Philosophy/Theory Thread.

[RoboSenshi]

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

I say no. I think reality is relative to the observer. The only thing that gives an event any significance is conscious acknowledgement. The only reason the universe even exists is because we can observe it. If there was no conscious life in the universe then the universe would not "exist". In other words things are real because we perceive them to be real. Conscious thought creates reality.

I mostly think about things like this when I'm high and I absolutely love that though experiment.

 

[AreJohn]

Does sexuality (eg. Homosexuality, Bisexualist, Heterosexuality) Exist?

It's an odd one that isn't really talked about much probably because nobody honestly gives a **** if it does or not, but here's my two cents 'tuppence.

All people (granted it's a whole and developed to match the average amount of developement a human has up to when it is born) Have the physical ability to engage in whatever sexual act they are able to with another human being, regardless of gender for either the sake of pleasure or a show of affection towards or between who ever is taking part.

Then there are the mental/immaterial notions of sexuality, Heterosexuality, Bisexuality and Homosexuality. All of these are labels which date back to... well, i'm not quite sure when the ideas were first coined, but the opinion I hold to them is that the idea of these things is abit daft in itself. To use these ideas in this day and age in "western society" a place where everyone is safe and sound from persecution and all that bollocks.

I'm actually not sure where i'm going with this. I'll just bullet point it, or order it somehow.

- The ideas of Heterosexuality/Bisexuality/Homosexuality are immaterial, they don't do anything save for put people into catergories which traps them into having relationships with people who are only relevant to the label they bare.

- Then there is the argument that people can't choose. Whatever they want to put their genitals in or against. I'm not fussed about what sex two people in a relationship are, but I find the argument "I can't help it, I was born this way" abit hollow. I mean, I personally could enter a relationship with whoever I want, but it's ultimately my choice at the end of the day. Wait, I've lost the plot again ****s sake.

- I guess what i'm going for, if i'm going for anything at all or having a general mental ramble about my thoughts on the topic. It would make more sense if our societies ditched the labels which I really cannot be arsed to type out for another time. And replace it with a more "ancient Greek" (I guess?) social stance on the whole fuss about it. By ancient Greek, I mean, say from a gossiping group of women perspective.

Woman one: Ooh, y'know that thermocles?
Woman two: Ooh yeah, him wi' the sarissa?
1: Yeah, apparently, he's no longer with Brenda (I don't know that many Greek names) and has hooked up with galbatorix. (wait, he's from Eragon, ****)
2: Oh yeah? Well they've been friends since they were young i'm not surprised.

I still have no way in words to put this.
-Ditch the label thingies
-Act like it's a normal occurance?

Still can't think of a way to put this, will probably edit it later. 

The ramble train has stopped at the station.

 

[Swissky]

Freud's theory about sexuality, etc etc.

 

[pentagathus]

Weren't all of Freud's theories about sexuality?

 

[Swissky]

What are you, questioning my theories? YOUR MOTHER ABUSED YOU AND THEREFOR YOU ARE GAY.

 

[RoboSenshi]

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Freud haad no real theories, he was just really bad at internet arguments.

 

[AreJohn]

Someone should write an art of war on internet arguments.

Make sure as many common&moronic people as possible see your argument and give the impression you hold the moral high ground. They will intervene at some point on your behalf and relate the opposing side to the Nazis or Soviet union, therefore making the argument void and you win by default.

 

[Adorno]

Weren't all of Freud's theories about sexuality?

Yes! The libido is the basis of the human psyche.

That's a huge generalisation. The people I know of who've been in/are in prison are there for petty robbery and theivery, while violent offenses rarely lead to sentences. In America the figure is far more in favour of drugs offenses.

https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp

Anecdotally, I've seen people of all educational backgrounds getting angry and shouting, getting in to fights, and threatening with violence. The idea that once you get a university degree you're a stoic m'lady euphorite is a Victorian concept with no hard evidence to show for it. Road rage, parent playground rage, and suburb rage are all things that transcend class or education or income.

Yes, I simplified a lot.
But men in prison for violent crimes have no, or short, education.
Notice how crimes in "Banking and Insurance, Counterfeit, Embezzlement" make up just 0.3% of inmates 

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

That doesn't really say much. Educated people are not only capable of commiting the crime of embezzlement and nothing else. In fact a lot of high profile white-collar cases in the uk, like fraud and embezzlement, are committed by working class people.

 

[Adorno]

... high profile white-collar cases in the uk, like fraud and embezzlement, are committed by working class people.

Interesting. Also sounds self contradicting. Do you have an article on it or something?

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Nope, but it's just an observation of real life and the news. Charity fraud, medical fraud, identity fraud and generally lying for cash are extremely common on a low level, and I could name plenty of people who know someone who does it habitually, but I ain't no snitch.
The funnier or more damaging cases are the only ones that become high profile. Volume-wise, white-collar crime is not a literal term by any means.

What was the original point again? Oh yeah, anger and class.

It's important not to conflate class and authority/status within a social group. In modern urbanised societies, an upper class dad has no more authority or status than a working class dad. There is no village elder or warrior caste. Each family unit is de jure equal in status and authority, even though they might differ in class.

The discouragement of anger is attached to authority. In almost every society, urbanised or rural or premodern, two people of the same status are discouraged from showing anger towards each other. People break up fights, try to diffuse arguments.
However, it is acceptable and often encouraged to show the same anger towards people of lower status. In modern urban societies, that's your children and nobody else. In medieval europe, that's your children and any serfs or vagrants. In the Amazon, that's your children and the rest of your tribe, if you rule one. This is a status-stratified society without proper class distictions -- for the sake of this argument, the polar opposite of modern urbanised society.

So basically, anger and class have no clear links the way anger and status do. And since status is mostly gone from modern urban societies, anger and shouting are more or less universal.

 

[Swissky]

Weren't all of Freud's theories about sexuality?

My fault, the Swedish word for sexual orientation is sexualitet (or sexuell läggning, but nobody uses that) and the closest word being sexuality, I took a shortcut.

Freud had no real theories, he was just really bad at internet arguments.

 

[Mad Vader]

Nope, but it's just an observation of real life and the news.

You get this from many long years of observation?
Also, the news have their own profiling agendas. Nothing is a substitute for a study, otherwise you can claim pretty much anything that's on your mind.

 

[AreJohn]

I've finally just came up with a brilliant way to describe my understanding of peoples bumpy-snuggle-times.

Sexualities don't exist, they're actually just fetishes people are really into.

 

[crodio]

I think that it is the other way around. Fetishes are sexual inclinations.
Here ser my proofs





Thats it

 

[AreJohn]

No u

 

[Mad Vader]

Having trouble with the gay inside? Be proud, a lot of SA leaders were gay too.

 

[AreJohn]

Why on earth would I be gay? That's so limiting, I like to enjoy all kinds of children.

 

[Vieira151]

Nice to know you don't discriminate women based on colour!