Perhaps you can give that little speech when you accept your Darwin Award. You've certainly earned it, hahaha. ;D

JK, man. That's just odd.

Mmm, well, there is only one *correct* point of view (mine, as it happens), but some just fail to comprehend it. Hence, the prolific repetition on my part restating the obvious:

Sex, a physical interaction, is neither a force nor a desire; it is driven by forces and desires. Period.

No one is impressed by your cynicism and the apparent, subsequent inability to maintain a meaningful relationship that that nihilistic approach to life produces.

Good thing you're content with your narcissistic self-love affair; 'cause I doubt you will have any other options with that outlook, sweet cakes.

*Little poos, little pea-sized poos, begin shooting forth hither and tither*

Yowt! YOWT, YOWT! >:|

*Has already started gnawing through the legs of all your tables and chairs*

Yeet! YEET! >:O

Oh no.

OH NO!

Help me! HELP ME!! HELP, THEY'RE COMING! COMIN'!!

Boo-boo-boo-BOOM!

(Please, PLEASE LOOK OUT!!)

I already said that.

Me: Epic win.
You: Epic fail.

:)

If you believe in God as the First Cause, the chicken came first: God created all things, living and non-living. He did not create partially-developed things; He created complete creatures.

If you believe in the "Big Bang" (and, subsequently, Evolution) as the First Cause, then the chicken and the egg existed/evolved simultaneously, each part of the whole being, first starting with simplistic, rudimentary parts of primeval lizards, dinosaurs, etc., then, over millions of years, evolved to be the common chicken of the modern day.

An egg is not a self-sustaining entity; it first develops within a mature chicken, then develops extra-chickenly, then eventually develops into a self-sustaining, mature chicken itself. So, logically, the "cycle" must have begun with a mature, self-sustaining ancestor of the chicken, from which sprang its reproductive parts, its progeny, because an egg could not sustain itself long enough to reproduce (without internal development within a mature chicken/lizard/dinosaur/etc., without warmth, protection, etc.).

You're welcome.

No, they are not mutually exclusive, but at the same time, they are not the same thing. When was the last time you had a deep, philosophical conversation during...that? *I* was saying, that a platonic conversation can be just as, if not, at times, more stimulating than sexual interaction.

No person is inherently good; all people are inherently evil. Acts of "goodness" are only superficially, speciously "good"--only "good" by human standards--and cannot undo or compensate for the evil each human being has within him.

Oh yeah, real' off-the-wall stuff. Questions about morality always are.

[/extreme sarcasm]

What is your purpose...in this thread? Spend more time thinking critically, less time thoughtlessly criticizing, and you might actually write something worth expending one's mental energy on. I wince at the precious time I've wasted even on this.

But, because I'm so freakin' generous, assimilate this little tidbit:

Your life features uselessly, uncreatively criticizing--sans any semblance of ad hominem-free retort or thoughtful argumentation or even base topical commentary--people whom you deem unworthy of your "intellectual prowess." You, sir, are complete and shameless life fail.

So, usually, someone who has no capacity for romantic relationships, in turn, has no capacity for intellectual discussion?

That makes no sense, no sense at all. Neither does the reverse make any sense. Both are broad, untrue generalizations based on an idiom. In other words, I fail to see the humor in that little "quip," the original joke, due to its sheer irrationality on all fronts.

Okay. I would say that conversation itself, alone, without the physical interaction, can be just as, if not more, stimulating. The two are not mutually exclusive. I'm not sure why they would have to be.

Oh, haha. Very funny.

...Except for the fact that I disagree 100% without hesitation or reconsideration: For that is, by far, the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Joke or not, completely ridiculous.

Basically, saying that anyone who flaunts--let's try, possesses--intelligence or even enjoys engaging in debates and intellectual discussion has no capacity for romantic relationships (keeping this PG). Cute idea, but no. Just no.

I would rather have one conversation with someone about these things who has an intellect deeper than a sauce pan than have one "intimate" and trivial interaction with someone who has no idea what the difference is between gravity and the fictitious "5th force" that pseudo-scientists imagine intercourse is.

That is how I feel on the matter.

Mmm. Still barely makes sense, but okay.

In other words, those who initiate such discussion are compensating for something?

Okay....

Well, there ya go, then.


Yeeep.

Apparently, yes. That was exactly what I was saying. Implying, at least.

Indeed. So, I come here to flaunt my advanced knowledge of gravity and inertia--and how those things, when applied to the topic of intercourse, should only end as a punchline.

You earlier:
"THOSE WHO CAN, DO...
THOSE WHO CAN'T, MEASURE IT!!"

Not sure what this means. At all, I'm afraid. <:|

Thank you. I'm glad someone appreciates it.

Still, I'm not sure at all what you mean by that. I'm most definitely missing something.

Haw haw! Well, thank you. You may still call me Professor Z, if you wish.

I just like using long words and using words in circuitous ways. It's what I do. I am probably more intelligent than most Professors, anyway; certainly more willing to oblige alternative thoughts (ha ha)! Also, I am beautiful--a beautiful flower drowning in a dark-water sea of ugliness!

Oh, I'm crying right now. But. Back, back on topic, and as concise as I've ever been on the matter, my pupils:

Sex is not a force or desire; it is driven by forces and desires.

Oh no!

Ha! Now, THAT is the most hilarious assumption I've heard so far; that I am a scientist. A "has-been scientist"! Hahahahahaha.

So, now, knowing basic (and I mean, basic-basic) concepts of Physics--like gravity; like gravity--and how they apply to reality in different contexts makes me a scientist?

Funny. Very funny.

But no. I am not a scientist.

I am simply easily irritated by--and, so, inclined to point out the egregious wrongness of--blind, baseless, yet brazenly overconfident statements...In general.

This being a dating site does not mitigate the importance of truth or, let's try, logic--no, how 'bout--common sense in a polemic discussion [such as this forum, S&P, strongly implies). I, for one, don't water down my intelligence, nor put aside my aversion to dryly ridiculous statements, nor silence my penchant for saying things that are sensible, based on context.

Yes, well, I like making my sentences convoluted, Pauline almost, sometimes.

I'm afraid that "paraphrase" is almost exactly the opposite of what I was saying. What I was saying is, to rephrase:

People are (in varying degrees and combinations) too easily offended and/or too cowardly to believe anything straightforward; the general, [post-]modern tendency of our society (American society, in particular) is to dilute or assimilate belief systems themselves rather than encouraging each other to become more opened-minded (at least enough to hear others' beliefs), assertive, and brave.

In short, people are willing to sacrifice (in varying degrees, on different levels, in different ways, etc.) traditional beliefs for the sake of avoiding offending other people. And that is sad.

Okay, what specifics did you want to know?

Well, it certainly didn't seem to be! But okay....

I was merely distinguishing the views, not claiming to side with either one. Never--not once--did I say it was an "either/or" dichotomy; I was merely defining those two, varying perspectives. A person could believe both without confusing them; I do not think that maintaining both perspectives necessitates an intermingling, a conflation, of ideas into a garbled, meaningless mess; which seems too often to be the case. Perhaps it is an inadvertent blurring, but it is still frustrating to behold.

Okay. <:(

>;)

Uh, well, I would think someone who reads the "science" forum would be interested in and, almost as an accidental result, somewhat versed in a vague semblance of what some might call science.

Also, that terrifies me that someone would not know that; that a person would not know that saying "gravity is at work during intercourse" (for example) in a non-ironic way is both a redundant and somewhat naïve thing to say--unless, of course, that person knows nothing about science (even elementary science) whatsoever, which, to me, brings into question that impetuous individual's intent in making such a comment at all--in a non-inquisitive fashion (seeking insight from someone more informed, like me, haha, which would be perfectly acceptable). But that, too, is a tangent.

So, to reword, if I were to enter into a discussion like this (which I have) I would want to have some BASIC understanding of the subject (which I do) before commenting myself. I mean, it's one thing to ask; it is another to make broad, indefensible, uninformed statements--examples of which are sprinkled throughout this thread.

So yeah, I think some statements are genuinely, objectively worthless--okay, remarkably pointless and uninteresting--in this context. If someone were to post "gravity is at work during intercourse" (worded in a somewhat cleverer, more humorous way) in the Jokes forum, that would be entirely different. But there is no irony, absolutely no wry-ness that I could detect in many statements hitherto made in this discussion. So, concern; I am concerned for humanity.

Okay, and yet....

Yes, I know, my son.

That's what post-modernism is all about and it is the "mood" under which we all are living. Hence, the tendency to want to fuse scientific and mystical/religious thought--often, for the sake of "tolerance." Such a conflation is quite a replete source of pseudo-science of many a delightful kind!

But yeah, I guess sheer ignorance seems to be the MAIN source of that (con)fusion (haha, I am so darn hilarious!), in this case. Although, post-modernism may yet play some affecting role.

No.

I am talking about this tendency to blend mysticism with science: Hence, pseudo-science! Trying to categorize mystical things--like the alleged and, hence, MYSTICAL forces*--involved in sex with scientific terminology, in a scientific way, is bullocks.

I was arguing for the separation of mysticism and science. Clearly, I am the most pedantic human being alive; but where it actually freakin' makes sense contextually.

*Sigh* Again, you have failed to ascertain even remotely what I was suggesting, my very difficult and obtuse** pupil!

It is the CO-MINGLING of such ideas--while both very well could be "true" IN THEIR OWN CONTEXT, IN THEIR OWN WAY--but for the sake of INTELLIGENT discussion should not be allowed to conflate into one paradigm from which all these ideas come, etc.!

Etc.!

Thank you. <:|

Er. Well, that isn't my view. The only sort of person I can imagine having that view--NOT THAT THEY ALL WOULD!!--is a staunch atheist or naturalist.

Okay, so you DO agree?! Agh!

Yes, it is, and it is directed at anyone who agrees with that most jejune assumption. Jejune. >:|


* Not humoring, of course, the painfully obvious forces [of Physics, obv.] involved, which are so obvious and so blatant that they are not worth mentioning, let alone discussing at so infuriating a length as this thread has encouraged!
** JK, man! JK. I'm JK.
I COLOR-CODED THESE FOOTNOTES AND THE ASTERISKS THAT LED YOU TO THEM!! WHY DOESN'T ANYONE!!! APPRECIATE THE THINGS I DO?! WHY?!?!?!

Nothing irritates me more than this sort of "pseudo-scientific," post-modern jibberish that tries to combine science with the supernatural and/or explain or evidence the supernatural with science. All it really "achieves" is to placate those who are too easily offended or obsequious to believe or assertively ("offensively") think, let alone say, anything straightforward.

This is in reference to those in this debate who are trying to ascertain or categorize or whatever what "energies" or "forces" are involved in sex. In short, what freakin' difference does it make? Following this logic:

If you view sex as a singular--meaning here, metaphysical [abstract, mystical]--experience, rather than a base biological interaction, then what difference does any scientific, tangible categorization make in that context? You could more sensibly (by maintaining internal logic) conclude that magical fairies (gametes) dance bubbles of vivacious delight (chromosomes*) back and forth between the invisible nymphs of fertility (the couple** in question) on sparkly shoes of marshmallow ice cream (the sexual experience) to create an autonomous leprechaun of pure sunshine and gold (zygote). In a metaphysical dialogue, scientific terms and rules do not belong (once you start talking about "energies" and "forces" and other abstract, ambiguous things, the pseudo-science begins). Such terms are superfluous as ballet or musical or crocheting terminology in a discussion about this "mystical," intangible view of sex. Get it?

If you, however, view sex as a biological interaction, then scientific (specifically relating to Physics for some asinine reason, in this case) terms and rules make perfect sense, but, at the same time, make absolutely no difference at all as far as identifying sex as a "special" event. The only really intriguing thing to consider in such a case as sexual intercourse might be the biological, because that--THAT, the biological--is what truly distinguishes sex as a fascinating phenomenon: The combination of two individuals' DNA on a cellular, for one instance, level is something rarely found in nature, something truly intricate and highly complex and fascinating (and sensible!). Yes.

In short, don't bring Physics into a metaphysical discussion of sex unless you want to be labeled the village fool.
'Kaythanksbye.

* Half a complete set of chromosomes in each gamete, obviously.
** Man and woman in the case of successful reproduction; just FYI.