h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think we're best out before it turns into fisticuffs, frankly.

B

She is asking you to see the act as stupid, not that you are stupid for wanting/partaking to the act. That's a big difference, she's not calling *you* stupid, RF.

Does that mean you agree or disagree with 219, BG/GD?

'"But can you seriously take an argument seriously when its central theme is irrational, visceral repulsion? The "yuk factor" has never been a good way to decide matters."'
"Yes. I take exactly those grounds for my irrational dislike of mushrooms. Why should sex be any different?"

That would be fine if it ended there. She then goes on to try and rationalise and justify her repulsion, which is making little sense. She'd do better by saying "it sounds icky" that trying to make it all grandiose...

Ste

Not what it sounded like to me...she seemed to be calling anyone who gives in to their emotional desires "stupid". Hence the "arrogance" bit. It's all a bit defensive.

Basically she's a silly teenager who hasn't been asked to the prom, IMHO. Trying to dress it up in a "personal philosophy" without really thinking it through. As soon as anyone challenged her about it, she went offline.

Nope, I'm sorry, but I don't buy it.

She expressed a perfectly valid opinion and disappeared for less than half an hour. I don't call that justification of anything.

B

Well, we'll see when she comes back.

I still don't like being called "stupid", "wrong" and "guilty" by a...yes, I'll say it again, a know-nothing, never-been-kissed, american teenager*, for having sex. I call that arrogance, and I will defend myself for doing so. LB is entitled to her opinions. She is *not* entitled to use those words about my behaviour.

If she does it again, I might have to reach for the button.

*all of these statements are true, and have been admitted by LB.

To 225:

Expressing an opinion does not equate to a personal insult. And even if it did, is it better to argue against it, or to start getting angry about it?

Huge chunks of philosophy come from someone having a personal conviction, which gives them the impetus to argue for that conviction. Then they construct arguments for it. Nothing wrong with that. Maybe in the process of trying to construct arguments they realise some problems with it and change their beliefs.

It is however a standard style in philosophy to try to argue your points forcefully, state your opinions cleanly, and not fill pages up with "it is my belief that..." and "others may disagree but..." etc. This perhaps may be seen as arrogance, but it does mean that we get to the heart of the issue fast, and don't waste time getting offended: It is also understood that participants in a debate should try cultivate a detachment from emotional reactions to the subject matter.

It seems she went offline to get dinner. Seems like a valid reason to me.

Flamestrike:

<>

OK poor analogy on my part. I'll have to think of a better way of thinking of it or else consider that I might have a major problem here.

<>

<>

I'm not trying to say that my ideas are right for everyone, or even most people. I think that they are right for me and that otheres should at least consider them before rejecting them completely. That is all.

ReddyFreddy:

<>

I must admit that I don't see your point.




<>

I was describing how someone of my opinions on the matter might feel if they had sex and realized that they thought it was wrong later.

I'm not saying that it is stupid--but that someone who has made a goal of avoiding it might consider it stupid of them to fail at their goal.




<>

I'm not calling you stupid--I'm saying that that's how I or someone who agreed with me might feel if they failed to suppress their sex drive--that they'd made a stupid mistake. I'm not saying that someone who wants to have sex and has thought it out is stupid to do so.

<>

I see your point, but I maintain that "yuk factor" is not the main source of my arguement. It explains why I find sex disgusting, not why I think that it is in some cases (but certainly not all) a bad choice to ever have sex.

...waiting...

Master B:



Thanks for the support.

Henry S:

<>

I'm not saying that abstinence should be intended to further the human race. I think that some people, myself included, wouold be happier if they abstained from sex and focused on other things.





<>

Thanks for the support--I think that's a good explanation of it. The reality is that I've never been the sort of person who makes frineds or cares about having friends, which may be part of the explanation for my views. I just don't see why emotional intamacy would be enjoyable. It's probably some flaw in my psychological makeup, although certainly one I don't mind.

Flying Betty:

<>

<>

I think I agree with you here.

I'm not sure that our technology is that developed, but with current birthrates worldwide, it'll be a while before that's a problem. You can always adopt someone from a country where people have more kids than they can support, after all. That way you help the kid have a better life, decrease the tax on that nation's social services system, and have the pleasure that many people get from raising a child.

Well, I think she is making an ill-thought-out case for a poor argument. As soon as someone asserts a different possibility, she backs down. She also still owes me an apology.

<>

I'm not even calling the act stupid. I'm saying that one might consider oneself stupid for falling to temptation to do something when they have a long term goal that precludes it. That applies to things other than sex, if you think about it.

<>

I don't think I'm trying to rationalize a repulsion. After all, I don't even see how psychological intemacy without sex would be enjoyable. It goes deeperr than that, I argue.

<>

No, I had to go eat dinner. It's not my fault my parents wanted to go to a restaurant and take me along.