The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
One thing that really astonishes me is the number of people who sleep around in the world today. For those of us among us who believe in the Bibile, sex outside marriage is forbidden, yet so many people, religeous and otherwise, see it their duty to have multiple sexual partners. Its only a symbol of social standing in some places in AFRICA. How can we call ourselves the civilised world when we see fit to stick our john thomas in every place we can think of. Its level with the animals, and even some of them have the decency to confine themselves to one partner. (i.e. swans)
Im not trying to push chastity and say all sexual acticity is WRONG outside marriage, but I really think that sex and similar acts are something that you should share with only someone special. The only purpose of one night stands is to get some POONTANG with whatever skank can be found on the street. (I dont mean to degrade women, I just have to write this from the male perspective, the same applies to women)
Chastity generally means that you dont do ANYTHING sexual at all outside of marraige. Personally I dont see whats wrong with a little frolic in the garden of eden if its legal, legal by the bible, and doesnt put your future in jeprody through inadvertant pregnancy. What happens if the chick you boned on a one night stand get knocked up? Its your obligation to raise the b*****d child, and wed the whench. lol. I just enjoy using biassed language. I'll stop now.
Since (as I have been informed by a good friend of mine whos a history guru) the general practise of prolific intercourse has been going on for millenia, were not really doing anything different, however if we didnt do anything different we'd still be eating leaves, not even using tools. Evolution and invention meant progress, technological and personal. Sleeping around like this means that sex isnt sacred. It becomes meaningless when you finally meet someone you marry, and all you can do is compare them to your previous partners.
I know Im on a losing side. Most of you are probably against me, but Id just like you to consider the idea of, not chastity, but, however hard it may be, not sleeping around. If you meet someone special to you, by all means, even if its not the first. At least then its actually meaningful. But having shallow, meaningless sex is....well...m**********g. YOU'LL GO BLIND SON!!
Im not trying to push chastity and say all sexual acticity is WRONG outside marriage, but I really think that sex and similar acts are something that you should share with only someone special. The only purpose of one night stands is to get some POONTANG with whatever skank can be found on the street. (I dont mean to degrade women, I just have to write this from the male perspective, the same applies to women)
Chastity generally means that you dont do ANYTHING sexual at all outside of marraige. Personally I dont see whats wrong with a little frolic in the garden of eden if its legal, legal by the bible, and doesnt put your future in jeprody through inadvertant pregnancy. What happens if the chick you boned on a one night stand get knocked up? Its your obligation to raise the b*****d child, and wed the whench. lol. I just enjoy using biassed language. I'll stop now.
Since (as I have been informed by a good friend of mine whos a history guru) the general practise of prolific intercourse has been going on for millenia, were not really doing anything different, however if we didnt do anything different we'd still be eating leaves, not even using tools. Evolution and invention meant progress, technological and personal. Sleeping around like this means that sex isnt sacred. It becomes meaningless when you finally meet someone you marry, and all you can do is compare them to your previous partners.
I know Im on a losing side. Most of you are probably against me, but Id just like you to consider the idea of, not chastity, but, however hard it may be, not sleeping around. If you meet someone special to you, by all means, even if its not the first. At least then its actually meaningful. But having shallow, meaningless sex is....well...m**********g. YOU'LL GO BLIND SON!!
Page:
Religion caused nothing but separation in my family, I cant ever see it doing good after that.
I used to believe that trish, religeon being a way of dealing, but then (yeah I know evangelist) I actually felt God working in my life. I wont even try and preach to you. I just hope that you believe one day, cos its the greatest thing ever. lol. I sound really cheesy, but hey! Its 2:30 am and us 3 are the only people online! I checked. lol. fun.
Fozz wrote:
> We are SOO off topic here. ok so what were we even debating?
>
> ah yes. so Trish, you were saying that animal do experience love, so
> in that case whats your view on the religeous aspect, do animals have
> souls, and do they have th eintellegence to question why they love? I
> think one of the reasons I dont agree that animals can love is
> because they dont question, and develop religeon etc. They dont seem
> to wonder why. Thats why I dont think its love, but just emotional
> attachment.
I dont believe in religion in the slightest Fozz, I believe it was a made up thing by humans for the purposes of having someone/thing to blame for things going wrong and to be there when people feel alone or to look to when people cant get help from anywhere else.
> We are SOO off topic here. ok so what were we even debating?
>
> ah yes. so Trish, you were saying that animal do experience love, so
> in that case whats your view on the religeous aspect, do animals have
> souls, and do they have th eintellegence to question why they love? I
> think one of the reasons I dont agree that animals can love is
> because they dont question, and develop religeon etc. They dont seem
> to wonder why. Thats why I dont think its love, but just emotional
> attachment.
I dont believe in religion in the slightest Fozz, I believe it was a made up thing by humans for the purposes of having someone/thing to blame for things going wrong and to be there when people feel alone or to look to when people cant get help from anywhere else.
hmm. I see. Now were back at the whole adding meaning thang. I see love as being more than an emotional attachment, maybe thats why I dont think animals have the ability to. I guess I think its party about questioning and self awareness, but not wholly. So we're back where if you think love has a deeper meaning than just liking someone etc then yada yada (see previous posts). I think love has ties to religeon as I believe that I love because of a higher presence, but thats just me.
Fozz wrote:
> Im not picking on people flock, people are picking on me. (cries)
Didn't mean it like that :)
> ah yes. so Trish, you were saying that animal do experience love, so
> in that case whats your view on the religeous aspect, do animals have
> souls, and do they have th eintellegence to question why they love? I
> think one of the reasons I dont agree that animals can love is
> because they dont question, and develop religeon etc. They dont seem
> to wonder why. Thats why I dont think its love, but just emotional
> attachment.
If love isn't emotional attachment what is ?
Just because they can't question it doesn't make it any different, even humans love before they know what it is, the mother baby bond an obvious example but does that make it any less valid, love is not about religion it's about desire, comfort, trust and a whole load of other stuff.
> Im not picking on people flock, people are picking on me. (cries)
Didn't mean it like that :)
> ah yes. so Trish, you were saying that animal do experience love, so
> in that case whats your view on the religeous aspect, do animals have
> souls, and do they have th eintellegence to question why they love? I
> think one of the reasons I dont agree that animals can love is
> because they dont question, and develop religeon etc. They dont seem
> to wonder why. Thats why I dont think its love, but just emotional
> attachment.
If love isn't emotional attachment what is ?
Just because they can't question it doesn't make it any different, even humans love before they know what it is, the mother baby bond an obvious example but does that make it any less valid, love is not about religion it's about desire, comfort, trust and a whole load of other stuff.
And myself trish, however the theory that it comes FROM your eye has been proven wrong. Thats what I was refering to, not the idea that light was a particle at all. Sorry if I phrased it incorrectly.
As for love in animals, I still disagree. I guess neither of us can prove it either way.
Im not picking on people flock, people are picking on me. (cries)
Ok so my argument was refering to forms of proving something. If I were to see love in animals I might well believe, if it exists. However that wouldnt prove its existence. Officers investigating crimes can make decuctions about who commited the crime and how, but nothing can be done without proof (in most cases at least). Talking about the infatuation reference, youre studying psychology (Im starting an electronic engineering course, Im in the wrong forum) then you know what youre talking about. The point of that example with the girl is the idea that to her it was a fact that she was in love, and then afterwards it was also a fact that she wasnt. Each time she was sure, so what Im saying is unless we can actually prove it we dont know for sure whats what. Id like to give Trish credit as shes worked in a zoo (i almost typed lived IM SORRY) but I cant say that her opinions or beliefs and observations and what she sees as fact affect what I and the rest of the world see as fact.
We are SOO off topic here. ok so what were we even debating?
ah yes. so Trish, you were saying that animal do experience love, so in that case whats your view on the religeous aspect, do animals have souls, and do they have th eintellegence to question why they love? I think one of the reasons I dont agree that animals can love is because they dont question, and develop religeon etc. They dont seem to wonder why. Thats why I dont think its love, but just emotional attachment.
As for love in animals, I still disagree. I guess neither of us can prove it either way.
Im not picking on people flock, people are picking on me. (cries)
Ok so my argument was refering to forms of proving something. If I were to see love in animals I might well believe, if it exists. However that wouldnt prove its existence. Officers investigating crimes can make decuctions about who commited the crime and how, but nothing can be done without proof (in most cases at least). Talking about the infatuation reference, youre studying psychology (Im starting an electronic engineering course, Im in the wrong forum) then you know what youre talking about. The point of that example with the girl is the idea that to her it was a fact that she was in love, and then afterwards it was also a fact that she wasnt. Each time she was sure, so what Im saying is unless we can actually prove it we dont know for sure whats what. Id like to give Trish credit as shes worked in a zoo (i almost typed lived IM SORRY) but I cant say that her opinions or beliefs and observations and what she sees as fact affect what I and the rest of the world see as fact.
We are SOO off topic here. ok so what were we even debating?
ah yes. so Trish, you were saying that animal do experience love, so in that case whats your view on the religeous aspect, do animals have souls, and do they have th eintellegence to question why they love? I think one of the reasons I dont agree that animals can love is because they dont question, and develop religeon etc. They dont seem to wonder why. Thats why I dont think its love, but just emotional attachment.
Fozz wrote:
> Consider a teenage girl (or boy), in love with a guy (or girl) he
> (or she..OK I'll stop) knows nothing about. Then she finally plucks
> up the courage to ask him out and is painfully rejected. She later
> realises this is not love but in fact infatuation, but was so sure it
> was. I was clear from the way she felt about him that it was love
> however then when she gets over it shes sure it wasnt. I dont mean to
> have this link with love in ym example, or just to pick on girls.
That case of a girl switching from believing she is in love to believing she was infatuated is called ego defence, it's a way of not being so hurt, 3 mains forms of it are denial, repression or projection, i think that would be and example of the first, although i think i've lst the point of what you were saying.
You really are picking the wrong people to question tonight, Trish is studying physics and i'm studying psychology.
> Consider a teenage girl (or boy), in love with a guy (or girl) he
> (or she..OK I'll stop) knows nothing about. Then she finally plucks
> up the courage to ask him out and is painfully rejected. She later
> realises this is not love but in fact infatuation, but was so sure it
> was. I was clear from the way she felt about him that it was love
> however then when she gets over it shes sure it wasnt. I dont mean to
> have this link with love in ym example, or just to pick on girls.
That case of a girl switching from believing she is in love to believing she was infatuated is called ego defence, it's a way of not being so hurt, 3 mains forms of it are denial, repression or projection, i think that would be and example of the first, although i think i've lst the point of what you were saying.
You really are picking the wrong people to question tonight, Trish is studying physics and i'm studying psychology.
As for the physics, Newton wasnt completely dismissed as his particle theory wasnt completely incorrect Fozz, thus today Wave-Particle Duality is studied by many Physics students like myself.
Having worked in a zoo, Ive seen love for each other in many species Fozz. It does exist in animals. Love is not something scientifically proven in anyone ot thing, not even humans, as it is immeasurable.
Well Trish Im sorry if you took offense at me saying that, but I really do think that animals dont have the ability to love. Perhaps more intellegent ones like dolphins (who have sex for pleasure) do but I really dont know at this stage. Im sure dogs dont though. I grew up around dogs, and although they can be very intellegent at times and get attached to their owners and mates I dont think its love.
you said: "When you are around animals long enough you see it, thats all the proof you need." Scientific proof is not just dont by observation. Before the wave nature of light was proven by Heuygens through diffraction, Newton believed it was particles travelling from your eye to objects. This makes perfect sense. Some objects are made brighter by thses particles, i.e light sources. Newton had no way to prove his theory though, and it was eventally proven wrong.
Consider a teenage girl (or boy), in love with a guy (or girl) he (or she..OK I'll stop) knows nothing about. Then she finally plucks up the courage to ask him out and is painfully rejected. She later realises this is not love but in fact infatuation, but was so sure it was. I was clear from the way she felt about him that it was love however then when she gets over it shes sure it wasnt. I dont mean to have this link with love in ym example, or just to pick on girls.
My point is that you cant say something is proof from something just you observed. I see the same thin and I dont think its love. Its not proven to me. Also if you observe something that itself doesnt even prove it. I observe nothing when I look into the sky that doesnt mean that nothings there. If you were to find me a scientific journal documenting experiments into puppy love then Id believe you but as for now I dont.
A dog could pine for its mate for any number of reasons. The most logical would be that it has an emotional attachment to its mate, but not as a mate, as a companion. Dogs can easily have any number of mates, and the emotional attachment is nothing I would call love. This summer I was staying a friend of mine and her dog died (age 14 1/2). Another dog of theirs whined because it missed its companion (they werent mates) but not a lot. We were more upset than it was. The point is that pining for a companion doesnt mean love.
">The truth
> is you cant prove that animals love, heck, you cant even prove that
> humans love, maybe there is no such things as love.
That kind of blows your whole debate into nothing then, doesnt it."
Actually no it doesnt blow my whole debate into nothing because we, as humans, are very stubborn as you have so eloquently displayed. If we were to debate (much more publicly than this) about love and come to the conclusion that you cant scientificly prove love even exists it wouldnt stop people 'falling in love'. We, as beings, are irrational and illogical, and even at times, futile. It doesnt matter about scientific proof when it comes to something as common and as emotional as love. For dogs however, I do not share your view, meaning I still would like scientific proof. If my dog were to love me and it was quite apparent,I would agree.
However lets assume hypothetically that some animals have the ability to love. Why would a dog love a mate when dogs fight over mating rights? Although it may seem this way but we dont fight over mating rights, we are free to choose. So why would a dog automatically love whatever mate its left with? As for swans perhaps they can love, and this is why they only have one mate, and should that mate die they stay alone for the rest of their life. I saw a swan alone today in fact. Actually it wasnt alone. It was with a crowd of ducks. Im sure you found that very interesting.
you said: "When you are around animals long enough you see it, thats all the proof you need." Scientific proof is not just dont by observation. Before the wave nature of light was proven by Heuygens through diffraction, Newton believed it was particles travelling from your eye to objects. This makes perfect sense. Some objects are made brighter by thses particles, i.e light sources. Newton had no way to prove his theory though, and it was eventally proven wrong.
Consider a teenage girl (or boy), in love with a guy (or girl) he (or she..OK I'll stop) knows nothing about. Then she finally plucks up the courage to ask him out and is painfully rejected. She later realises this is not love but in fact infatuation, but was so sure it was. I was clear from the way she felt about him that it was love however then when she gets over it shes sure it wasnt. I dont mean to have this link with love in ym example, or just to pick on girls.
My point is that you cant say something is proof from something just you observed. I see the same thin and I dont think its love. Its not proven to me. Also if you observe something that itself doesnt even prove it. I observe nothing when I look into the sky that doesnt mean that nothings there. If you were to find me a scientific journal documenting experiments into puppy love then Id believe you but as for now I dont.
A dog could pine for its mate for any number of reasons. The most logical would be that it has an emotional attachment to its mate, but not as a mate, as a companion. Dogs can easily have any number of mates, and the emotional attachment is nothing I would call love. This summer I was staying a friend of mine and her dog died (age 14 1/2). Another dog of theirs whined because it missed its companion (they werent mates) but not a lot. We were more upset than it was. The point is that pining for a companion doesnt mean love.
">The truth
> is you cant prove that animals love, heck, you cant even prove that
> humans love, maybe there is no such things as love.
That kind of blows your whole debate into nothing then, doesnt it."
Actually no it doesnt blow my whole debate into nothing because we, as humans, are very stubborn as you have so eloquently displayed. If we were to debate (much more publicly than this) about love and come to the conclusion that you cant scientificly prove love even exists it wouldnt stop people 'falling in love'. We, as beings, are irrational and illogical, and even at times, futile. It doesnt matter about scientific proof when it comes to something as common and as emotional as love. For dogs however, I do not share your view, meaning I still would like scientific proof. If my dog were to love me and it was quite apparent,I would agree.
However lets assume hypothetically that some animals have the ability to love. Why would a dog love a mate when dogs fight over mating rights? Although it may seem this way but we dont fight over mating rights, we are free to choose. So why would a dog automatically love whatever mate its left with? As for swans perhaps they can love, and this is why they only have one mate, and should that mate die they stay alone for the rest of their life. I saw a swan alone today in fact. Actually it wasnt alone. It was with a crowd of ducks. Im sure you found that very interesting.
Page: