Page 7 of 28

Re: Religion and Politics: Iraqi Crisis

Posted: 19 Sep 2014 20:26
by Summerlander
nesgirl wrote:I think we should always give our organs a break.

Don't make that break permanent, though, because they need exercise, too. They can permanently rest when we die. :D

nesgirl wrote:And procreation my rear. Did you know a female could get really hurt or even die from reproducing? Why should a woman risk her health or life doing that when we can clone?

Yeah, I know. And yet, millions of them are willing to give birth despite the risks and the pain. Many get broody and would do it all over again. My wife is one of them. Call them crazy? Mass delusion? Perhaps. But it won't stop them from unconsciously ensuring the continuation of our species that way. And why do such a controversial thing as cloning human beings (which we cannot do at the moment) when we can simply improve medicinal practice to the point of guaranteeing a flawless parturition where both mother and child survive and are healthy. 8-)

nesgirl wrote:The very worst thing that can happen from that is AIDs, and people die so often from that disease, should we not try to prevent illness in every way possible?

The way to solve the HIV problem is to eradicate it with effective antidotes or bury the virus like we did with small pox - which could be transmitted through kissing. Now, should a child at that time be told that his mother shouldn't kiss him because it's been banned as the only solution to prevent a pandemic? :roll: :P

I also made love to my wife today. We both enjoyed it and nobody got killed. :twisted:

nesgirl wrote:most people would have to be disciplined to become asexual

This is like a straight person saying a gay needs to be cured or trained to be straight. If you have no sexual urges and you are happy, that's fine, but don't force others to be like you when they feel different. :geek:

nesgirl wrote:Oh really? I've been an asexual virgin all my life, and I haven't seen any adverse affects from it. So have many others. If your theory of such were true, I should be getting seriously ill from something by now. Asexuals are a lot healthier in nature than you think.

Like I said, sexual repression can have a negative impact on a person. Sexual repression requires a sexual person to carry it out. It means that a sexual is repressing his or her urges. I am saying that forbidding sexuals to act upon their urges can have a detrimental effect. I said nothing about asexuals.

If not having sex works for asexuals, that's fine. But everyone is their own individual. People are different physically, genetically and psychologically. ;)

Re: Religion and Politics: Iraqi Crisis

Posted: 19 Sep 2014 21:25
by nesgirl

Re: Religion and Politics: Iraqi Crisis

Posted: 21 Sep 2014 15:49
by Summerlander
nesgirl wrote:Well I won't exercise mine that way, but if you want to see how my gender exercises theirs, then be my guest, but don't say I didn't warn you:

What is your point with that animation, nesgirl? I hear the adult humour and I see the carnage, but there is a lot of fantasy there and none of it is real.

nesgirl wrote:And let me inform you of this. Some females don't want kids, and should they end up pregnant, they will kill their own offspring, which obviously wouldn't have been necessary in the first place if they just stayed asexual.

You are missing the point, nesgirl. Those women don't speak for the majority of sexually active ladies who end up having kids and try to do their best to rear them. The psychotic women you speak of obviously had issues, more to do with psychology than sexuality. If sexuality in itself was the issue, every mother on the planet would be doing the same. Also, don't forget that if not for sex, you would not be here today. If you love life, you have your mum and dad's sexuality to thank for. 8-)

In the animal kingdom there are species that can reproduce both sexually and asexually, such as greenflies and other aphids. They do well performing both ways (copulation or natural cloning). Why should we start to discriminate against one another just because some of us feel different? If we were fighting for the abolition of slavery, then obviously it is for the best. But when it comes to sex I really don't see where you are coming from when you say, "if they just stayed asexual..."

Well, they didn't (they weren't to begin with) and they wouldn't because it is not in their nature to do so. Besides, they could also have been sexually active and refrained from having kids. There are methods of contraception out there, y'know! In which case, the initial solution would really lie in informing and educating people.

nesgirl wrote:Cloning may seem controversial, but if by science we perfect it, we can actually eliminate mental and physical disabilities in a person, and we can control the population a bit, but through natural birth, we cannot. Also if we cloned, they wouldn't have to make such a decision and take such a risk.

What you are talking about is not so much cloning as it is about genetic engineering. If you are talking about embryology being perfected, one can also imagine foetal development, during gestation, being medically assisted with the efficacy of correcting genetic errors as detected. (All of this done post-copulation - the sexual act needn't be taken out of the equation.)

nesgirl wrote:There aren't any cures for HIV once you have it. Science has tried for years to find the perfect antidote for that, and they haven't found it, just like with cancer.

Science is in its infancy and if there is one thing that scientists have learnt is that we should never say never. Also, in the battle against cancer, scientists have encountered a lot of religious opposition and political suppression when it comes to research. Certain powers that be have stunted their efforts based on superstitious nonsense or because the stupid fear they are "playing God." A lot more, for instance, could have been done for stem cell research. Now, let me leave you with the following quote by a revolutionary scientist who is the true definition of an anachronism:

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."

- Charles Darwin

nesgirl wrote:There are other really fun things in this universe to pleasure yourself with if you take the time to look, like this clip

Nesgirl, what the hell was that. That was one of the silliest animations I have ever seen. Parents who don't have the best approach when they ground their son and laugh at him for it and then the boy being told by a barman that he's not old enough to drink? How is that relevant? Anyway, I'll be more relevant. Of course there are many ways to achieve pleasure besides sex, but that does not mean the latter should be avoided. It's like saying: "Why would you want to skydive when you could ride the rollercoaster at the funfair..." :lol:

nesgirl wrote:I am going to say this: most people won't support that I am asexual. In particular religions and a few guys who start acting like idiots in front of me. Some asexual people like me get really tired of getting bothered like that, and just want romance eliminated, because some people either religious or of the opposite gender won't get the hint and leave us alone.
This is actually why there are medications out there which can control your hormone levels so that you don't go crazy. You take them and you rarely have any issues at all.

Are you saying I'm ill because I'm sexual? :mrgreen: The roles can be reversed easily:

nesgirl wrote:When females take them, it controls their urges greatly, and also controls their hormone levels so rarely do you see them doing this:

Nesgirl, if Katie were real she would be a typical adolescent suffering from "brain pruning," a condition that has been scientifically proven. As youngsters develop, there is a phase when their brains get rid of a lot of old cells in order to give room for new ones. Their noodle literally shrivels like a prune and they suffer the following "side effects": extreme impatience; apathy; confusion; scarcity of thinking; impulsion proneness; elevated egoism; heightened emotions; and mental hyperbole in general.

They become super-stupid before they can take the next step of maturity. This is the real impetus behind their hormonal influx. Sexual maturity only adds to the confusion but it is something they have to go through. It is their nature. :)

nesgirl wrote:Oh and here is a very funny video of 3 brothers forcing Asexuality on their brother Greg by forcing him to get divorced: Hope you like it.

I would have preferred it if Greg and Emma were allowed to get married and be happy away from those anti-romantic dictators. :D

More to the topic:

Nearly two million people have been displaced within Iraq due to the conflict. Famine and disease are prevalent and a hundred people are estimated to die everyday in Iraq. :shock:

Re: Religion and Politics: Iraqi Crisis

Posted: 21 Sep 2014 20:01
by nesgirl

Re: Religion and Politics: Iraqi Crisis

Posted: 24 Sep 2014 17:18
by Summerlander
nesgirl wrote:Although they didn't exactly say it, She Ra was going through a lot of Dysmenorrhea, and due to the pain from that, obviously she was in a bad mood.

Okay. But that has nothing to do with her being sexual. That is something that she couldn't help and definitely something that she'd rather not have if we pretend for a minute that she's a real person. To say that reproductive organs need to be removed from the female in order to preclude that type of menstrual pain is to say that we shouldn't have a brain because of the myriad problems it can beget (for instance - tumours, meningitis, psychosis etc.). (Not to mention brain activity that can lead to all kinds of pain qualia.)

You might as well get rid of the human body for that matter. You see why you are targeting the wrong source as the solution to your perceived problem? Sure, the pain She Ra was going through affected her behaviour, but she did isolate herself from the rest of the world to begin with before being pestered by those helpless idiots. :mrgreen:

nesgirl wrote:The problem is with probability, there is ALWAYS a chance of having kids, even with contraception. My sister even tried doing that before finalizing her divorce, and despite the very low odds, she still got pregnant anyway. So just to let you know that birth control doesn't always work. There's only one way to guarantee that a woman won't become pregnant, and I already told you that is through remove the organs altogether. However once you do that, that woman is guaranteed to become asexual.

It is not for you to decide that women should be desexualised in such manner. The population may be on the rise but it will not grow indefinitely. There are other factors, besides birth control, that will take care of that. Namely, starvation, disease, war... it's the way of the world. To impose an ideology and way of life upon the dissenting populace is a dangerous ground to tread. (And let's face it, sex sells!) This verges on totalitarianism. And theocratic totalitarianism, to point out a real life and current analogy, is exactly what we are fighting against in the Middle East.

nesgirl wrote:Wouldn't it better to avoid the illness altogether than it is to be exposed to it in any way?

Yes and no. We can learn a lot about how the source of the illness interacts with a living organism and be prepared when it strikes. You are also overlooking the evolution of pathogens responsible for STDs. Hypothetically, they would evolve to find another way into our systems. they answer is not to radically change the way we are made. The answer is to bolster immunisation. :geek:

nesgirl wrote:You might want to read the real life segment of this little article:

What is this bunkum about virgins and celibates having access to magical powers, nesgirl? :lol:

nesgirl wrote:Being an asexual virgin will definitely keep my system free of such things.

You don't even know about the "instructions" that lie dormant in your genome which might not even be present or expressed in your parents but was passed down the generations and originally generated through genetic shuffling (meiosis). If you think being a virgin/asexual keeps you out of trouble or guarantees insouciance in your life you are mistaken.

nesgirl wrote:..I am not going to say anything to you. And there is absolutely NO way you are reversing my asexual beliefs. Guys get stomped if they try to approach me like that, and even the religious leaders can't change my mind on that, even when they threaten me with hades.

I'm not trying to change your world-view and you can be asexual all you want. But I must point out that sexuality doesn't have to be a problem. Besides, sexuals have more chances of surviving in the gene pool (in terms of propagating their genes down the generations) than asexuals for obvious reasons. You may not care much but being an asexual in this day and age is equivalent to genetic suicide in evolution. Think about the many biological traits that could be lost. Nevertheless, sexuals and asexuals can co-exist. ;)

nesgirl wrote:( In all seriousness, if she seriously had PMDD, then there is an 85% chance that she would have either an anxiety/depression disorder or she would literally be bipolar, because in both of those cases, it causes the serotonin levels in the brain to drop, causing more aggressiveness.

I know a couple of bipolar people. They are coping. If you are manic depressive there are therapies and drugs for that. 8-)

nesgirl wrote:I think the ending with Greg becoming Asexual was fine as it is. It taught Emma and him some manners.

Manners? C'mon... They weren't harming anyone. All it did was make them miserable. We already don't live for long - let them be happy! :D

nesgirl wrote:What are your favorite ways to whack the partner?

LOL! Quickly and without pain. :P

nesgirl wrote:Oh I found this song on Youtube that has a song about cloning: And much of it is true if you think about it. DNA cloning is what helped species form and evolve in the beginning, and why nature even formed asexually to begin with. Even one of the asexual users in a quote said this possibly happening in the future: "Listen to the lyrics - it's about a futuristic society where people are cloned instead of reproducing sexually, "No VD, No cancer, on TV's the answer - no father, no mother, she's just like the other..."

It could happen and it could work but that futuristic society has no idea what was lost. Sex! :mrgreen:

Re: Religion and Politics: Iraqi Crisis

Posted: 24 Sep 2014 21:21
by nesgirl

Re: Religion and Politics: Iraqi Crisis

Posted: 27 Sep 2014 23:32
by Summerlander
And here's my rebuttal, nesgirl... :mrgreen:

As I said before, in the world that we live in today, certain solutions that seem simple are hard to come by. Not everyone sanctions cloning (we are yet to perfect this science) and I'm afraid the reproductive organs are essential for the continuation of our species in a world where politics and religion are everything; where Western civilisation still fights for neoconservativism despite its advances; where the East needs a lot of work (elaboration on this pertains to the topic); and where heretofore certain diseases are incurable. I would also add that reducing the death rate would lead to rapid overpopulation and that's the last thing we need. :idea:

Evolutionarily speaking, the pressures of illness could make us stronger and more immune in the long run. Like I said before, you are overlooking the evolution of micro-organisms. What may be an STD "today" might evolve to become airborne "tomorrow" in a world run by asexual beings who think they are safe. Then, humankind's adopted agamogenesis will have been in vain. :ugeek:

As for the "instructions" (notice the inverted commas this time) I mentioned above: believe it or not, our DNA is, in essence, a set of instructions. Not in the same sense as, say, intelligently coded computations, of course, but it is a series of molecular structures within cells - an organic web, as it were, that we are still studying in order to fully grasp our inner mechanics - which determines our embryology. This, coupled with environmental pressures, will lead to who we eventually become. And just to expand your mind on this subject a little bit more, sometimes these instructions contain chromosomal errors and this can lead to certain conditions, eg. Downs Syndrome. So, in effect, you were born with instructions.

Back to Greg and Emma: whether one likes it or not, it is their lives. Whether Greg was giving up education or postponing it, people are entitled to plan their own lives and make their own mistakes. (I recommend "The Rights of Man" by Thomas Paine.) One learns from experience. Dictating to people does not work as they will feel miserable and resent you for it. He was in love and did not want to wait. That's how they felt and it should be respected. A) Because all forms of love deserve respect (hetero/homo/bi/lesbian); and B) Because people cannot help the strong urges that compel them to act as they do at the time even when they are wrong (this regardless). (For an elaboration on the "B" point check the thread about free will - or its absence!)

By the way, if you stick to one loyal partner, if you are truly monogamous, you needn't worry about genital warts and other STDs that may or may not afflict you with cancer. Educate people about this and other methods of precaution and you have yourself a truly simpler solution than agamogenetic engineering. (See, I even found a term for your idea.) So much for the effectiveness of Gardasil on virgins, then! Anyway, once you have Gardasil, you are protected against some STDs already and may indulge in safe sex if you wish. ;)

Now I shall bring some news about the current conflict in the Middle East. Recently, on PBS Newshour, there was an interesting discourse about the Coalition and its plans to defeat the Islamic State. Retired colonel Derek Harvey of the University of South Florida who is currently an Intelligence Officer declared that Westerners shouldn't have to fight ISIS alone and that Syrian rebels and neighbouring countries must follow the Kurdish example. The French Conference has supported strikes in Syria and has already seen one of its tourists decapitated. I must stress the fact that we are already involved in this war and people should not succumb to the terrorists' demands to stay out of their way.

Harvey informs us that Turkey, despite having been used as a staging platform in these interventions, is hanging back and letting America carry the weight. Ominously, the Turkish have a history of relationships with a number of Islamist groups in Syria and ostensibly don't want to be perceived as being aligned with the United States! There is a lot of empathy/sympathy expressed on Twitter for the Islamic State on their part. Turkey offers no real support and where their loyalties lie as a whole are truly questionable.

Also, taking part in that political discourse was Steven Simon, a former National Security Council Staff member and a Fellow of the Middle East Institute. He underscored the fact that Syrians are primarily concerned with deposing President Assad as they want to see the regime abolished. The trouble is that this could become an analogue to what took place more than half a century ago in Cuba - when dictator Batista was ousted and the Communists took over - thus the wit of George Orwell on these political matters appears to be immortalised: one revolution appears to establish another dictatorship. (One difference that you may disagree with if you like: Islam is worse than Communism.)

Despite knowing that Syrians want Assad gone as soon as possible, the USA asks them to shift their gears and focus on fighting Islamists. Whether they like it or not, Assad and America share a common enemy. (This has led to many Syrians criticising President Obama's management and accusing him of having no clear planning.) Simon informs us that there is help from the United Arab Emirates (independent from the UK for almost half a century and very rich in oil if you must know) as they staged air operations as far as socialist Libya (major exporter of black gold), but stresses that Saudi Arabia needs more work in organising support. This Arabian monarchy dominates the economy, of course, and where they stand in general could be a clincher in this war. As Simon said, it needs their division of labour and de-confliction sorted out.

The time it will take to decide who's friend or foe prompted simon to proposed a George W. Bush-type effort of 1990 to build a strong coalition. Coordination with Iran is not significant and the best step towards success taken by the Iraqi government is that they promised not to shell Sunni populations indiscriminately. Meanwhile, the Islamic State controls major parts of two countries. In America, some members of Congress doubt Obama's commitment in defeating the enemy and think he hasn't gone far enough. (Maybe the daft Lefties are slowing him down, who knows.) American troops may soon be deployed. Amidst this circus, Britain decides to strike Iraq. Hezbollah, and some Shiite brigades remain totally against the US government, and any other foreign involvement for that matter, as they interpret such interventions as another form of occupation. :shock:

Mr Obama, get used to the word "war." :roll:

Re: Religion and Politics: Iraqi Crisis

Posted: 28 Sep 2014 04:34
by nesgirl

Re: Religion and Politics: Iraqi Crisis

Posted: 30 Sep 2014 11:18
by Summerlander
nesgirl wrote:As for religion, often they will condemn romance (one of the deadly sins is lust), but then they will push women to create families. They just can't seem to make up their minds about that one.

Monotheisms like Christianity see virgins as pure. If you are celibate you are closer to divinity according to the doctrine. It is a vile religion because it states that God created us "sick" and orders us to be "well." You can get married but if the couple does not have sex it is even better. Religion normally wants to see the destruction of this world as they cannot wait for judgement day. It is a kind of eschatological love.

nesgirl wrote:Anti-romance and cloning as the answer may be taboo in politics, but they got away with homosexuality recently (took 8 months for them to make up their minds and to pass a law in Utah), so I am guessing anything is possible. Consider this: if we reduced the birth rate, we could mess with the death rate if we wanted to.

I am not aware of the laws in Utah but homosexuality is a form of love that should be respected. I would also say that reducing the birth rate isn't a reliable way of controlling the death rate. In fact, there is always an optimum number of offspring depending on environmental circumstances and such optimum is viable to change. Currently, too many only guarantees less control in the population. Very few could also guarantee proliferation as parents have more time and energy dedicated to the few - which boosts great prosperity and survival. Pros and cons have to be weighed.

nesgirl wrote:I don't think that will happen, as many germs are still transferred by different means just like they were years ago.

You are talking about "years ago" when noticeable differences in evolution usually take place after millions of years. But sometimes mutations can happen in micro-organisms leading to newly developed strains. there is just no way of predicting when it could happen. So, the statement "I don't think that will happen" is simply not good enough.

nesgirl wrote:If what you said were to happen, it would probably take at least 1,000 years for them to evolve like that, and by then, we will have come up with cures. Also by then, cloning should become legal.

Like I said about their evolution, not necessarily. And there is no guarantee that we will be highly advance in the future either. In fact, there are many reasons to believe that we may suffer another Dark Age and may well become extinct. If members of the Islamic state, for example, manage to Islamify the world, we will surely head that way. They are analogous to 14th century people with tanks and missiles. All our scientific advances, including medicinal ones, could be lost.

nesgirl wrote:He was throwing something away that could have helped him plan a better life. Did you even know some marriages turn into divorce because of financial issues?

I am married and we don't have such issues. I have dreams about a career but so far we are happy living the family life and having sex. Very few things in this world beat the buzz especially when the sex is as good as it can be. :twisted:

nesgirl wrote:If Greg would have pursued his education further and gotten his degree, he could have pursued a much higher paying job, and had a chance of living a happier life. Because he was about to give that up, there was a high risk that he and Emma would go into poverty, lose their home, and even starve (possibly to death).

Could've should've. Your argument is very iffy and it is their life after all. You are placing your faith in celibacy, asexuality and agamogenetic engineering, but none in individuals handling themselves. Their friends could have given them their own advice instead of lynching them.

nesgirl wrote:There is no such thing as loyalty. I learned that from watching others get bitterly divorced. If I am distrustful even toward some of my own family, and am distrustful enough that I won't make friends, what makes you think I would want someone whom I am suspicious of? At least 2/3 of all marriages end in bitter divorce, and I actually break up friendships quite often, so why would I want to have to carry that responsibility?? There are some other people who do in fact feel that way. Either they are anti-romantic, asexual, or they had a bitter divorce and want nothing to do with it ever again.

You can speak based on your experience but you cannot speak for the billions of people in the world. and, if your statistics are correct, there seems to be room for loyalty there still. :D

Re: Religion and Politics: Iraqi Crisis

Posted: 30 Sep 2014 21:55
by nesgirl