Dissidents Philosophy Forum

Internet Philosophical Community
 
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 ...

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
AuthorMessage
system-hater
Active Idealist
Active Idealist
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 74
Age : 31
Location : American wasteland
Registration date : 2009-02-21

PostSubject: Re: ...   Sun Jun 21, 2009 12:19 pm

Quote :
Unreasonable wrote:
system-hater wrote:
My first question is: How do you justify that sexuality causes ALL human intereaction?

how does sexuality play into the exchange in every human interaction alone?
Well think about this for a few minutes.

Imagine if you could self-replicate as a means for living forever. Imagine having no sexual urges throughout your life whatsoever.

I do not know if you can relate to this, but, being a male-myself and having loads of testosterone coursing through my body, I feel the need to fuck a lot.

That is natural. And that is what it means to be "male".


If you or I were "Asexual" and could self-replicate our genes, or, evolve without sexual competition, then what use would we have for other people???

In that case, you would be self-sufficient and self-sustaining. You would not *NEED* anything from anybody else, and thus, would entirely lose your interest.


Also you must keep in mind sexuality throughout Human History and how that has played its role up to this day.



So we need sexual urges in order to find some utility for our relationships with other people??

How would being Asexual nullify any use for other people or nullify any need for them?

Let me give you a hypothetical scenario...

A heterosexual man, (being full of testosterone and sexual urges), meets another heterosexual man (full of testosterone and sexual urges), to discuss a corporate business venture. They meet, shake hands, exchange eye contact, observe each other etc.

Now, both being heterosexual, they have no interest sexually in each other, however, if there is no sexual interest in one another, how else would sexuality play into their meeting, which is based, obviously, on strictly non-sexual terms?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Unreasonable
Animated Voice
Animated Voice
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 728
Age : 34
Location : Purgatory
Registration date : 2008-12-13

PostSubject: Re: ...   Sun Jun 21, 2009 12:42 pm

system-hater wrote:
So we need sexual urges in order to find some utility for our relationships with other people??
Yes. Sex, like almost all other things, is based on Utility.


system-hater wrote:
How would being Asexual nullify any use for other people or nullify any need for them?
Asexuality, much like Eunuchs or Abstinent religious monks, become pacified through their lack of sexuality.

So, in terms of Society, they have no social utility outside of their devotion/loyalty to a social/religious ideal.

But unless these animals can reproduce their genetics, they nullify their own need to live/survive (except based upon the social ideal).


system-hater wrote:
Let me give you a hypothetical scenario...

A heterosexual man, (being full of testosterone and sexual urges), meets another heterosexual man (full of testosterone and sexual urges), to discuss a corporate business venture. They meet, shake hands, exchange eye contact, observe each other etc.

Now, both being heterosexual, they have no interest sexually in each other, however, if there is no sexual interest in one another, how else would sexuality play into their meeting, which is based, obviously, on strictly non-sexual terms?
Each of these men, have made a deal, probably to ensure their own Power for respective sexual selection.

Make no bones about this...dominant alpha-male figures cannot stand one-another on an instinctual basis. They want to kill each other.

But, for the sake of (Western) Civility, their survival is made contingent upon (and abstracted by) their idolatry toward money.

Rather than kill each other, they instead agree that 'money' shall be their (sexual) value.

But neither of these two men are exactly equal in their networth. One is *WORTH MORE* than the other. And this is the sexual competition at work.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
system-hater
Active Idealist
Active Idealist
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 74
Age : 31
Location : American wasteland
Registration date : 2009-02-21

PostSubject: Re: ...   Sun Jun 21, 2009 1:29 pm

Unreasonable wrote:


Yes. Sex, like almost all other things, is based on Utility.

So i would need some sexual underlined motivation to have a relationship with say...my mother??




Quote :
Asexuality, much like Eunuchs or Abstinent religious monks, become pacified through their lack of sexuality.

So, in terms of Society, they have no social utility outside of their devotion/loyalty to a social/religious ideal.

But unless these animals can reproduce their genetics, they nullify their own need to live/survive (except based upon the social ideal).

OK, Having a lack of interest in sex, may divert our priorities elsewhere and to other things not associated with people.

still...

how would a pacified life as a result from being Asexual still nullify any need for relationships?

Can i not be Asexual and still use another person to be happy with? sad with? enjoy their company to quell loneliness with?


Quote :
system-hater wrote:
Let me give you a hypothetical scenario...

A heterosexual man, (being full of testosterone and sexual urges), meets another heterosexual man (full of testosterone and sexual urges), to discuss a corporate business venture. They meet, shake hands, exchange eye contact, observe each other etc.

Now, both being heterosexual, they have no interest sexually in each other, however, if there is no sexual interest in one another, how else would sexuality play into their meeting, which is based, obviously, on strictly non-sexual terms?
Each of these men, have made a deal, probably to ensure their own Power for respective sexual selection.

Make no bones about this...dominant alpha-male figures cannot stand one-another on an instinctual basis. They want to kill each other.

But, for the sake of (Western) Civility, their survival is made contingent upon (and abstracted by) their idolatry toward money.

Rather than kill each other, they instead agree that 'money' shall be their (sexual) value.

But neither of these two men are exactly equal in their networth. One is *WORTH MORE* than the other. And this is the sexual competition at work.
[/quote]

But perhaps their interest is not in themselves, perhaps it is simply in the money alone.

I agree, that they have the complexity to achieve power garnering a stronger sexual prowess, however, what if they both are interested not in competition, but strictly in the *MONEY*??

A man who robs a convenience store, interacts with the clerk not to compete with him over sexual terms, but to rob him, does he not?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Unreasonable
Animated Voice
Animated Voice
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 728
Age : 34
Location : Purgatory
Registration date : 2008-12-13

PostSubject: Re: ...   Sun Jun 21, 2009 1:34 pm

system-hater wrote:
But perhaps their interest is not in themselves, perhaps it is simply in the money alone.

I agree, that they have the complexity to achieve power garnering a stronger sexual prowess, however, what if they both are interested not in competition, but strictly in the *MONEY*??

A man who robs a convenience store, interacts with the clerk not to compete with him over sexual terms, but to rob him, does he not?
Money is a means to an end, which in-itself has no power outside of its symbolism.

I mean imagine if the business tycoons, all of a sudden, declared that money is just a paper weight...how would they then define their power over each other???

Money is just a 'game' in that sense...purely symbolic. And that symbolism is what either use to base their accessibility to sex...

(Think about prostitutes who have sex for money and it makes sense.)


And a convenience store robber *USUALLY* steals money out of necessity, not for glory and (sexual) power. He needs the money for his sustenance.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
system-hater
Active Idealist
Active Idealist
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 74
Age : 31
Location : American wasteland
Registration date : 2009-02-21

PostSubject: Re: ...   Sun Jun 21, 2009 2:20 pm

Unreasonable wrote:


I mean imagine if the business tycoons, all of a sudden, declared that money is just a paper weight...how would they then define their power over each other???

Why must power (sexual or otherwise) be determined through mutual engagement? Why not simply be defined by power over *ONESELF*?



Quote :
And a convenience store robber *USUALLY* steals money out of necessity, not for glory and (sexual) power. He needs the money for his sustenance.

So not all human interaction is based on sexuality than??
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Unreasonable
Animated Voice
Animated Voice
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 728
Age : 34
Location : Purgatory
Registration date : 2008-12-13

PostSubject: Re: ...   Sun Jun 21, 2009 2:35 pm

system-hater wrote:
Why must power (sexual or otherwise) be determined through mutual engagement?
Because if the engagement is not mutual then there will be war, and physical violence...even inevitable extermination of a specie.


system-hater wrote:
Why not simply be defined by power over *ONESELF*?
Ask the Business Tycoons...what you refer to is what I call the "spiritual path" or the killing/curtailing of your own sexual desires, to repress them into a Will.


system-hater wrote:
Quote :
And a convenience store robber *USUALLY* steals money out of necessity, not for glory and (sexual) power. He needs the money for his sustenance.
So not all human interaction is based on sexuality than??
But the argument falls back onto my earlier premise...which is that of Asexuality and immediate survival.

If people could reproduce *WITHOUT* social engagement, Asexually, then they would break away from the social structure.

There would be no "convenience store" and no "robber" and no "money" to rob. None of these things would exist.


However, Human History shows us that Society dominates...because of (Hetero)-sexuality and the (violent) competition it provides.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
system-hater
Active Idealist
Active Idealist
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 74
Age : 31
Location : American wasteland
Registration date : 2009-02-21

PostSubject: Re: ...   Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:28 pm

Quote :

system-hater wrote:
Quote :
And a convenience store robber *USUALLY* steals money out of necessity, not for glory and (sexual) power. He needs the money for his sustenance.
So not all human interaction is based on sexuality than??
But the argument falls back onto my earlier premise...which is that of Asexuality and immediate survival.

If people could reproduce *WITHOUT* social engagement, Asexually, then they would break away from the social structure.

There would be no "convenience store" and no "robber" and no "money" to rob. None of these things would exist.


However, Human History shows us that Society dominates...because of (Hetero)-sexuality and the (violent) competition it provides.
[/quote]

This doesn't seem correct...

Individual reproduction, in lieu of social interaction, would not exclude the structure of society. If human's could reproduce without sex, society would still exist. If reproduction is still occurring, than human interaction is still occurring, and the societal structure is still subsisting because of the reproduction.

If there is still reproduction, than there is still such things as robberies and the like, because there are still human beings.

A robber can be Asexual, and still interact with the clerk, to steal the money. The money, (symbolically as you put it) represents a motive, which is not associated with sex, and that motive is survival, whether it be for food, monetary acquisition, or power.

Now, if it is for food, than it excludes sexuality, if it is for power, it might include it. however, the interaction itself, has nothing to do with sex. The robber i would imagine, is emotional, anxious, urgent, and probably unthinking in general about anything to do with sex, with the exception of thinking about getting the money.

the clerk, would be thinking about nothing more than cooperating with the robber (assuming he cares about his life) and also forget about sex as well.

Now the "hormones" and "aggressiveness" and "adrenaline", associated with this interaction, would not necessarily be based on sex, but on the situation, which is not based on sex. Therefore, the interaction is not based on sex.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Unreasonable
Animated Voice
Animated Voice
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 728
Age : 34
Location : Purgatory
Registration date : 2008-12-13

PostSubject: Re: ...   Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:11 pm

system-hater wrote:
This doesn't seem correct...

Individual reproduction, in lieu of social interaction, would not exclude the structure of society.
Then what worth would men have to buy into Society except sex-itself...?

The City Walls protect the pussies inside. It is that simple. Man defends the gates (of the pussy).

If neither needed each other for (hetero)-sexual reproduction then there would be no need for the gates in the first place...



system-hater wrote:
If human's could reproduce without sex, society would still exist.
How?

And why???

What has Society done for you lately except burdened you with potential Responsibility???


system-hater wrote:
If reproduction is still occurring, than human interaction is still occurring, and the societal structure is still subsisting because of the reproduction.
But if reproduction is confined to Individuality then there is absolutely no need for Sociality...correct???

Why would an Asexual, self-reproducing entity, need a host to latch onto when it provides nothing of interest?


system-hater wrote:
If there is still reproduction, than there is still such things as robberies and the like, because there are still human beings.
But there necessarily is *NOT* a Society to steal from...what would be the point of building Societies with Asexual Reproduction?


system-hater wrote:
A robber can be Asexual, and still interact with the clerk, to steal the money. The money, (symbolically as you put it) represents a motive, which is not associated with sex, and that motive is survival, whether it be for food, monetary acquisition, or power.
But the context is the actual circumstance here...

What is the money buying him, food perhaps? So then Society would be based on food production and not sex, which is as it currently stands.

Remember the City Walls. What were they built for...and why? Why is the Robber invested in a system where instead he can hunt his own food?

The context is everything under this Hypothetical circumstance.


system-hater wrote:
Now, if it is for food, than it excludes sexuality, if it is for power, it might include it.
But that is not correct *BECAUSE* now the food feeds the Asexuality of the robber. And survivability/asexuality can become confused.

Heterosexuality is different, and this is my case. Asexuality, I believe, is something Humanity has evolved out of, and not into...


system-hater wrote:
however, the interaction itself, has nothing to do with sex.
Not directly, depending on the underlying circumstances.

But I have been drawing the cause back to the Source everytime...in other words, why steal money except for the (symbolic) power it affords?


system-hater wrote:
The robber i would imagine, is emotional, anxious, urgent, and probably unthinking in general about anything to do with sex, with the exception of thinking about getting the money.
Even if that is true, the robbers intellectual capacity has nothing to do with his basic/primal motivations...toward survival, food, etc.

Money is the means through which he acquires these things. He (apparently) is not thinking about getting a minimum wage job. He is after a quick fix.


system-hater wrote:
the clerk, would be thinking about nothing more than cooperating with the robber (assuming he cares about his life) and also forget about sex as well.
Is not Immediate Survival directly connected to Sexuality through the purpose of Sexuality-itself?

I mean, imagine if a man was castrated and devoid of testosterone...would he care so much about living anymore, or serving his Masters/God?


system-hater wrote:
Now the "hormones" and "aggressiveness" and "adrenaline", associated with this interaction, would not necessarily be based on sex, but on the situation, which is not based on sex. Therefore, the interaction is not based on sex.
That is *ONLY* true if you circumvent all these situations into those where there are no Males present...

...but are not convenient store robbers and clerks *ALMOST ALWAYS* testosterone-driven males????????????????????????????????????????????

How many women go around, desperate, to hold up convenient stores???

If they did then it would be on the front page of the National News, because, it is anomalous. Males are the sexual deviants, and the criminals of Society.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
system-hater
Active Idealist
Active Idealist
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 74
Age : 31
Location : American wasteland
Registration date : 2009-02-21

PostSubject: Re: ...   Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:24 pm

Quote :
[quote="Unreasonable"]
system-hater wrote:
If there is still reproduction, than there is still such things as robberies and the like, because there are still human beings.
But there necessarily is *NOT* a Society to steal from...what would be the point of building Societies with Asexual Reproduction?

I gave this a bit more thought, and I can now see I’ve digressed and misperceived. Not to mention, My actual inquiry was about sexuality by “interaction” alone-rather than, society as a whole.

The interaction is what I am concerned with.


Quote :
[quote="system-hater"]however, the interaction itself, has nothing to do with sex.
Not directly, depending on the underlying circumstances.

unreasonable wrote:
But I have been drawing the cause back to the Source everytime...in other words, why steal money except for the (symbolic) power it affords?


Regardless of the underlying circumstances, or the long-term motives, Directly, it is not associated with sex.

The robber and the clerk are not thinking about how this particular interaction will affect them sexually (subconsciously), they are thinking about nothing more than the moment itself, which excludes sex!

Now, perhaps the robber has taken the money, and when he finally regains his composure, perhaps *THEN* he will contemplate (controlled by the underlying sexuality), how this will benefit him in the system.

The clerk, when he regains HIS composure might *THEN* contemplate other needs and desires based upon HIS investment in the system.

But, the source does not matter in the moment itself.


Quote :
system-hater wrote:
The robber i would imagine, is emotional, anxious, urgent, and probably unthinking in general about anything to do with sex, with the exception of thinking about getting the money.
Even if that is true, the robbers intellectual capacity has nothing to do with his basic/primal motivations...toward survival, food, etc.

Again, the interaction is not based upon underlying motivations, it is based upon ******immediate****** motivations, ******immediate****** necessities.

Quote :
Money is the means through which he acquires these things. He (apparently) is not thinking about getting a minimum wage job. He is after a quick fix.

Exactly!!!

Quote :
system-hater wrote:
the clerk, would be thinking about nothing more than cooperating with the robber (assuming he cares about his life) and also forget about sex as well.
Is not Immediate Survival directly connected to Sexuality through the purpose of Sexuality-itself?

No it isn’t.

Because any immediate threat to ones life, is a connection to fear. That intense fear, forces the clerk to cooperate.

Quote :
I mean, imagine if a man was castrated and devoid of testosterone...would he care so much about living anymore, or serving his Masters/God?

Perhaps.

It would depend on what else he can invest himself into. The human mind is versatile.


Quote :
system-hater wrote:
Now the "hormones" and "aggressiveness" and "adrenaline", associated with this interaction, would not necessarily be based on sex, but on the situation, which is not based on sex. Therefore, the interaction is not based on sex.
That is *ONLY* true if you circumvent all these situations into those where there are no Males present...

What?

Are you saying males are the only ones concerned with sex???

Quote :
...but are not convenient store robbers and clerks *ALMOST ALWAYS* testosterone-driven males????????????????????????????????????????????

Yes.

But testosterone, can incite a drive to do other things besides having sex. Like, playing a physical sport, climbing a mountain, fighting, murdering, and sometimes…… robbing a convenience store!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote :
How many women go around, desperate, to hold up convenient stores???

Not nearly as much as males, but it happens.

Quote :
If they did then it would be on the front page of the National News, because, it is anomalous.


Hehe…I agree.

Quote :
Males are the sexual deviants, and the criminals of Society.

I agree.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Unreasonable
Animated Voice
Animated Voice
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 728
Age : 34
Location : Purgatory
Registration date : 2008-12-13

PostSubject: Re: ...   Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:14 pm

Let me use an Analogy, SH, since I think you are missing my point.

Choice 1) You can live as long as you like, immortal, *BUT* you can never reproduce sexually or otherwise. Furthermore, your desire for sex is dead.

Choice 2) You will live for 12 more hours, *BUT* you can spend that time having sex and successfully-reproducing with as many women as you want.


Which would you choose???

If you choose Choice 1) then the robber clearly will no longer have the *NEED* to rob the convenience store.

If you choose Choice 2) then the robber clearly will no longer have the *NEED* to rob the convenience store.


Is there any *OTHER* purpose in life for males *EXCEPT* to have sex and spread their genetic seed...?

This is what I mean by Sex & Survival. These two concepts are mutually-integrated. You cannot just take one out of the equation.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
system-hater
Active Idealist
Active Idealist
avatar

Male
Number of posts : 74
Age : 31
Location : American wasteland
Registration date : 2009-02-21

PostSubject: Re: ...   Tue Jun 23, 2009 1:02 am

Unreasonable wrote:
Let me use an Analogy, SH, since I think you are missing my point.

Choice 1) You can live as long as you like, immortal, *BUT* you can never reproduce sexually or otherwise. Furthermore, your desire for sex is dead.

Choice 2) You will live for 12 more hours, *BUT* you can spend that time having sex and successfully-reproducing with as many women as you want.


Which would you choose???

If you choose Choice 1) then the robber clearly will no longer have the *NEED* to rob the convenience store.

If you choose Choice 2) then the robber clearly will no longer have the *NEED* to rob the convenience store.

Unreasonable, it seems you and I have gotten off on the wrong foot, probably, I would imagine, because we don’t yet have a firm grasp of our own conversing proclivities.

Let me go over the system with you and see if you may absorb a semblance of my viewpoint.

Man’s involvement in the system is based upon how he benefits from it. If he cannot find any benefit which suits him, he self-ostracizes, becomes a hermit, a recluse, and if he does find a benefit, he strives to preserve his involvement, through working, establishing personal reputation and human contacts, acquiring material possessions, and procreating. On one hand, some aspects attributable to the system (which is the society) can be possible if man decides to become apart from it, such as procreation, working, and (possibly depending on the circumstances), establishing human contacts.

On the other hand, some aspects, are strictly dependent upon the what the system has to offer apart from an environment supporting hermitism. Money would be the most preponderant, and reputation, and the likelihood of human relations (especially with the female) are much more abundant.

If man decides the exclude himself, which would consequently result in his chances of heterosexual procreation becoming substantially weakened, what then will be his motivations for self-perpetuation? Would the disparaging reality of a celibate life discourage his “natural” inclination to survive? The answer, I say is-no, considering the choice was made for a *reason*, and that reason was specifically to reside outside the system. A solitary life, may come at the cost of natural sacrifices, (sexual), considering the ingrained preference of the collective whole of society to remain inside the system, especially in the advanced age.

If man decides to remain inside the system (the gates) he resigns himself to laws of the system, in return for what the system has to offer him, one being a much more active sex life.

Man can survive inside or outside the system. The system offers artificial pleasures, and a higher prestige of sexual ubiquity. The “outskirts” of the system, offers loneliness, seclusion, however, it also offers the benefit of undulated self-reliance.

Is sex necessary to reside in the system???

For MOST, yes, for others-self-ostracizers-probably not. Therefore, to reside in the system, sex doesn't always have to be the reason, otherwise...why would some exclude themselves from it??????????????????

So which would I choose?

I choose neither, for the following reasons:

First reason to the first choice) I would never want to live forever. That, to me is an unbearable punishment, worse than death.

Second reason to the second choice) as much as I enjoy sex, the prospect of making my death more unique in any personal way I saw fit in the 12 hours I had, would be more attractive, and important to me, than wasting it on sexual intercourse.

Hence, true, the robbers need to rob the convenience store, would be null and void, in conjunction with either of the choices. But, your attempt to conclusively refute my context through this *NARROWING* of it, doesn’t work, because my context of the robber, is not based upon either of those situations.

Quote :
Is there any *OTHER* purpose in life for males *EXCEPT* to have sex and spread their genetic seed...?

Yes there is. The pursuit of knowledge, survival. The human mind is designed to assimilate, compensate for what it lacks.

What you should understand, is that for every person who is Asexual, there are 1000 others who aren’t and those are the ones who sustain the diversity of the social structure. There would never be a world of Asexual reproduction, because it is not possible.

However, again this is irrelevant to my contention, which is: how is every human interaction based upon sex?????????

Quote :
This is what I mean by Sex & Survival. These two concepts are mutually-integrated. You cannot just take one out of the equation.

But you’re not taking anything out of the equation.

I understand your meaning of the “source” that drives the human condition. But the source, can be overridden, invariably by instantaneous factors surfacing themselves as the more significant, such as a desperate need for money (fueled by adrenaline, and fear of getting caught) and a need to cooperate as a result of ones life being threatened (fueled by fear).

Regardless of any source, feelings and desires *CHANGE*, all the time. Whatever the change is, in whatever the situation/circumstance, that is what holds the importance.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: ...   

Back to top Go down
 
...
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 4 of 4Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Dissidents Philosophy Forum :: Conversation-
Jump to: