An idea about population planning
Posted: 09 Sep 2022, 04:58
Tl;dr.
Also, you're kind of scary, dude
Also, you're kind of scary, dude
A forum for Wosbald to spam Crux articles
https://christianpipesmokers.org/
You can't really think this, even hypothetically, is a good idea.Troubadour wrote: ↑07 Sep 2022, 03:18 Hypothetically, what if all born children were given mandatory vasectomies' or hysterectomies upon birth....
Well, duh.... Human beings are rational animals. We have biological nature (eating, breathing, pooping, picking out boogers), which we share with all of the animal kingdom.Troubadour wrote: ↑08 Sep 2022, 23:01
Then you're obviously not referring to "natural" in a purely biological sense, because marriage is a rational, human construct, not simply the biological impetus to procreate.
Shhh. Your demons are talking.Troubadour wrote: ↑09 Sep 2022, 15:00Hm, where do we start.
Okay, well first the problem is that you have a reductive view of sex or "getting poontang" - like it's all about the false dichotomy between the "getting" and the "not getting", instead of savoring the shared experience and the moments of bliss in which the concerns of the material world temporarily cease to matter.
You also seem to have a very solipsistic view of "rejection" and if you or anyone else is "rejected" - that it's all about you and some type of personal slight or affront to you as an individual - when in reality, you don't or barely matter at all in the minds of others to begin with, and the were neither obligated to you, or obligated to think about you at all as you narcissistically imagine.
And while logic disagrees and tells me that, in theory, it's probably more stable and viable for most people to settle for a boring "wife" - I honestly feel that hints of love are better shared with a stranger with whom one doesn't have to share tainted, humdrum memories. Most of my partners weren't people I "knew" well, and for that I'm happy that said knowledge didn't taint the otherwise transcendent experiences.
Though since your only view of the issues seems to be fixated on "getting poon" with some perceived regularity, coupled with the simple inability to relate to the idea of being able to share love with a stranger (which isn't as hard as one might think), I guess trying to discuss moments of transcendence is just casting flawless pearls knowing they'll immediately be tainted.
I say it totally impossible to love, or "share love" (whatever that means) with a stranger. Are you conflating orgasm with some sort of transcendent love? It's easy enough to have intercourse with an empty vessel of a stranger but how can you love someone you don't even know? You may enjoy (love is a leap) the way they talk, or walk, or look, or smell, or wiggle under you in bed, but how can you love the person of stranger?Troubadour wrote: ↑09 Sep 2022, 15:00 [in reply to Yugo] . . . coupled with the simple inability to relate to the idea of being able to share love with a stranger (which isn't as hard as one might think), I guess trying to discuss moments of transcendence is just casting flawless pearls knowing they'll immediately be tainted.
Your uncle was right about you, Screwtape. You're going about this all wrong.Troubadour wrote: ↑09 Sep 2022, 16:09I think you're right in some ways. I'm aware that there are different types of love - "Eros, Agape", and all that, and not all necessarily created equal.
Though didn't Jesus and his disciples have a love for all of humanity? Sure, you can say that since Jesus was "God", he "knew" all of humanity, though his disciples would have had to cultivate a love for humanity which went beyond the confines of simple "familial love", right?
Nothing I'm saying is totally set in stone - but I'm postulating that it's not actually solely about "orgasm". If the focus solely about orgasm, or lacking in mutuality, it would be ugly, crude and a source of angst.Are you conflating orgasm with some sort of transcendent love? It's easy enough to have intercourse with an empty vessel of a stranger but how can you love someone you don't even know? You may enjoy (love is a leap) the way they talk, or walk, or look, or smell, or wiggle under you in bed, but how can you love the person of stranger?
You appear to have a very reductive view of marriage. "tainted, humdrum memories"?Troubadour wrote: ↑09 Sep 2022, 15:00Hm, where do we start.
Okay, well first the problem is that you have a reductive view of sex or "getting poontang" - like it's all about the false dichotomy between the "getting" and the "not getting", instead of savoring the shared experience and the moments of bliss in which the concerns of the material world temporarily cease to matter.
You also seem to have a very solipsistic view of "rejection" and if you or anyone else is "rejected" - that it's all about you and some type of personal slight or affront to you as an individual - when in reality, you don't or barely matter at all in the minds of others to begin with, and the were neither obligated to you, or obligated to think about you at all as you narcissistically imagine.
And while logic disagrees and tells me that, in theory, it's probably more stable and viable for most people to settle for a boring "wife" - I honestly feel that hints of love are better shared with a stranger with whom one doesn't have to share tainted, humdrum memories. Most of my partners weren't people I "knew" well, and for that I'm happy that said knowledge didn't taint the otherwise transcendent experiences.
Though since your only view of the issues seems to be fixated on "getting poon" with some perceived regularity, coupled with the simple inability to relate to the idea of being able to share love with a stranger (which isn't as hard as one might think), I guess trying to discuss moments of transcendence is just casting flawless pearls knowing they'll immediately be tainted.
Take it from me (as I am a great expert): Long posts don't mean that you have a valid point.Troubadour wrote: ↑09 Sep 2022, 15:38Honestly, I sometimes long for the days when people had the sustained attention to read something longer than a Twitter post...
...and the days when "Freddy Kruger" films stopped being scary after one turned 14.
I don't care how the government defines "marriage" or "adulthood." I care about YOU. I want YOU to be happy.Troubadour wrote: ↑09 Sep 2022, 20:07You're talking about good ideals which are, in practice - lost on many of the masses. Since none of those things are required to meet what ever bare-bones legal requirements society might offer for marriage - just as with whatever bare-minimum legal-definition of "adulthood" his put out there - which more or less amounts to barely one step above "law of the jungle" and is often devoid of any of the higher ideals which you're talking about.Del wrote: ↑09 Sep 2022, 19:54 You appear to have a very reductive view of marriage. "tainted, humdrum memories"?
Let me explain in terms you mightunderstand: Marriage is about leaving adolescence behind, and growing into a new and much larger adult world together. Children are the biggest part of this world. And grandchildren.
Chasing sexual experiences without commitment or being open to new life is a doom of perpetual adolescence. An empty and featureless future, and not much for memories either.