Adahn

[QUOTE=maladjusted][color=darkslateblue] Somehow, I find it hard to believe that you would treat a gay man the same way you'd treat a heterosexual man. Really, it's human nature.[/color][/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Well, I tend to treat people the same, man or woman. I'm extremely anti-social, and I do my best to ignore everyone's existence. If you would like to continue this conversation, please send me a PM.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=maladjusted][color=darkslateblue] In the bible, God tells humans to multiply, so I don't see how anal sex is less worse than homosexual penetration.[/color] [i]I think male-male sex is extremely disgusting and wrong. Do you want an intellectual reason? Well, like I said before, it's akin to bestiality and adultery. It is unnatural, perverse, and disgusting, just like bestiality and adultery.[/i] [color=darkslateblue]Huh. I agree wholeheartedly that in the bible, homosexuality is a sin. Too bad anger and hate are also sins, and as a Christian, you should know that no sin is 'worse' than another. As a Christian you're supposed to love and embrace everyone, and saying that something is 'disgusting' is not exactly what I'd say is loving. It's hardly your place to go around judging things. Dislike/hate homosexuality, I could really care less. Using religion as a scapegoat for your hate is something I depsise.[/color][/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Let me repeat myself. I hate the action, not the people.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]I know what you said, but you didn't answer my question. If the Bible doesn't say it's wrong, in effect saying it's okay, is it right?[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]No, the Bible is rather old, and cannot be applied to [i]every[/i] situation that exists today. It has homosexuality covered, though.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] So, then, a healthy male-male relationship that may or may not involve intercourse is perfectly okay, because if there's no cheating involved, then the relationship is secure and good. Since you view adultery as equally damaging to both types of relationships, and therefore view both relationships the same way there, why not approve of both types of relationships when the relationship is a healthy and loving one?[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I do not disapprove of the relationship. I disapprove of the male-male homosexual act involving sodomy. It disgusts me, about as much as incest/murder/bestiality/adultery disgust me.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] The city was destroyed because of homosexuality, not hetero anal. Your argument has no validity.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Do you want me to say that heterosexual anal sex is okay? I see it as an act of lust, and not love. I, personally, consider acts of lust as a kind of fornication.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Firstly, homosexuality does not equal beastiality, and to try to compare the two is absurd for a few reasons.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Siren] One, humans have something called reasoning. Two, humans have higher levels of cognition. Three, humans may become aroused, but they do not go into heat. Four, (most) humans have self-control. (Most) animals do not. [/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Well, there are some common arguments I see used in favor of homosexuality that apply to bestiality.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]1. It does no harm to anyone.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]2. It's a personal matter, and not anyone else's business.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] The teenagers believe themselves to be in love, though, and their engaging in sex comes out of that belief. They honestly feel like they're in true love, so, therefore, it's not fornication, therefore, invalidating your above statement, or making it so that half of the teenage population of the US is already married, which reveals the absurdity of your argument.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Have you ever seen [i]Gone With the Wind? [/i]Scarlett believed herself to be in love with what'shisface, but she never was. She did everything she could to try and get him, until she realized that she was never really in love with him. My statement is valid, and is not absurd. Belief is not truth, Siren.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]EDIT: Perhaps in the context of the Bible, male homosexual relationships were strictly active/passive, and therefore could not involve love. If this were true, then male-male sexual relationships based on love would not be wrong. I believe you yourself said something in an AIM conversation about 'law' in the new testament referring specifically to 'Roman law'. If this is the case with Leviticus, where one must understand the time period relating to the statement, then it is possible that homosexuality is not wrong, according to the Bible.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren] So, then, you're perfectly fine with Rosie O'Donnell coming out, kissing her wife in public, etc? If you're basing your assessment of homosexuality on the Bible, and you're saying that female-female relationships aren't considered mortal sins, and aren't explicitly or implicitly forbidden in the Bible, then...if two women who love each other very much embrace...you wouldn't have a problem with it. The Bible doesn't say it's wrong, so therefore, you can't have a problem with it, because if you did, you would be going against God and His teachings.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I said people could not argue against female homosexuality using what is written in the Bible.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][QUOTE=Adahn][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]anybody who is against female homosexual relationships cannot say that the grounds for their decision is based on the Bible.[/QUOTE][/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] And do you hold every relationship to this, no matter what type of relationship (hetero or homo)?[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Yes. While I don't approve of male homosexual relationships, cheating in that relationship is just as wrong as cheating in a heterosexual relationship. I recognize the bond that those couples share, I just don't approve of it.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] But it's between a man and a woman, so it's heterosexual, so it has to be okay, because it's not same-sex relations. Or are you disagreeing with the Bible here? By the way, Sodom was burned because of homosexuality, Adahn, not hetero anal.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Still, sodomy describes any form of anal penetration. I would just assume that any word associated with that city would be a bad thing.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] ...are you arguing for beastiality? And also, nowhere did Dagger mention beastiality. She specifically said "incest or murder." And what is your point here? How does what you said have any bearing at all on the topic at hand?[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]One could make the same arguments for bestiality that people make for homosexuality (ignoring love).[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] This is what your view translates into: You do realize that you just presided over the ceremony for about...oh...50% of the teenage population of the United States?[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Sex without love is fornication. Teenagers fornicate. Fornication forms no bond between two people.[/color][/size][/font]

[quote name='Dagger IX1']Doesn't it strike you as being a little strange that God would prohibit male-male sex, but not hot and heavy female-female... uh, carnal relations?[/quote] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I'm sure He doesn't look fondly on them, but nowhere in the Bible does He say that female-female relationships are a mortal sin.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Dagger IX1] I'm having a lot of trouble understanding where you're coming from, particularly in regards to this whole "penetration" business. So homosexual acts are only sinful when penetration is involved? I believe that many people of your faith would disagree with that assertion. Assuming the same definition also applies to adultery and bestiality, is it okay for me to fool around with someone other than my spouse--just as long as we don't actually have intercourse? To me, that doesn't make sense, neither in the context of homosexuality nor anything else.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]You would have a very difficult time finding someone of my faith. Fooling around with someone else is definitely wrong, but it does not constitute adultery. Certain acts are not at all good, but they are forgiveable. But, once your wife/husband has sex with someone else, a very distinct line has been crossed, and no amount of forgiveness can restore that relationship to what it was before.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Dagger IX1] Do you think heterosexual anal sex is a sin?[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I think it is unnatural. I believe the word to describe it is 'sodomy'. From what I can garner, any word named after a city destroyed for its immorality is a bad thing.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Dagger IX1] EDIT: Christianity does not have a monopoly on what is right and wrong, Adahn. Just because someone rejects religious ideals (Christian or otherwise) doesn't mean he endorses, say, incest or murder. That kind of reasoning drives me crazy. ~Dagger~[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Incest and murder are naturally wrong. There is no intellectual basis for prohibiting bestiality. It actually seems odd to me that we live in a country where animal torture...I mean testing...is legal, while bestiality, which has the potential to do no harm, is strictly prohibited.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]As for adultery, I have a different definition of marriage. I will consider myself married when I make love with a woman who loves me, and who I love. Once that bond is formed, no religious or political ceremony is going to strengthen it, because they are just that; ceremony.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]If you'll notice, I didn't mention incest or murder in any of my previous posts, so please, don't put words into my mouth.[/color][/size][/font]

[quote name='DarkOtakuBoy']Woah, wait a min....I understand you putting your faith into something thats important to you and thats commendable, but you must understand that not everyone HAS the Christian idea of values, not everyone FOLLOWS that faith or believes in it. Everyone has their own idea of how the universe works and they have their own set of values. But quoting passages from the Bible wont change anything or anyones minds, just as if I were to quote to you, accounts of Pagan sabbats and their dogmatic and ethical belief structures. Religious argument becomes moot to those who just dont share that faith.[/quote] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]So, I guess you don't have anything against bestiality or adultery, then? Those are religious ideals.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=DarkOtakuBoy] I personally dont beleive that pentrating another boy will send me to what you call Hell. So the Bible thing is irrelevant. Religion is personal, it should not be mixed with debate, because how can you argue against someones faith, intellectually?[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I think male-male sex is extremely disgusting and wrong. Do you want an intellectual reason? Well, like I said before, it's akin to bestiality and adultery. It is unnatural, perverse, and disgusting, just like bestiality and adultery. Do you want me to provide some sort of evidence for why I feel this way? I can't, all I can say is that it is a part of my nature. The Bible, surprisingly, is mostly about human nature. If you can find a more expansive literary document that is focused on human nature, tell me what it is, because I'm extremely interested in the subject. You're asking me to disregard one of the most expansive books written about human nature, and here we are discussing...human nature.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Dagger IX1]So, what? As James pointed out, not all male homosexuals engage in the same sexual practices, just as not all male heterosexuals engage in the same sexual practices. I mean, what you described a few posts back is in its essence akin to saying something like, "heterosexual couples always use the missionary position" or "lesbians only have oral sex." Out of curiousity, do you strictly follow every single rule laid out in Leviticus? ~Dagger~[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]If there is a male homosexual relationship that doesn't involve what is described in that verse, then I've got no beef with it. There is no 'broad definition' of sex that involves all actions men and women can do to please each other. Sex is vaginal or anal penetration by a male.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Probably not, but when I see a verse inbetween 'don't have sex with animals' and 'don't commit adultery', I take it rather seriously.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Goldensensei, I'm sorry, but you're going to have to explain yourself further, because I can't seem to understand what you're trying to say.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=James][color=#811c3a]o_O;; So you are now defining the sexual acts that EVERY homosexual couple undertakes? [color=#000000][/QUOTE][/color] [color=#000000][/color] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I am only talking about male homosexual relationships.[/color][/size][/font] [color=#000000][/color] [color=#000000][QUOTE=James][/color] That is highly, [i]highly[/i] presumptuous. I guarantee you, not every homosexual relationship involves either penetration or clearly defined active/passive roles.[color=#000000][/QUOTE][/color] [color=#000000][/color] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]The only homosexuality I recognize as a sin is that which is forbidden in the Bible.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [url="http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Lev/Lev020.html#13"][color=#0000ff]Lev 20:13[/color][/url] [color=black]If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.[/color] [QUOTE=James] That's yet another stereotype and it isn't even being presented here with very much of a purpose. Even if it were true, there's no real point to it. I think that DarkOtakuBoy said it best -- people shouldn't be judged based on their sexuality (just as I wouldn't judge a straight couple for doing something "kinky" in their bedroom or whatever), or their race, or their nationality or whatever else. They should be judged on their character first and foremost.[color=#000000][/QUOTE][/color] [color=#000000][/color] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I don't judge people by their sexuality, I judge them by their actions. Laying with a man as one would lie with a woman is a mortal sin, akin to adultery or bestiality.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=James] I think that regardless of people's views, that is surely something people will agree on, at a basic level.[/color][/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I agree with it, also. In addition, just as a fun fact, anybody who is against female homosexual relationships cannot say that the grounds for their decision is based on the Bible. According to the Bible, if there is no penetration, there is no sex.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Dagger IX1]Um... aren't you making an [i]extremely[/i] offensive assumption here? What is the phrase "from what I know" supposed to imply, anyway? Does it automatically let you off the hook if you're completely wrong? ~Dagger~[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Well, I just took a course on Ancient Greece that placed male-male relationships above male-female ones. In a male-male relationship, one partner was active, and one was passive. Passive partners could lose citizenship for being penetrated, and the older partner was always active. The goal of the active partner was to satisfy himself.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]In every male-male homosexual act, one partner is active, and one is passive. One penetrates, and the other is penetrated. If you want to read more into it, I suggest Plato's [i]Symposium[/i]. If people are offended by what I say, I can't help that. I'm just basing my statements off of what I [i]know.[/i][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I don't know how things are done today, and I don't care to know. The active/passive part of it, however, cannot be contradicted.[/color][/size][/font]

[quote name='Baron Samedi][size=1]How could it be anything but obvious? With humans, there is more to it than enjoyment. There is [generally...] love involved too. [/size][size=1']An animal cannot experience love, in any way that we can acknowledge.[size=2][/quote][/size][/size] [size=2][/size] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I agree with you when you say that sex is wrong without love, if that's what you're saying. However, I don't really see how it helps your point. People have sex without love all the time, and nobody cares. People even pay to have sex with other people.[/color][/size][/font] [size=1][/size] [QUOTE=Baron Samedi] [size=1]There is a significant difference between a donkey and a horse mating, and a human and another animal mating. Not only would it involve coupling with a completely different species,[/size] [size=1][size=2][/QUOTE][/size][/size] [size=2][/size] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]A donkey and a horse are completely different species. A species is defined as 'organisms capable of mating and producing viable offspring'. Mules are sterile.[/color][/size][/font] [size=2][/size] [QUOTE=Baron Samedi] [size=1] but as humans, we know more than survival and procreation. We have morals, and ethics.[size=2][/QUOTE][/size][/size] [size=1][size=2][/size][/size] [size=1][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Would you care to explain how humans having 'morals and ethics' supports your point? From what I can tell, 'morals and ethics' are anything but static, as we can see from this thread, itself. It is wrong to have sex with animals because it says so in the Bible. Do people enjoy having sex with animals? Yes. Can animals enjoy it, or at least not be harmed by it? Yes. It's just a matter of time before man-animal sex activists are given their rights, too.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Baron Samedi] And, aside from humans, there are only three other species known to have sex for 'enjoyment'. Dolphins, pigs, and... monkeys [not sure about the monkeys though...].[/size][/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]From what I know, male-male sexual relationships are more enjoyable for one person than the other. Since we can't ask animals how they feel, there's no reason for us to assume that the passive partner enjoys it any more or less than an animal would.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Baron Samedi][size=1] Ignoring, of course, the fact that it is cross-species and mutual love is not an issue...[/size][/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]*spawns a mini-debate*[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Why is sex between different species wrong? *thinks of mules*[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Also, since when does love have anything to do with sex? Mutual enjoyment can be shared in either case.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I'm not ignoring anything but what seems obvious to me. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I believe Drix has already answered your question. I think he said, 'hate the sin, not the sinner.' The reason he doesn't want gays to marry is because to him, it's relative to condoning murder or pedophilia.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]On that note, to me, man-on-man relations are about as bad as having sexual relations with animals. The person could enjoy it, and so could the animal. It's just an example of how something that doesn't hurt anyone can still be considered wrong.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]EDIT: He got to it first, but I think my version (the first part) still represents his thoughts, albeit in less words.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I already appreciate the character Izumi very much. She seems to be balanced delicately between weakness and strength. I see her as someone who likes to keep to herself, and wouldn't be surprised if she had some odd quirks as a result of this. The passage has a nice flow to it, and I hope anything that follows isn't pressured to be so nice. It's hard to write beautifully for long periods of time.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]As for where the story is going, I see Izumi as having some exotic job. You can't be hardcore like that and not do something totally badass.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I don't remember my most painful experience very well. I do know I was very young (probably 3-5). For me, intense pain has a way of etching moments into my memory, and it may very well have been my first memory (so sweet).[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Anyways, I was on the toilet going about my business when I felt the most horrible pain imaginable. I remember my little form huddled over in agony, crying, and I remember exactly what the bathroom looked like, to this day.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I apparently had a hernia. If I had to equate it with some other feeling, it would probably come close to giving birth from your bowels. [color=white]I do believe part of my intestine descended into my scrotum.[/color] I'd take a swift kick in the nuts any day before I go through that again.[/color][/size][/font]

[quote name='Morpheus']We are not talking the entire world. We want to know if you would rather live under 1 or the other.[/quote] [QUOTE=Thread Creator from first post] perfectly (Athenian) Democratic [b]world[/b] [/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]...yes we are. Also, if everyone voted by computer, the voting system would be hacked. You can't rely on technology for everything.[/color][/size][/font]

[quote name='Zeta']I know we brought September 11th onto ourselves. I never said we didn't deserve it at all, lol. Friends and I have always been saying we had something coming our way.[/quote] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Are you trying to say that 'we' deserved to have 'our' fathers/mothers/husbands/wives murdered for something 'we' did? I would think about what you just said if I were you. You're not American. Hell, after saying something like that, you're not even human.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]As for Israel/Palestine, both sides have an honest claim to the land. The solution is simple; fight for it. Hey, that's what they're doing! The conflict will be resolved when someone loses. I say let them duke it out on their own, and let the cards fall as they will.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I think a perfect Athenian democracy that spanned the entire world would be impossible. One of the main edicts of [/color][/size][/font][font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Athenian democracy is that every person must have a say in the important matters of the state, or that person is a worthless human being. Since the state in a completely democratic world would span the entire world, you're going to have split decisions on every issue, and instead of pissing off 150 million people (United States) and making 150 million people happy, you get to piss of over 3 billion people, and make 3 billion people happy. On such a large scale, I think democracy is more farfetched an idea than communism. Communism is based on trying to make everyone happy, while Democracy is based on trying to piss half of everyone off.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Courier New][color=blue][/color][/font][font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I know I'm thinking 'out of the box' here, but I'll keep going. I may be wrong, but I'll say it anyway. What you're describing is momentum. This momentum is caused by gravity (I think). If you are in a ship with it's own micro-environment, and you are going 300k miles an hour, and you stop instantly, what happens to the micro-environment (assuming there are no nearby heavenly bodies)? Is there any reason for everything to slam forward and turn into wall-pizza? What force would cause this to happen? I think the reason you are slammed into the front of the car when you hit a wall has something to do with the downward pull of gravity. Without that force, you should feel as many g's as you would hitting a fly.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I apologize in advance if all of this seems like it's being pulled out of my -ss, because, well, it is.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Aren't 'g-forces' dependent upon gravity? Gravity is the attraction between objects. Gravity tends to lose a bit of its magnitude once you move away from the celestial body (leaving the earth's atmosphere, for example). What I'm thinking is that you can go as fast as you want and not have to worry about 'g-forces' if there aren't any celestial bodies within a certain proximity. You could probably do a calculation for the effect of a speed or direction change on the 'g-forces' felt by an object, in relation to the proximity and size of celestial bodies. So, if you want to escape our universe, you choose a speed and path that keep the 'g-forces' minimal. When you get somewhere without any applicable gravitational pull, you can kick it in high gear, stop and start however fast you want, because without nearby celestial bodies, 'g-forces' simply don't apply. You would have to take into account the mass of the ship, though, just in case at extremely high speeds, relatively small amounts of matter have a significant gravitational pull on nearby objects.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Courier New][color=blue][/color][/font][font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Ah, so you think we would have to become more like a single organism? This makes sense. Here's a question.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Who wins in a fight between your left arm and your right arm?[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]The answer: It doesn't matter, because whoever wins, you lose.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]This uniting of humanity will not occur naturally, so we have to ask, "What would cause humanity to unite?" It would be easy to find a common enemy and fight it, but would it be possible to unite behind something else? Create something that is a tremendous benefit to all humanity, but is useless if we are not united. Perhaps it's possible to create so great a good that all people will act to protect it.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I had another thought.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]In order to accomplish world peace, the nature of man must be changed. If this can be accomplished, then world peace is possible. So, the next question in this line of thought is: What can change the nature of man?[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]If world peace were defined as an end to struggles between men, then perhaps uniting against a common enemy that is not man would change the nature of man. Something would have to threaten our survival as a species, because mankind is an entity itself. If you threaten mankind as an entity, it would be possible, for a brief time, for every person to be united against that threat.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][color=#0000ff][/color][/font]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]People go to war when they are unhappy, regardless of the severity of their unhappiness or the cause. So, one must ask if it is possible for everyone to be happy. Humans are covetous in nature, and despite what one may have, we always want more. Even if we all had the same thing in every way, there would still be the possiblity of having your neighbor's things, and once you have that, you can take more, and more, and more.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I don't think world peace is possible, because human nature does not permit it.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I don't think Xander Harris has stressed how misleading psychoanalysis can be on a message board. There are few parallels between what I post on OB and how I speak and act in RL. It's been said that a large part of communication is made up of gestures, voice tones, and such, rather than the actual words. Here, all we have are words, and these words are probably not formed in the way the writer speaks. I can look back on what I've written, change things, and work forward in my thought process from what I've just written. This changes things dramatically, and unless you are specifically trained in psychoanalyzing people from just their written word (which I think would be immensely difficult, if not impossible), any comments based upon that flawed analysis can be taken with a grain of salt.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]It has also been stressed that certain people aren't living in reality. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the human perception of reality is a dynamic thing. To state that one knows reality would be a claim to omniscience. You'd have to know how everything works on earth, in the stars, and beyond. Just 500 years ago, the world was flat. Everyone believed it, and so it was real. If anyone said it was round, he was branded as being unrealistic and laughed at. We now praise those people who challenged reality in denying what 'everyone knew was real', and we laugh at those who insisted the world was flat.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I don't claim to be omniscient, or anywhere close, but I do enjoy questioning what 'everybody knows'. I think there's more to be known about reality than we can imagine, and in these past 500 years, we've only moved an inch on the spectrum of reality that could stretch for miles.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I'm sorry if I went a little off-topic here, but I do think questioning psychoanalysis and reality perception are pertinent to what's being discussed.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I'm leaning towards Materialism, but I have a bit of a problem with it. Yes, our minds can be physically represented by the matter and energy that compose our brains, but this doesn't mean the mind doesn't exist. That's like saying hands don't exist because they are made up of skin, bone, muscle, etc. The mind is a dynamic collection of neurons, and their respective positions, shapes, sizes, charges, and alignments. It is physical, but it exists.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]On a side note, I wonder how the mind reacts to losing a limb. The physical arm may no longer be attached, but the mind remembers what it is like to have an arm. Does it feel like the arm's still there, but is immobile? If the arm exists in the mind as a well-developed, permanent area of neurons, can we say that the arm no longer exists? Though it may not be physically represented on the person himself, it has a representation in the mind, and so continues to exist.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]My most horrible experiences are actually quite mild.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]When I was young, I wasn't very social, I was smart, and I wore glasses. This had me branded as a nerd as early as 3rd grade. One occasion I remember quite well was when a new kid joined our class. She happened to look at me, and one of the 'cool' kids turned to her and said, "Leave him alone, he's just a nerd." That sucked enough for me to still want to tear him to pieces with my bare hands. Extreme pain burns memories into my mind, and that memory is crisp and clear. It went on to some extent through my whole time in school, but lessened as people became mature. The end result is that I assume everyone around my age has an unfavorable disposition towards me, with very few exceptions (close friends).[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Another one is even less severe. I helped my mom win a contest, and before we entered it, we agreed that whatever the prize was, we would sell it and split the money 50/50. We ended up winning a new truck worth over 30k, but we had to wait for it to be ready for us to get. Well, it took between 6 months to a year for the day to come, and you might be able to imagine how excited I was. She decided to keep the truck and give me her old car. I was slightly disappointed, as you can imagine. I don't hold it against her, and I'm actually thankful for the car. However, the whole drawn-out event did have an effect. I can't really get excited about anything anymore. The day I moved into college, I felt nothing. It's now less than two weeks until I get to visit the girl I'm in love with for a couple weeks, and I have to force myself to feel even a twinge of excitement.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I know it's not that bad, but it's what affected me the most.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]As for traumatizing experiences, if it changes you in a way that makes you want to see the good in the world, and no harm comes from it to yourself or those around you, ignorance is bliss.[/color][/size][/font]