It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionAre partners using people if they don't disclose information?(21 posts)(21 posts)
(21 posts)
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Posted October 20, 2015
avatar
Gnostic: So the smart thing to do is don't have sex.

If needed virtual girls at your beck and call is preferable to real women.

Wait, I think there is quite a number of guys just did that but label negatively..............

Wonder why some people pressure men to have a "real" relationship when "real" relationship is much inferior?
avatar
011284mm: The smart thing you hint at I guess comes down to preference. For me sex is mine. I love having sex (if I were rich I would get diagnosed with sex addiction), but I think caution and protection is the way to go with complete strangers.

Virtual girls? Well I guess with games such as HoniePop available people have a degree of that - I know there are "harder" games on the market, but I have never played any of them.
I guess with the way social and environmental changes have risen about us it is not impossible, nor improbable that it could happen that people take virtual or at least robotic partners.
In Japan the social bonds are breaking as well as here in the West. Hell my current and past partners both wanted to chase their careers, shunning time with family for time at work. Then my current partner decided to buy herself pets and treats them a little like children, because and I quote "They are easy to keep" unlike a child. Which would interrupt her career and rise to the top.
The previous girlfriend has 2 children, my understanding is with different fathers, and quit that oh so wonderful job she fought so hard to climb the ladder in.

So social and natural relationship break down. After all it cannot just be me.
Looking at my friends with children. All bar one in broken / half functional relationships or with stepchildren.

Personally I cannot see a world without "love". Women need to feel wanted and loved, but the landscape may change quite drastically over the coming years.
So whilst yes, there is just a little bit of an imbalance in love, it is just how it works, and it has worked well for the entire of human history. No matter how much society changes, nor what the mainstream tells us we _now_ really want. Basic human desire will eventually win out. Sex is fun, our brains enjoy the dopamine cocktail. Our brains are still programmed to want to reproduce and so will attempt it - preservation of the genetics.

For me sex with a robot, just like your own hand could never be as good as half-assed drunk sex with another person. Yet I might be willing to give it a go.... I would be willing.
Admittedly, I don't know much about sex.

I believe just like drugs / smoke / alcohol, if I never experience it, I won't be governed by it. If I never have sex nor masturbate, I can be free of it. Yes, it is basic human desire, but we humans are different than animals because we can control our desire for something better. Just work out or play games if I have the urge, when tired my body trouble me no more.

Sex, like drugs may give a lot of fun, but like drugs, there are too much negative side effect to be worth it (I think). Responsibility, Time, Money, Emotional investment, Society bearings, Freedom, Law.

With so much time required for work, and so little time for myself. Sex and family is a luxury that can be skipped.

While it is people freedom to have sex without the intention of starting a family, prevention is not absolute and one day they may get a surprise.
Posted October 20, 2015
avatar
wpegg: What is love?
avatar
JMich: Baby don't hurt me
Beat me to it...
Posted October 20, 2015
avatar
monkeydelarge: Just because I say things you don't like hearing doesn't mean I'm in a highly emotional state. If I'm in a highly emotional state, trust me, you will know.
Your posts show many signs of you being emotional.

avatar
monkeydelarge: If you can't see the logic in my previous posts, then that is your problem. :)
Nope, it's not mine.

avatar
monkeydelarge: You could read my posts again and see that I explained why this woman is most likely a scam artist with logic.
That's the point: You give reasons for her being likely a scam artist but make it appear like she were definitely a scam artist.
What you said was basically: She is most likely a scam artist → So, she is a scam artist.

Last time I checked that was not a logically valid argument. Not respecting other possibilities while arguing that way and calling that logic is making a fool of oneself.

avatar
monkeydelarge: If I did say she is a scam artist as a fact in one of my previous posts then I made a mistake.
That is a mistake that you normally make if you are led by emotions and not logic. Paired with your use of strong language and an emotional way of expressing yourself, I can say for sure that you are more emotional about this matter than me.

avatar
monkeydelarge: Whatever kind of bad person she is, she cost her ex husband, [a lot]
As you can see in the post you initially replied to, I've been with you on this all along, so, why are you telling me this?
Posted October 21, 2015
[Carrying this over here, to keep the TB thread on topic.]

Well, i just realised that the whole (sub)discussion originated from a tort1234 post. Silly us.
Life lesson here involving paradoxes :
You are clever and altruistic enough to share insightful and elaborate perspectives with anyone and everyone.
You are silly enough to do that with tort (among others).
Well, that's one paradox (more than that, I see it as a straightforward deadend) when you start discussing with people before realising that you are facing a wall of dishonest stupidity that conceals a whole set of untold values which determine positions at a whole other level than the displayed (self-)rationalising discourses. In these cases, argumentation is futile, as we are (despite the claims) as far from an "academic" discussion as can be. Deep representations such as "The Woman", "The National Identity", "The Foreigner", etc, are untouched and cannot be questionned at that point : I don't know if you've checked (or can still check) the Fassin/Bruckner discussion yesterday on Arte's "28 minutes", but it was very illustrative of that. In a different way, Shadowstalker's little out-of-the-blue provocation, on the previous [TB thread] page, also illustrates this : it made no sense within the thread, but carried over untold elements from other threads, completely hypcritically left aside - and the mass derep of unrelated posts, illustrative of a certain type of (shared) mentality, further show that something completely different drives the show.

However, when it comes to this specific point about Tort's post, the question is a tad different. The futility of discussing with Tort is one thing, but what I was meaning here is that we had been debating a story that we "know" solely through Tort's post. In other words, purely hypothetical. Given what we know of Tort's character and outlooks, how filtered and distorted can the original events have reached us here ? We don't have even a stable enough ground to start speculating about the protagonists' motives. The very "mudshark" notion (presumed relevant enough by Tort to mention it with everything it's supposed to convey) is enough to ring an alarm bell, even without a glance at his posting history.

So, while "can we actually debate with the National Front" is a problem in and by itself, "is it even worth philosophying for ages over such a dubious source's story" is yet a different one.
Post edited October 21, 2015 by Telika
Posted October 21, 2015
avatar
Telika: In these cases, argumentation is futile, as we are (despite the claims) as far from an "academic" discussion as can be. Deep representations such as "The Woman", "The National Identity", "The Foreigner", etc, are untouched and cannot be questionned at that point
It feels like more and more people aren´t able to pick up an idea that hasn´t been mentally digested three times (and sometimes the rebuttal part is picked up). Surinformation for them/us/me I suppose.

avatar
Telika: However, when it comes to this specific point about Tort's post, the question is a tad different. The futility of discussing with Tort is one thing, but what I was meaning here is that we had been debating a story that we "know" solely through Tort's post. In other words, purely hypothetical. Given what we know of Tort's character and outlooks, how filtered and distorted can the original events have reached us here ? We don't have even a stable enough ground to start speculating about the protagonists' motives.
As a counterpoint to my post I agree there is somewhere a need (although futile, as you said) to address his point, and I am glad someone is doing it.
However, my obsession with time is making me doubt about the "net good" of the whole thing, because in the end all this other thread is painted on the story of a man who dedicate his time for gamers (note for everyone : I completely embrace the fact that I am talking about someone "working in videogames"), and he is running out of it and in the meanwhile some of us argue against the unmovable.
At least that´s why my sensibilities on the matter are in a turmoil.

avatar
Telika: The very "mudshark" notion (presumed relevant enough by Tort to mention it with everything it's supposed to convey) is enough to ring an alarm bell, even without a glance at his posting history.
I think I can safely ignore all that nonsense without even trying to figure out what that is.


edit : and unfortunately, I am currently geographically unable to watch arte (and are we talking about the logic of internet argumentation in a human relationships thread ? erg !)
Post edited October 21, 2015 by Potzato
Posted October 22, 2015
In the interest of objectivity, can someone link the above mentioned posts by tort and shadowstalker that apparently kicked this off?

The post from tort in this very thread is hugely reductionist, anyone that believes such generalizations are anywhere near universal - to put it charitably - lacks perspective.

The OP from wpegg seems to me to be much more interesting, in the context of modern interpersonal relationships and their meaning - shallow or deeper as it may be. In my opinion a lot about the world today contributes to increased disintegration of relationships, or hinders their formation, therefore resulting in much more shallower realities around affection - be that romantic, platonic or familial.

The posts that are not drive by however have apparently gone way off topic. But maybe I'm mistaken what was on topic...
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionAre partners using people if they don't disclose information?(21 posts)(21 posts)
(21 posts)