals because we're driven with the instinctual desire. What else happens is just additional feelings instilled by our brain. Again, this is not complicated.
What you say is simply not logical because an absolute instinctual desire is simply not true, there's more to it when it comes to human beings. To understand that, you have to learn about the differences between male and female hormones and how it relates to their different sex drives.
You're a male so you can say that, which is why I agreed with you. I even replied to her telling her why it's a need for a man. Though your argument is out the door the moment you tell her that her interpretation is wrong because you don't know what her sexual drive is like...much less a female's in general apparently.
Females (in general except in some species) by nature are not as aggressively sexual beings. At least in humans, as far as I know, it's to do with inadequate amount of testosterone. I don't know why it's true in general with other species as well but it's clearly the case.
Now I'm not disagreeing with your instinctual argument, in that respect, we are animal-like but there's much more than that.
Her 'source' for thinking that was was because of the Bible. Again, please pay attention and thoroughly read the posts here.
Though regardless of the sources, what she says and what you say aren't more right or wrong than the other. They're both opinions and I can see truth to both of them.
Here, and another time after this, I clearly mentioned to you that regardless of her source (Bible/Mythology in this case), what she says isn't wrong. She can see it being more than just an instinct to have sex. She can see it being a symbol of whatever she holds dearly.
What she is saying doesn't defy science so I don't get why you're arguing against her source just because it has to do with mythology.
If you actually look at it for a moment from an objective point of view and leave your views about religion out of it, you will see that she does have a point.
You made one statement in your first post, (paraphrasing in case you become sensitive, correct it if I'm wrong):
1) Sex is an instinct that humans take part in like animals and there's nothing more to it.
Which is not entirely true.
So unless you can give a better explanation as to why you statement is an absolute fact, I think we're pretty much done here.
Clearly not since you had to ask. :T
Last edited by Omar; 05-28-2012 at 00:13.
05-28-2012 #54////Taking sig/avatar requests, PM if interested\\\\
1) Humans are animals.
2) Humans possess instinctual drives.
3) Humans possess higher cognitive function than other animals.
4) Certain animals are capable of the emotions we are.
Flipping Christ, that was easy. I'll be sure to use bullet points need time you stir up a debacle like this.
Or you meet someone actually enjoy being with, and the sex is just the cherry on top.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Sig By FinalReaper.
The entire reason our arguments started was primarily because of this statement:
Humans are just animals. The traits you've mentioned are not exclusive to humans. What you're prescribing is species elitism.
You're clearly implying here that the complexity of human emotions are also present in animals, which is simply not true.
As far as we know with scientific fact, their emotion set are basic at best and not complex in the cognitive and conscious manner that we humans do.
Now after some discussion, you have agreed that we do have a higher cognitive functions but you're still not clear about this part.
LOL @ the bible
LOL @ humans not being animals
Rapture is now my favorite poster.
If you read what Black Wolf actually stated...
So your point is moot. Also, weren't you just saying earlier that your half of things wasn't about emotions, but intelligence instead? We practically agreed on this and that was a cause for this misconception. Which is it?
The so-called self-conscious emotions - such as embarrassment, social anxiety, pride, guilt, and shame - undoubtedly constitute a distinct category of emotional experience that differs in important ways from emotions - such as anger, sadness, and fear - that have attracted the greatest attention from emotion researchers. Perhaps most important, the self-conscious emotions require self-awareness and, thus, are not seen in animals without the capacity for self-reflection or in human infants who have not yet acquired the ability to think consciously about themselves (Lewis & Brooks-Gunn 1979; Mitchell, 2003).
The reason I focused on intelligence more earlier was due to your elitist comment but I have always mentioned emotions being more complex due to our superior cognitive abilities. I just didn't go in detail in my earlier posts.
Er... no, that's not scientific fact. Contrary to your statements, scientists have witnessed and documented numerous examples of other animals displaying a wide and complex range of emotions.
Self-reflection may not be as powerful or even possible, but that isn't always necessary for emotional depth.
and then there's this:
Various attempts have been made to identify a single behavioural characteristic that distinguishes humans from all other animals. Some anthropologists think that readily observable characteristics (tool-making and language) are based on less easily observable mental processes that might be unique among humans: the ability to think symbolically, in the abstract or logically, although several species have demonstrated some abilities in these areas. Nor is it clear at what point exactly in human evolution these traits became prevalent. They may not be restricted to the species $#@! sapiens, as the extinct species of the $#@! genus (e.g. $#@! neanderthalensis, $#@! erectus) are believed to also have been adept tool makers and may also have had linguistic skills.
In learning environments reflection is an important part of the loop to go through in order to maximise the utility of having experiences. Rather than moving on to the next 'task' we can review the process and outcome of the task and - with the benefit of a little distance (lapsed time) we can reconsider what the value of experience might be for us and for the context it was part of.
Apparently some animals have shown some abilities but to what extent, wasn't said.
Either way, self-reflection and self-conscious/awareness is required to have these complex range of emotions as clearly stated.
Last edited by Omar; 05-28-2012 at 10:55.
what you are basically saying is your taking the word SEX and twisting it to making love saying they are different. they are not different, it's the same thing, just a use of different words. to put it in another light, there are no cameras around us, we don't make lame love to each other like they do in the movies. when I read what you wrote I couldn't help but think about those cheesy sex scenes in rated R movies. such scenes as where they have rose pedals and lit candles with music playing o.O
To be fair there are people that actually do copy "love scenes" from movies, they are called posers. I once had a girlfriend that had the same mindset as you in terms of sex vs. making love. she would act like we were in a movie or something, it was so annoying O.O I've seen this quite a few times from other friends girlfriends.
not saying your like this but when I read what you wrote I immediately thought of that. lol O.O
I'm not saying that everyone is like this. I think it's quite possible that many out there have never experienced the difference so it's easy to think it's just posing...and maybe for some it is, like you recalled. This "making love" or sex with the intent of expression rather than sexual fulfillment is something that is real, and for many there is a distinct difference.
Your source isn't absolute. It describes constructs of emotions that rely on a strong social structure. Those may be present within apes or chimpanzees, which continuously surprise us with what they can do. Social repercussions exist within those species as well, and they've been shown to feel what could be called embarrassment and pride.
Even if those specific traits are exclusive to us, that doesn't mean different traits don't exist elsewhere.
Complexity is different from 'strength' and 'range' of emotions, which is what I originally responded to. I guess we can drop this part as well.
Your link doesn't deter what I said. Sorry.
Arguably the sole drive throughout most of life is genetic replication, (i.e. to pass on your genes). Innumerable constructs and manifestations of this basic drive deceive the "advanced" human mind into action. Abstractly we call our attractions to potential mates "love" and excuse the vulgarity (if connoted as such) of procreation by articulation as "making love." While undeniably there is a bond between mates during sexual reproduction, the sole intent (manifestation of basic human need) is genetic replication. such similar bonds are established via any form of human connection.
As stated previously, the advanced (or more appropriately convoluted) mind causes a detachment of a basic understanding of this integral need/function. We see such manifestations routinely reflected in everyday life. For instance men crave, young fertile women (in their prime) as mates for genetic replication. Essentially due to the risk chromosomal/genetic damage that is likely to occur in female mates over the age of 35. This is even reflected in $#@!sexual relations where there is a (genetically-based) predisposition for younger mates. Similarly, big breasts are desired from a subconscious association/connection with them being able to supply adequate milk for the offspring. The same with voluptuous hips which would ensure a problem-free birth. These feminine characteristics are epitomized in pornography.
Conversely, women may be more attracted to older men because they offer "safety" or security in supporting the success of the females offspring. This does not come without the caveat of secure (and at times non-secure) striving to procreate with younger more virile makes due to preferential for their genetic code. But this dichotomy is rarely expressed in males (having older female partners).
In summation we strive for a genetically perfect mate, because we ultimately must split/share our genetic code with another. But more often than not we make concessions, because the urge/need to procreate is stronger than our need for preference of perfection. Once we make this concession, and find a mate, we create artificial constructs such as "love" in order to rationalize the animalistic or natural desire for procreation.
Tapatalk at the laundromat, excuse grammatical errors
^ LOL. Ok Poindexter.
- Join Date
- Sep 2010
- @the bball court
- PSN ID
- Rep Power
That's not the sole purpose of humans. All organisms need to reproduce, it's just natural. There has to be a purpose for humans other then sex, for why is that we're the only organisms that can talk? (Parrots don't count..) God did not put humans on Earth to mainly have sex. Therefore, since we have a higher intellect then other animals, it is only obvious that there is a much greater purpose for humans then having sex, what that purpose is, I don't know. That's for you to decide.
Kwes likes this post
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)