Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 9:32 AM
23 online now:
AZPaul3, Diomedes, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle, vimesey (7 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,633 Year: 3,670/19,786 Month: 665/1,087 Week: 34/221 Day: 5/29 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
91011Next
Author Topic:   You're either straight, gay, or lying?
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1266 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 106 of 158 (511898)
06-12-2009 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Hyroglyphx
06-12-2009 1:46 PM


Re: The irony of dichotomy
Ironically, people that do have lots of casual sex either long for love or flee from it, perhaps to mask some pain. Therein lies the dichotomy of the situation.

Here you go again, making things up as you go along and playing armchair phychologist.

I have love, and yet I and my partner engage in occasional casual sex. We have a stable, long-term relationship, healthy communication, and a bond that works on a much deeper level than whose penis went into whose vagina.

Perhaps you should stop making blanket statements about things you know nothing about?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-12-2009 1:46 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1030 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 107 of 158 (511899)
06-12-2009 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Hyroglyphx
06-12-2009 1:46 PM


Re: The irony of dichotomy
If someone literally slept with a new stranger every day of their lives, I'm sorry, but eventually you are going to objectify men or women to some degree. I think eventually as a self-defense mechanism, they might do what they can to disassociate feelings of love and/or affection with sex as much as possible.

I would agree that if someone slept with a new person everyday there is something metally wrong with them.

But that seems like a far way to go to prove your point, don't you think?

Casual sex, as in, maybe, a new partner every couple of months or so, and re-visits to known partners on a weekly/bi-weekly basis, or so.

I would say that this type of lifestyle doesn't lead to the types of mental disfunctions that "a new person everyday" would lead to.

Chomsky's position here is shocking to me. This guy is as liberal as it gets. Huh...

If Chomsky heard you call him a liberal he'd slap that pink helmet clean of your head good sir. :laugh:

He blames as much of the current problems on the liberal left as he does the conservative right. He would consider himself a Libertarian/Socialist, in the proper sense.

Here's his own words on it:

See, the people that advocate loose sex the most often can do so only because of that intentional detachment. How many fathers want their daughters to be loose? Honestly... Who? It doesn't happen.

I have daughters, two of them. I of course would not like for them to be "loose", but then again what do we mean by "loose"? If they, when they are adults, consent to casual sex (as in what I described above), in a responsible manner, then I have no opinion on it further than "please protect yourselves".

As adults, they would be free to make their own choices, and I don't expect to agree with all of them.

So, that's kind of how I feel about casual sex. I just attach a small caveat with it. I don't think that people that engage in it are doomed or anything. I just think that, like it is with most anything else, there is some risk involved... And not just physically with diseases.

But it does not mean that we "casual sex'rs" (I don't think thats a word - lol) can't experience the same kind of "love" that one in a monogamous relationship would - All be it, not in a conventional way by our current society's standard.

Ironically, people that do have lots of casual sex either long for love or flee from it, perhaps to mask some pain. Therein lies the dichotomy of the situation.

I will agree with this only because that is how I'm currently feeling - sort of. Not running away from it, but not looking for it. Just ended a long relationship, sadly because I fucked up, and now I feel regret for my actions. Due to this feeling I don't want to meet anyone of value, (not that it won't happen on it's own), because I feel my current profession puts me in situations where infidelity is almost guaranteed.

I do see where you're coming from though, I just don't think it can be given any percentage to represent all of our society or parts of it.

If you really had to lock people down into a set pattern, I think you'll find that in most cases, you can't. People vary constantly in their sexual promiscuity. I've known women who were "sluts" then got into a serious relationship, were faithful for years, ended the realtionship and didn't have sex again until they were in another monogamous relationship. I've known some who went back to "sluting" it up. And some who never were "sluts" and due to a bad break-up became "sluts". And the same goes for many of my guy friends.

It varies so much that you can't predict the outcome of the affects due to casual sex.

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-12-2009 1:46 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by petrophysics1, posted 06-12-2009 9:01 PM onifre has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 108 of 158 (511903)
06-12-2009 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Rahvin
06-12-2009 2:21 PM


Read my last post to Onifre and you will understand my position, which I freely admit is based on my own opinion, which was based on my own observations. But if it makes you feel any better, please find an empirical study conducted on monogamous versus polyamorous relationships in relation to emotional states. Somehow I don't see that being either readily available or ever conducted in the first place.

you're simply not aware of all of the variables involved in my moods, and what may make me a somewhat "hostile" poster. Perhaps I'm offended at your baseless claims that people who engage in casual sex must suffer some consequence

Must suffer??? I made it clear from my first post, and consistently up to now, that not everyone that engages in casual sex is going to be fucked up in the head or unloving. Never... Not even once. Your exaggerations are unnecessary character assassination.

I have engaged in casual sex. Hell I enjoyed it. And I would like to think that I'm in a stable monogamous relationship now and am capable of love. What I said before and what I will say again, is that people that consistently seek out casual sex are running a risk of becoming consumed by the prospect. I think they run the risk of objectifying. I think they run the risk of damaging any prospect of fostering a lasting and deep commitment in the future.

There is a difference between someone who uses drugs and someone who is a drug addict. A drug user is not necessarily a drug addict. However, with prolonged use, that user runs a risk of becoming an addict. What precise cocktail or circumstances are necessary for someone to make the jump is probably invariable. It is probably a combination of genetics, upbringing, personal resolve, etc, etc.

I just don't see how someone like, say, Jenna Jameson, has a wonderful relationship with Tito Ortiz. Maybe that's ignorant of me to say. I won't discount that. But I didn't assign the stigma, society did. And there is that whole thing about stereotypes. There is a reason why they exist, and the fact that somebody noticed them and characterized them is not entirely the fault of the one who noticed it. In fact, the one who exhibited the traits assigned it to themselves! Go figure...

Perhaps I get irritable when a person paints an entire class of people as "abnormal" or not healthy" without any evidence to back up such claims. Maybe I had a bad day at work. Or maybe I just don't like your avatar - Vader looks much better in his normal black, thank you. Maybe all of the above...or something else entirely.

Insisting that I'm "lashing out" because I'm in denial over secretly agreeing with you sounds to me like a lot of overcomplicated horseshit, personally.

Well, then, in keeping of the tone of what is or isn't normal... Normal people don't get as pissy as you did for literally no reason. Not only was I not talking to you, but my observations were meant to be fair, balanced, non-offensive and completely non-threatening. If you felt offended then I would suggest taking a deeper look in to your own mind to see why you reacted the way you did, because somehow I think it has less to do with me than it does you.

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.


"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--
This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Rahvin, posted 06-12-2009 2:21 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Rahvin, posted 06-12-2009 5:32 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1266 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 109 of 158 (511909)
06-12-2009 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Hyroglyphx
06-12-2009 3:00 PM


Read my last post to Onifre and you will understand my position, which I freely admit is based on my own opinion, which was based on my own observations. But if it makes you feel any better, please find an empirical study conducted on monogamous versus polyamorous relationships in relation to emotional states. Somehow I don't see that being either readily available or ever conducted in the first place.

I've never heard of any such study, either - that's part of my reason for insisting you present one. Because without actual evidence, instead of mere anecdote, your claim of increased risk is baseless and invalid.

Everybody has an opinion, but not all opinions are well-founded. Yours happens to be an unfounded opinion with no demonstrable connection to reality...it seems more closely tied with your own personal credulity.

quote:
you're simply not aware of all of the variables involved in my moods, and what may make me a somewhat "hostile" poster. Perhaps I'm offended at your baseless claims that people who engage in casual sex must suffer some consequence

Must suffer??? I made it clear from my first post, and consistently up to now, that not everyone that engages in casual sex is going to be fucked up in the head or unloving. Never... Not even once. Your exaggerations are unnecessary character assassination.

"Must suffer," as in "must have an increased risk." As you also said, "there are always exceptions." You're still asserting that casual sex carries the consequence of increased risk of diminished ability to bond and feel love. That assertion has absolutely no basis in fact outside of your own personal opinion and anecdotes - meaning your opinion is just as valid as any other that is not grounded in objective fact: not at all.

I have engaged in casual sex. Hell I enjoyed it. And I would like to think that I'm in a stable monogamous relationship now and am capable of love. What I said before and what I will say again, is that people that consistently seek out casual sex are running a risk of becoming consumed by the prospect. I think they run the risk of objectifying. I think they run the risk of damaging any prospect of fostering a lasting and deep commitment in the future.

And why do you think that? I see no reason to think that at all. Since you're admitting that this is all simply your personal opinion and not any sort of reality based position, I'll accept your concession that the above is totally unfounded and there's no reason to take your words seriously.

There is a difference between someone who uses drugs and someone who is a drug addict. A drug user is not necessarily a drug addict. However, with prolonged use, that user runs a risk of becoming an addict. What precise cocktail or circumstances are necessary for someone to make the jump is probably invariable. It is probably a combination of genetics, upbringing, personal resolve, etc, etc.

Didn't you accuse me of comparing apples and oranges in your previous post? "Drugs" (assuming we're talking about nicotine, heroin, cocaine, etc) are physically addictive. Taking them even once in certain individuals can result in dependency.

Sex is not addictive in the same way. In fact, I would dare say that sex addiction tends to be a cause of casual sex, rather than casual sex being a cause of sex addiction. It's also true that one can become a sex addict without engaging in casual sex - there are sex addicts who are addicted primarily to pornography.

I just don't see how someone like, say, Jenna Jameson, has a wonderful relationship with Tito Ortiz. Maybe that's ignorant of me to say. I won't discount that.

Ah, personal incredulity, that wonderful revealer of truth and objective reality...

Oh, wait. What you personally find to be credulous or not is irrelevant without actual evidence. Many porn stars are married, you know. Do you have some sort of knowledge regarding the stability or health of their relationships that the rest of us are not privy to?

But I didn't assign the stigma, society did. And there is that whole thing about stereotypes. There is a reason why they exist, and the fact that somebody noticed them and characterized them is not entirely the fault of the one who noticed it. In fact, the one who exhibited the traits assigned it to themselves! Go figure...

Oh, it's society's fault! It looks like we could get into a long conversation about stereotypes, you and I, that would drift us far afield of this topic. Suffice it to say that the vast majority of stereotypes are the result of selection bias, not objective fact...and you still haven't supported your opinion with anything more than additional hot air. That works for balloons, but not arguments.

You realize that much of the stigma placed on so-called "abnormal" sexuality is due to the religious standards of the dominant religions of our culture, yes? That even the guilt and shame that some people feel about their sexuality is the result not of any real wrong they've done, but rather due to the standards placed by the same repressed fools who made laws like the one in Texas which, until just a few short years ago, made the sale of sex toys illegal?

Your opinions and incredulity at the possibility of a stable non-monogamous relationship (like Jenna Jameson's marriage for example) are very likely the result of the cultural legacy of the very Puritans you claimed no to support a bit ago.

quote:
Perhaps I get irritable when a person paints an entire class of people as "abnormal" or not healthy" without any evidence to back up such claims. Maybe I had a bad day at work. Or maybe I just don't like your avatar - Vader looks much better in his normal black, thank you. Maybe all of the above...or something else entirely.

Insisting that I'm "lashing out" because I'm in denial over secretly agreeing with you sounds to me like a lot of overcomplicated horseshit, personally.


Well, then, in keeping of the tone of what is or isn't normal... Normal people don't get as pissy as you did for literally no reason. Not only was I not talking to you, but my observations were meant to be fair, balanced, non-offensive and completely non-threatening. If you felt offended then I would suggest taking a deeper look in to your own mind to see why you reacted the way you did, because somehow I think it has less to do with me than it does you.

Whether you were directly addressing me or not is irrelevant. You made a claim that was personally offensive to me - clearly I do have a reason to be rather annoyed. Further, you're refused to support your asinine opinion with any shred of objective fact, continuing instead to repeat your unsupported position along with a defense of stereotyping.

The fact is, I couldn't care less about how I come across on an internet debate board. Part of my acidity comes from the fact that I tend to consider my opponents emotional well-being to be irrelevant to the argument, which should instead should be concerned with logic and evidence. I'm basically treating you the exact same way that I treat Creationists who use the same tactics of refusing to produce evidence in support of their position and arguing via repetition of their personal beliefs with no attention paid to logic or refutation. That style of debate is extremely annoying, and combined with the fact that your claim is directly offensive to me, it makes me understandably irritated.

Now, since you've admitted that all of this is nothing more than your own opinion founded not on objective evidence but rather on personal anecdote, credulity, and stereotype, I'll accept your concession that there is no reason to believe that casual sex risks impeding future relationships.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-12-2009 3:00 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Nuggin, posted 06-12-2009 5:44 PM Rahvin has not yet responded
 Message 111 by onifre, posted 06-12-2009 5:49 PM Rahvin has responded
 Message 120 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-12-2009 10:23 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 572 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 110 of 158 (511911)
06-12-2009 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Rahvin
06-12-2009 5:32 PM


Didn't you accuse me of comparing apples and oranges in your previous post?

Brief aside - I HATE THIS EXPRESSION.

People say "comparing apples and oranges" meaning two things which have nothing in common.

Round, seeded, from trees, edible, domesticated crops, roughly the same size...

Apples and oranges have a LOT in common.

It should be "comparing apples and aircraft carriers" or "comparing oranges and neutrinos" or "comparing apples and oranges to darkmatter"

End Gripe


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Rahvin, posted 06-12-2009 5:32 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1030 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 111 of 158 (511912)
06-12-2009 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Rahvin
06-12-2009 5:32 PM


"Drugs" (assuming we're talking about nicotine, heroin, cocaine, etc) are physically addictive.

And he leaves out mari-jane because it is not a drug or addictive - Oni happy now with Rahvin. :D

- Oni


Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Rahvin, posted 06-12-2009 5:32 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Rahvin, posted 06-12-2009 6:24 PM onifre has responded

    
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1266 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 112 of 158 (511916)
06-12-2009 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by onifre
06-12-2009 5:49 PM


And he leaves out mari-jane because it is not a drug or addictive - Oni happy now with Rahvin.

:P

I'd accept calling it a "drug," (caffeine is a drug - that word isn't all that meaningful) but it doesn't form chemical dependency, so "addictive" is misleading.

Did you hear Schwarzenegger supports legalization? I still don't think it's happening quite yet, but it's getting closer. Helped when the Republicans saw how much tax revenue they were missing out on :D


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by onifre, posted 06-12-2009 5:49 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by onifre, posted 06-12-2009 7:23 PM Rahvin has responded
 Message 116 by Nuggin, posted 06-12-2009 8:44 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1030 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 113 of 158 (511921)
06-12-2009 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Rahvin
06-12-2009 6:24 PM


I'd accept calling it a "drug," (caffeine is a drug - that word isn't all that meaningful) but it doesn't form chemical dependency, so "addictive" is misleading.

*gets on soapbox*

Drugs: heroin, crack-cocaine, cocaine, crystal meth, tylenol, prozac, viagra, etc.

Plants, belonging to the kingdom Plantae: cannabis, coca, ferns, moss, etc.

We can call it whatever we want, but a drug it is not, it's a plant that's deemed illegal - for some reason? :rolleyes:

Did you hear Schwarzenegger supports legalization? I still don't think it's happening quite yet, but it's getting closer. Helped when the Republicans saw how much tax revenue they were missing out on

Yes I did! One day, hopeful, it's nation wide. I have fun when I visit Cali and go to the "clinics", it's like pothead heaven.

And of course it's gonna be for tax reasons! Greedy mothefu*&ers, but hey, this is one tax revenue they can have. No complaints from me. :D

- Oni


Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Rahvin, posted 06-12-2009 6:24 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Rahvin, posted 06-12-2009 7:27 PM onifre has responded
 Message 133 by Rrhain, posted 06-15-2009 6:49 AM onifre has responded

    
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1266 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 114 of 158 (511922)
06-12-2009 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by onifre
06-12-2009 7:23 PM


*gets on soapbox*

Drugs: heroin, crack-cocaine, cocaine, crystal meth, tylenol, prozac, viagra, etc.

Plants, belonging to the kingdom Plantae: cannabis, coca, ferns, moss, etc.

Ah, the Kat Williams approach -

"Drugs are things you need to do shit to. Weed ain't a drug - it just grow that way. And if you should happen to light it on fire, there may be some...effects!"

So then, shrooms are also not a drug, correct?

:P


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by onifre, posted 06-12-2009 7:23 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by onifre, posted 06-12-2009 7:39 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1030 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 115 of 158 (511925)
06-12-2009 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Rahvin
06-12-2009 7:27 PM


Ah, the Kat Williams approach -

"Drugs are things you need to do shit to. Weed ain't a drug - it just grow that way. And if you should happen to light it on fire, there may be some...effects!"

Roflmao, exactly!

So then, shrooms are also not a drug, correct?

Correct!!!

- Oni


Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Rahvin, posted 06-12-2009 7:27 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

    
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 572 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 116 of 158 (511929)
06-12-2009 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Rahvin
06-12-2009 6:24 PM


Did you hear Schwarzenegger supports legalization? I still don't think it's happening quite yet, but it's getting closer. Helped when the Republicans saw how much tax revenue they were missing out on

Not to mention the fact California's ~90,000 inmates are costing us something like $30,000 a year.

If you just take the 3,000 or so who are serving for ONLY marijuna possession and nothing else, that's $90,000,000.

With a budget deficit in the 6 BILLION dollar range, I don't think we need to blow nearly $100 million keeping harmless stoners locked up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Rahvin, posted 06-12-2009 6:24 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

    
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 158 (511930)
06-12-2009 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by onifre
06-12-2009 2:25 PM


Scientific Evidence
I have daughters, two of them.

And your actual objective verifiable scientific evidence for this is what?

Is it this?

I believed what the chick I was fucking told me.

My guess is that it is.

Why don't you go and read the crap you said to RAZD in the "Is my Hypothesis Correct" thread or others. Let's keep the standards for evidence uniform, unless you want to admit you were full of shit on those threads.

BTW, I'll bet you are afraid to have their DNA checked to see if you are really the father.

Those are the kind of things that happen to people with your lifestyle.

Or are you one of those people, who while they fucked around, told their woman they couldn't and actually believed they did that?

Have a nice day!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by onifre, posted 06-12-2009 2:25 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by petrophysics1, posted 06-12-2009 9:25 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded
 Message 122 by onifre, posted 06-13-2009 3:49 AM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 158 (511931)
06-12-2009 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by petrophysics1
06-12-2009 9:01 PM


Re: Scientific Evidence
In case all of you get upset with my reply to Oni.

It is based on 60 years of experience where I have seen the results of Oni's lifestyle.

This is not a joke. It is not good to see a friend who finds out after 22 years that his son can in no biological way be his and his wife told him the kid was his and HE DID THE RIGHT THING and married her. She was screwing someone else but he looked like a prospect with a better future.

Oni's lifestyle SUCKS.

It creates BIG problems for men, women and MOST OF ALL FOR KIDS.

I am not a bible believer, my opinion is based on my actual observation of the world and the problems people like Oni create in it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by petrophysics1, posted 06-12-2009 9:01 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Theodoric, posted 06-12-2009 9:54 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded
 Message 121 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-12-2009 10:27 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded
 Message 123 by onifre, posted 06-13-2009 4:07 AM petrophysics1 has not yet responded
 Message 135 by onifre, posted 06-15-2009 5:40 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5954
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 119 of 158 (511932)
06-12-2009 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by petrophysics1
06-12-2009 9:25 PM


Re: Scientific Evidence
I am not a bible believer, my opinion is based on my actual observation of the world

But awful damn judgmental. I love people like you who feel everyone should live their lives based upon your experiences. Get a grip. You are way out of line.

You know nothing about Oni or his kids.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by petrophysics1, posted 06-12-2009 9:25 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 120 of 158 (511933)
06-12-2009 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Rahvin
06-12-2009 5:32 PM


You say tomato and I say tomato
Damn, your posts are too long... I'll have to summarize.

I've never heard of any such study, either - that's part of my reason for insisting you present one. Because without actual evidence, instead of mere anecdote, your claim of increased risk is baseless and invalid.

How can I present an empirical claim if one likely does not exist? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you hypocritically doing the same thing by using anecdotes?

You're still asserting that casual sex carries the consequence of increased risk of diminished ability to bond and feel love. That assertion has absolutely no basis in fact outside of your own personal opinion and anecdotes

And how is exactly is your opinion valid, while mine is not? Because you said so?

Since you're admitting that this is all simply your personal opinion and not any sort of reality based position, I'll accept your concession that the above is totally unfounded and there's no reason to take your words seriously.

LOL! Yeah, right back at you. Everything you are saying to me applies to your own opinions, so...

Didn't you accuse me of comparing apples and oranges in your previous post? "Drugs" (assuming we're talking about nicotine, heroin, cocaine, etc) are physically addictive. Taking them even once in certain individuals can result in dependency.

My use of drug addicts vs drug usage is more a metaphor than it was about addiction.

Sex is not addictive in the same way. In fact, I would dare say that sex addiction tends to be a cause of casual sex, rather than casual sex being a cause of sex addiction.

Oh, but not the other way around though, right? How convenient.

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. This really isn't a hill that I want to die on because quite frankly I really don't care enough about the subject or the position to go on endlessly debating it.

One last question: If the whole world lived the way you and your significant other do, would society concurrently be improved or harmed in the process?


"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--
This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Rahvin, posted 06-12-2009 5:32 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
67
8
91011Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019