Posts by Silent Lion

Yehh but our kid's not even 1 yet, so she can only eat whatever I shove at her

@Lexatom It's lost on me, is it the hypocrisy?

@Edward_Stryfe A lot of interesting facts. What's your opinion on all those facts? You're against porn purely on Catholic grounds?

^ That's a good idea.
< Wow shit, you look like me!
V Looks like wet toast

Merry Chistmas! Yes, we do. Christmas day is normally at the dad-in-law's, but every year we put up a little tree in the corner of our apartment. We bought it the first few months we got together and even though it's falling apart, we string it up anyway. For the longest time it was a tradition to stuff so much chocolate down my face that I woke up in the middle of the night and sprint-crawled to the toilet to vomit it back out. Buuuut for the past five or six years I just don't fancy doing that anymore.

Quote from Aphelion

I think that porn has it's place and use. For single adults, or for couples in their relationships, it can help out. However, I'm one of those ladies that pretty much doesn't watch porn and if I'm in a relationship with a guy, I expect him not to watch it either. I'm very upfront about it very early on (pretty much the first two weeks in), and tell him if he'd rather watch porn I'd rather be with someone else or alone. I know other people in relationships can watch it together and be perfectly happy. I'm just not one of them. I give him time and leniency, but if him and I are going to be a thing... Well, he has to respect that part of me. Even saying it now seems unreasonable and childish, but I can't help how I feel. There's some give and take in every relationship. I just wish I was mature enough to not be hurt by my boyfriend watching porn. But it hurts my feelings and my self esteem.

I'm completely the same. Luckily for me, my wife also feels the same. But I don't think it has anything to do with maturity. It's just a personal quirk. Some things upset us, other things don't. We could retrain ourselves not to be hurt by it and maybe never quite succeed, or we could just be honest and take porn out of the relationship. It seems easier and simpler, I don't see why there should be any obligation to change. Out of interest, do you have the same trouble with hentai? We find that we can watch that. Mostly because it's so ridiculous it's funny, but also because it's not real - it derives its... whatever it is... from the imagination of the situation or whatever.

Quote

For me, I just don't find an interest in it. I'd rather spend my time on other things. There's probably at least a couple million other things I'd rather do than sit down to watch some porn. I don't think it's bad, but I do think it places unrealistic expectations on both men and women and how they can/should act during sex. I know that reasonable adults can separate porn from reality, but I think on a whole (considering the masses are generally braindead) most people consider what the pornstars do obtainable fantasies that they can try to impose on their significant other.

Now this for me is a huge grey area. I used to be a huge porn watcher before I got with my significant other. Because I enjoyed it so much, I found ways to believe it was harmless. Now that I'm more distanced from it, my confirmation bias has eased off a little. I do believe porn creates emotionally harmful expectations, in that nobody feels good enough, especially women who are usually the stars of the media. But on the other hand, I could say the same for all types of media, especially the fashion world. Granted, it's more extreme with porn, but photoshopped mag pics do a similar thing. For that matter, maybe fashion itself should be frowned upon. After all, if physical appearance shouldn't be a factor in how we see people, why dress our bodies up to make them look good in the way we do? Who's opinion are we caring about?

So, in terms of porn, should it be stopped (if it was possible), or reformed? If body types were picked at random, and porn was full of large people, little people etc, would that fix the problem? Or would the porn companies that featured more 'attractive' bodies end up making more money?

What I disagree with is people being against sexuality for some high and mighty notion of ettiquette or properness. That whole Victorian good and bad taste thing really gets on me.

@Kaynil , perhaps can I suggest some formal rules regarding debating etiquette? I know it's a pain but there doesn't seem to be much understanding about how to conduct a debate or what its purpose is.

@Servo
About this whole God thing. I'm answering because I'm an atheist, and I wish to be involved in this discussion, and so I have to address what you're saying about God. I do my hardest not to hurt people and to help the people I love. That proves that I have some sort of morality. So, if you follow what I'm saying, there are two possibilities: 1) There is a God. God gives me my morality, even if I don't know it. If that's true, my morality comes from the same place as your morality, and so we can all talk about morality and porn. Or 2) There is no God, and morality is a question of what each person works out for themselves. Is this is true, we can still talk about porn and morality. So, if there's a god or if there's not a god, it shouldn't make any difference to this discussion, because either way we can still talk about porn. I hope I'm making sense.

Want to type more but the baby's just woken up D: I'll check back later.

Adult Link from Smash Bro: Melee. It's because Link's name is never actually mentioned in OoT (my first Zelda game), so Melee was the first game I played that actually said 'Link'. Before that, the name Link was some distant trivia.

Sausage - 11
Eggs - 11 (+1)
Waffles - 8
Pancakes - 4
Muffins - 6 (-3) Are we talking those sand-paper McDonalds style savoury muffins?
Biscuit - 10
French Toast - 12

OoC: I like it, like a more laid-back verison of an rpg.

"Standby," he managed to blurt. As he tuned in to the frequency of the Nescience approaching on the opposite side of the peninsula, he couldn't help but feel a little bitter. Marton was a nothing place. Barely a village. And the great Reprieve ran aground on his turf. It wasn't even his shift - he was covering!

Quote from Servo

Hahahah well I'll post my answer but I want to see what other have to say !! only few replied ** sigh**

@Kaynil ?

Twisted Edge, Wipeout

Kokiri forest was such an amazing 3D world, until that first glimpse of Hyrule Field *dreamy eyes*
And that was after spending far too long on Mario64 and Lylat Wars (Starfox 64, you non-brits). I remember the only reason I watched Fellowship of the Ring was because someone said it was a bit like Zelda, so I guess I can thank Nintendo for my other fanboy adventures.

Quote from Servo

Well perceptions are highly subjective and can be wrong

Meaning is a perception. So your perception of meaning can't be wrong, because whatever you perceive your meaning to be, that's what your meaning becomes, right? Aren't they synonymous?

Quote

and well I said in start I already have found my answer just wanna know yours I'll post mine later

Pff! Such a tease!

^ Yes. Yes I do.
< Might be lying
V Will reveal all

Well, fair enough. I do tend to fly face-first into a good debate

^ self-fulfiling prophecy?
< Is not Kaynil
V Might be Kaynil

Quote from LinkSkywalker

Also, are you actually advancing a cartesian subjectivist view of reality? It's true that perception plays a larger role in human communication than we commonly like to acknowledge. If I write a sentence and ten people read it, then there will be 11 different thoughts and feelings about that sentence. But if we refuse to even attempt to find a consensus on basic facts because "such is the weakness of language," then discussions are going to be really boring and difficult.

No, I'm actually not , but I can see why you would think I was. To clarify, without digressing too much into the nature of knowledge, I think that the subjectivist viewpoint is appropriate within this conversation, that is, talking exclusively about meaning. As you said yourself, the only meaning life has is the meaning you give it. Therefore meaning is subjective. Therefore subjectivism is relevant. What I'm trying to get across is that meaning, as an experience, is real and valid (because 'I feel, therefore I am'). Yes, it is something that exists only inside your own brain. But all too often the assumption is made that self-generated meaning is 'lower' or 'cosmically less' than objective meaning (if it existed). I disagree with that, which is my point in a nutshell. Subjectivism backs me up. People like Descartes have logically 'proved' the existence of our own sensations, and while subjectivists claim that is all we know and I don't claim that, they are at least right in asserting the validity of my own subjective experiences (such as meaning). After all my waffling, I believe our positions are probably closer than you think.

Quote from LinkSkywalker

My point is that a mechanical act took place. Human semen fertilized a human egg. Any emotional or moral or spiritual trappings that surrounded this occurrence are irrelevant when answering the question "why are we here?" I suppose such additional specificity might be relevant if we were discussing why an individual person is 'here,' but we're talking about humanity as a whole here. Or, at least, the audience of this post as a whole. Specifics have no place.

The problem for me is how you interpret the question 'why are we born?'. 'Why' can refer to the process, or the intent. If you ask me 'why are your shoelaces tied', I can answer 'because I tied them' or 'so my shoes stay on', depending on what I assume the question to mean - both are valid and correct. There's also no denying that the latter has a place in causing the former to happen (I don't want my shoes to fall off, which caused me to tie them, which caused them to be tied).
So, 'why were we born?' - taking the first meaning, then yes, a mechanical, biological event caused my conception and latterly my birth. But there is also the other question - 'what was the intention of my being born?' and this is where moral (and psychological) trappings become wholly relevant. My parents chose that I be born when they had sex. Even if someone is unplanned, the mother then choses to keep the baby and give birth. Everything that relates to those decisions is relevant to the question 'why were we born?', if you consider 'why' to refer to intent. My birth was very much intended by someone. And that, I imagine, is true for the vast majority of people.

^ wants ULTIMATE COSMIC POWER!!
< wants nothing (except a good poo), so will sell ULTIMATE COSMIC POWER!
V will purchase ULTIMATE COSMIC POWER for £55.99 , exchange rates charged at 5%.

Shadows of the Empire all the way! I have mixed memories about that game. Sometimes, the bleak music and grey graphics were horrible. I remember the long levels like being stuck in some reality-bending nightmare.

It is a big topic. *deep breath* Ok then:

Quote from Servo

In these question you will see a bigger picture your true answer to the question Why are we born?
Now many people give this answer life is for enjoyment ... and that They have a right to live happily so they shud live life to fullest and honestly I don't disagree people have full right to live they want to...

Essentially, yes. When you think about the people you love, what do you want for them? People being happy and enjoying life is better than the opposite, right? It seems immediately obvious. And yet when we wonder what our own lives are about, a mysterious confusion descends. But surely it's logical to view our own lives in the same way we view the lives of those around us - as aiming for happiness. The only difference is that we have an authority over our own lives which we do not have over others. That adds the possibility of self-sacrifice, and that leads into a whole long conversation about morality. But yes, it's all about enjoyment/fulfilment/happiness.

To go vague and academic about it, consider subjectivism as described by Descartes. What if everything we see and hear is an hallucination? How do we know what is real? Descartes concluded he could only be sure of his own existence, because he was able to ponder about it (I think therefore I am). However, modern neuroscience suggests that even thought is an illusion - thought may just be an experience, not something that is self-guided. If that's possible, then we can't even be sure that 'I think therefore I am'. So I take a different approach - for me, it's "I feel, therefore I am". That much is self-evident. And it goes further. We know some feelings are good and some feelings are bad. That's also self-evident. When we break a bone, or get tooth-ache, we don't need to prove that it's a bad feeling, it becomes obvious. The pain is badness itself. So we have 'good' and 'bad' sensations, and good is by definition better than bad. Seeing as happiness is the overall effect of good sensations, then happiness must be the only motive that we can know.

Quote

But I just fail to understand one thing .... How can I enjoy and live life to fullest when I know that So many innocent little children sleep hungry everyday and many die every year ... How Do I enjoy when I know women have to sell their chastity to feed them ... How Do I enjoy when I know young girls are kidnapped and how they fear for their safety ... How Do I enjoy when I know out there that in this world children are enslaved into slavery .....

Some of you may think I'm criticizing they way people think But this is not my intent it really is a question in my mind ... as is said everyone has a right to live and its not their fault if people suffer so they have every right to enjoy their lives and live it to fullest but for me question is HOW ?

Misery, I believe, (and happiness, for that matter) is a reaction between your situation and your brain. In your case, the situation is 'the state of the world', and your brain means how you perceive that. If you cannot change the situation, your only remaining strategy is to alter your perception, and decide if that will bring more happiness. The brain is always filtering information to support a particular viewpoint, and vigilance is needed to keep it in check. To that end, some things to consider:

My own life is very happy. I live in a stable and supportive marriage with a beautiful daughter. We have plenty of food, we enjoy travelling, eating out, reading books, I take Kung Fu classes every Tuesday. My life is, dare I say it, pretty good. How do you factor my life, and the millions like me, into your model of the world? It's also worth noting that the future seems better than the past. As an atheist, had I lived five hundred years ago, happiness would be impossible for me. The same is true about my social status (the bottom of the ladder). And with increasing pace, these improvements are spreading across the globe. Sooner or later, happiness in the world will outweigh misery, if it doesn't already.

As I say, it's a matter of perception.
As for "Why are we here?" This question has two meanings: 1) How did we get here? or 2) Why are we here? I'll deal with 1) first.

Quote from LinkSkywalker

"Why are we here?" The answer is disappointingly simple. "Because our parents fucked."

This goes to the heart of the problem of perception.
On a factual level, yes, this is true. But there is no objective way of describing the act of sex. I could describe it as making love. I'm here because my parents shared a moment of love. I believe LinkSkywalker's choice of description attempts to cut through illusion and bias and describe the act for what it is. However, 'because our parents fucked' falls into the same language trap - it is clearly designed to cause a particular effect, and is therefore biased like any other description, and my description of making love would therefore be no more subjective than his. There is no way to describe anything for what it is. Such is the weakness of language, and the importance of perception. To move onto 2).

Quote

That's really it. The only reason this question feels like a mystery is because we want to believe that our existence has some deeper meaning, but it doesn't. There is no hidden purpose out there for us to find. Life is exactly what you see in the day-to-day. Anything more that people imagine is just an attempt to feel more cosmically important than we really are.

Agreed. To keep banging the same drum, perception once again plays a part. The problem of trying to find an objective importance for your life is that importance itself is a human concept. What exactly is 'importance'? Is it rank and position? Is it the power to affect things? When you step outside your own priorities, why would anything be more important than anything else? Importance is nothing more than a perception.
But that doesn't cheapen it. Perception is precisely what does give meaning to life (meaning is another type of perception). Meaning and importance exist in your heart. To prove that point, consider this. If you did have some objective importance, but were unaware of it, would it make you any more happy? Conversely, if there was no such thing as objective importance, but you were unaware of that fact and you felt and experienced that you WERE important, do you think that would make you happier? If the answers to these questions are the same as mine, it proves that meaning is generated within. And as I tried to express earlier with the whole 'feel therefore I am' thing, your inner experiences are no illusion - they are the only thing you can be sure is real. Thus, the experience of meaning is meaning itself.

Quote

The truth is that life has whatever purpose we give to it. Nothing more, and nothing less. And I find that beautiful and uplifting.

This. Exactly this.

So, in my way that covers suffering in the world, why are we born, what is life for, and my philosophy of life.
The other questions, such as what would I do if I were rich and what am I striving for, are a completely different topic. Happiness, perception and all that plays a part, of course, but now we get into the closer-to-earth matters of my personal tastes and preferences. For me, I take a lot of inspiration from Buddhism, Daoism and my Kung Fu instruction. For the type of person I am, there's a lot in there about relaxing and not getting worked up about things that go wrong, about compassion, about letting things go that works for me and my tastes. If I were rich, I'd probably travel more. Buy a house so that my family can be more comfortable and my daughter can have her own room. I love reading, if there were more hours in the day I would read everything going. I love music, and I miss performing on stage. I would love to be a composer. I work so that the label I co-own takes off in a big way. If I wasn't looking after the kid, I'd like to volunteer for a homeless shelter, because I've benefitted from it in the past.

... I think that's about it.