Adahn

[font=Courier New][color=blue][/color][/font][font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I think I'll make a generalization here. Most people that post on OB are in their teens and twenties. Most people that are in their teens and twenties have friends/peers that are in their teens and twenties. Most of the stupid things that are said are said by people in their teens and twenties.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Basically, I'd disregard almost everything anyone in this age range has to say about relationships, because the majority of people our age don't know jack sh-t about anything. They have no idea how you feel or what you think, and are really only pulling things out of their -sses, or drawing from the years of experience that their vast knowledge base consists of.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]If there's one thing I found, it's that adults are much more tolerant of relationships. The funny thing is that we the enlightened teenagers/young adults seek out and take heed of the wisdom of our peers, avoiding completely those who can actually help us.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]The least idiotic thing you can hear from anyone in our age range is, "I don't know."[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Good 'ole Socrates had the right idea a couple thousand years ago. True wisdom is knowing what it is you don't know. If wisdom had an opposite, it would be defined as thinking you know something when you really know nothing at all.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I've been thinking of customs and the like, and have realized something. Observing certain interpersonal customs creates an imbalance.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]For example, if someone offers their hand for you to shake, you have two choices.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]1. Shake the hand.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]2. Don't shake the hand.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]If you shake the hand, what have you accomplished? You've observed a custom. There is no meaning behind it whatsoever, no purpose. It does nothing to improve either party's physical/social/emotional well-being. You may even end up transferring an illness. It is unnecessary.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Now, let's look at the action of not-shaking the hand. You've just completely and utterly disrespected the person, and have demonstrated animosity towards him/her and made clear that you don't care how he/she feels about you. You've just made an enemy.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Now, I will provide an example of a good custom. If you're with someone, and you approach a door, you are faced with a dilemma. You again have two choices.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]1. Get past the obstacle as well as you can and let the other person fare for his/herself.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]2. Hold the door for him/her.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]If you don't hold the door for them, you haven't disrespected them in any way. The action of not-holding the door open does not (or should not) change how one person feels about the other.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]If you do hold the door open, you've demonstrated care for that person's well-being. You've actually done some good for them by letting them walk through with less resistance, conserving precious ATP molecules that would be horribly wasted by pushing/pulling the door open. It's even better if the person is carrying something, and the door would prove a real challenge.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Basically, I think customs should not be observed simply for the fact that they are customs, because by not observing them you cause great ill to come between both parties, and by observing them you accomplish nothing.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]However, 'customs' that do good for someone else and cause no ill if not done are favorable.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]If you can think of any customs which fall into either of these categories, or some other category, feel free to post experiences you've had or ideas you have.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]If you want to debate with me, I'm sure I've left myself open for one attack or another.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Courier New][color=blue]I've been misunderstood. There shouldn't be an uproar because the principal is very obviously wrong. I thought I made that clear, but I guess I did not. There's no argument. The principal was wrong.[/color][/font]

[font=Courier New][color=blue]I'll point out that whatever arguments may develop, the principal is wrong for seizing the declaration of independence. I don't think an uproar should be caused because the principal very obviously made a grave judgment error.[/color][/font]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Obtaining this 'proof' would ultimately be the parents' decision. If you can think of parents willing to send their 13 year old daughter to the doctor in the hopes of finding out she's sexually mature, I'd agree with you on that point. Oh, and the last time I had a playground was 5th grade, so if you could tell me of a school where 8th graders get recess, please tell me so I can spoil my children effectively.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]This puts more control in the hands of the parent. Now, if they don't want their 16 year old daughter to have sex, all they have to do is not allow her to be tested. Also, it protects 16 year olds who aren't ready for that sort of relationship.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Of course emotional maturity can't be assessed, but physical maturity can. When someone is sexually mature, is that person still a child?[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Before driver's licenses were required, do you think people were happy about having to be tested? I'm not a history person, but I'm sure many people were unhappy at the least. The purpose of determining physical maturity is to protect those who aren't ready for sex, and allow those who are ready to have sex to do so.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Also, by physically determining whether someone is a child or not, by the definition of pedophilia, it is no longer applicable.[/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][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][color=#0000ff][/color][/font]

[QUOTE=James][color=#707875]Why don't you think it's right? You seem to have been trying to convince us that it's right in your previous posts. Or at least, you've been arguing against those who think it is wrong. If you think it's wrong yourself, then this leads me to believe that you were arguing for the sake of argument, and not in any attempt to learn something new or to have a real debate. If you don't think it's right, I'd ask you why you don't. That way, perhaps you can answer your own question.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Basically, the reason I think it's wrong is that I don't like the idea of someone my little sister's age (12) getting into that sort of relationship.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=James] I think the answers are obvious. Sexual maturity is a process and not something that you reach when you wake up one morning. Girls often begin maturing sexually at maybe 11 or 12 and that process continues for several years (as it does with boys)[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]If this process is different for everyone, then it is difficult to place age barriers on relationships. This can be seen in the laws and customs of every place in the world. Perhaps sexual maturity should be determined on a case-by-case basis? A trip to the doctor isn't too expensive, nor is it too difficult. Anyone can lie about their age, but if some sort of proof of maturity were made available, it would make it very easy for potential partners to recognize each other's maturity without making it easy to deceive one another. Coupled with an increase in the harshness of penalties (due to clearer indication and clarity of maturity) for relationships with those who aren't sexually mature, I think less relationships between those who are mature and those who aren't would occur. For one, it protects those who reach sexual maturity later from engaging in sexual acts before they're ready. Another reason is that if it were done on a case-by-case basis, it would be very clear that having a relationship with someone not sexually mature is morally and biologically wrong. This may affect those who have relationships in order to rebel, because they are no longer defying a law that could be construed as wrong.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=James] Obviously, there are serious personal and social ramifications involved with very young girls having sex and giving birth. I don't know why there would really be any debate about that. [/color][/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]There are serious personal and social ramifications involved with any girl having sex and giving birth. The only reason these ramifications exist is because an age barrier has been placed where it does not belong. If everyone says it's wrong, it's very difficult to insist that it is right. However, if instead of generalizing and setting a barrier that may not even apply to the majority of people, I think it would be more effective and less painful to judge maturity on a more personal level. You can't lie about your sexual maturity to a doctor. Again, the innefectiveness of these laws can be seen by the varying laws concerning sexual consent that exist in every state. Unifying the age of consent by actual sexual maturity would protect those who mature later, and allow those who are ready for that kind of relationship to engage in those activities lawfully and in accordance with nature.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I think it would be interesting for a group of extremely intelligent, specialized people to project the consequences of such an event using mathematics, anthropology, and other applicable disciplines. I think that the Greeks made such a huge impact on the world that the ripples created by them would affect everything that has developed to this day.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]From another point of view, one could propose that our societies today are based upon the natural progression of our species, and only trivial things would be different.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][color=#0000ff][/color][/font]

[font=Courier New][color=blue]I would never argue in favor of pedophilia. I would like to know anything and everything that is wrong with a woman who's reached sexual maturity having sex. Please be as specific as possible. Also, for the record, I (personally) don't think it's right.[/color][/font]

[QUOTE=Baron Samedi][size=1] Would you disagree that it is widely accepted that you have reached the necessary level of maturity, responsibility and intelligence by 17-18? This is a general thing, not a case-by-case basis. Should a 15 year old be looking after a baby? I can easily use 'fact' and 'generally' because the laws of English allow you to. In that circumstance of usage, at least. If you find that wrong, then re-think it. [/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]If your argument is based on the ability of someone to raise a child, then should we restrict the sexual activity of poor people? A 15 year old with middle-class supportive parents would have a better ability to raise a child than an older couple lacking necessary resources.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Baron Samedi] Sure, it applies to young men, but young women are at a higher level of endangerment, because women are generally the ones who are taken advantage of. Agreed? Pressure could be an older man making moves on a younger girl...and because she looks up to him, in awe [if you will], she could submit, unwillingly. [/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I didn't know you could generalize women like that. Are they so different, or is it that our society has created the role they must live in, which includes the generalization that women are to be taken advantage of?[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Baron Samedi] I used to think you had a modicum of intelligence...but your views on acceptable ages for sex concern me. [/size][/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]It's hardly a view, more of an idea. Would you care to explain to me why a biological approach to sex is unintelligent?[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]You want some, bring it. Otherwise, shut your mouth and know your role, please. Thanks a bunch. How about all of what Rin/Ranger is spewing is the "idiotic things that people say about relationships"? :wow: Rin mentioned it long before I did, Adahn. Remember that whole skewed Arthurian Chivalry? Think about it.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I was merely pointing out that your post was aimed at Lady Rin and consisted mainly of personal critiques that would have been more effective and appropriate if sent in a private messaage.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] I think four or five various MyO main entries and the 12 to 20 comments that followed might punch a major hole in your assessment there, Adahn.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I apologize. I guess I'm just a bad judge of character.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Baron Samedi][size=1] I believe it is more due to the immaturity of some teenagers, the lack of responsibility they may have towards sex, and the fact that older men can generally exert a lot of pressure on a young girl. But, hey, you enjoy Rin and Ranger's company. That probably makes no sense to you, right? [/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I believe it is more due to the [u]immaturity[/u] of [u]some[/u] teenagers, the lack of responsibility they [u]may[/u] have towards sex, and the [u]fact[/u] that [u]older men[/u] can [u]generally[/u] exert [u]alot[/u] of pressure on a [u]young girl[/u].[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Define the necessary level of maturity. Quantify some. Clarify may. Help me to understand how you can use fact and generally together like that. Quantify and explain alot of pressure. Define young girl and explain to me how it doesn't apply to young men.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Baron Samedi] Sorry. Personal jibes aside, all my points are valid. [/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I'll pass my own judgment on the validity of your points after you've elaborated.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Baron Samedi] I'd like to think you were being sarcastic, but anyway, we all talked about Bin Laden, but I don't know how many of us enjoyed it. [/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]You're equating an innocent couple to a mass-murdering terrorist. I could use more adjectives, but those will do. Some people don't write conventionally. I find it difficult to pull anything out of 'idea form' without a great deal of effort, and that's why I get attacked.[/color][/size][/font] [/size]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]First, Siren, was all that necessary? Almost everything (if not everything) that was in your post could have been sent in a private message, as I am unable to see any part of it that has anything to do with the original topic.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Baron, Lady Rin, and desertranger; did Lady Rin not answer the question? She wouldn't have answered if she were offended (I think), so I don't really see an argument. If you want to discuss morality and etiquette, start a new thread. It's a worthy topic.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]As for love, I think we have alot of control over it. I can destroy love, I've done it before. It's as easy as replacing a lightbulb. If a lightbulb burns out, you get a new one. If one flickers, you can either try to fix it, or replace it. If you find one that works, there's no reason to change it. Who knows how long you'll be flooded in darkness before you can find another one? Some people change their lightbulbs because they're afraid it will flicker or burn out. Some people change them because they start to look old. I really, really hate metaphors.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Hmm, stupid things people say. It's pretty dumb when someone tells you who you love. Yes, it does happen. Here's an example.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Person A: I love Person C.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Person B: You don't love person C.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]This might not seem like too large a problem, but I'm very easily manipulated. Something like that (with a little reasoning) is enough to make me kill a relationship.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Now, for relationships in general. If it were enough to say, "Your relationship probably won't last." everyone's relationship would come into question. Why? Because there are enough normal, conventional reasons to say that every relationship that has existed, exists, and will exist, is wrong by in one way, or in many different ways.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Since these conventional ideas are so many and so widespread, it would be impossible to acknowledge them all. On the other hand, if we were to acknowledge none, that wouldn't be good either.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Everyone says that we can't define or quantify relationships, when in fact we must in order to avoid things such as incest and pedophilia. What we have to do is find a line.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Will anyone here argue in favor of incest or pedophilia? If not, then we have a base to work from. If we're going to draw a line, why not look at it biologically? As soon as you reach sexual maturity, why is it wrong to have those relationships? I'll draw my line there. It is inappropriate to engage in sexual activity with someone who has not reached sexual maturity. Social/Emotional maturity are dictated by conventions, and aren't in accordance with nature.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Statutory rape is really a funny thing. It basically says that one is not old enough to make decisions about sexual activity until one reaches a certain age. Excuse me, but, is a 15-year old incapable of making conscious decisions? Is there a line we can draw based on age where people on one side can't make decisions, but after one day, they are suddenly capable of doing so? One could argue that it is for the best interests of the majority, but if we are to look at politics these days, there truly is a fine line between the majority and the minority.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]There are two forms of right and wrong. There is what man decides is right and wrong (conventionality), and there is what nature decides is right and wrong. You can't argue with nature. The best we can do is try and understand what the nature of humanity is, and lay our laws in accordance with that.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Oh, on a side note, I'd like to point out how happy and amused I am at seeing all the talk about Rin and Ranger. You two are very interesting people, and despite Siren's beliefs, I am confident that we all enjoy your presence and comments here.[/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][color=#0000ff][/color][/font]

[quote name='DerelictDestiny][color=darkred]You're saying Hell is an equilibrium reaction, why? Assuming it is meant to be a 'boiling' hot place it doesn't neccessarilly need an endothermic reaction to create heat. Afterall, like you said, the heat goes to the souls in order to inflict the feeling of burning pain, thus the [i]souls[/i'] are endothermic, not hell.[color=#000000][/quote][/color][/color] [color=darkred][color=#000000][/color][/color] [color=darkred][font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]If the souls can't absorb enough heat, and the heat grows to a less torturous temperature, an endothermic reaction would be required to re-equilibrate the temperature.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=DerelictDestiny] If that were so then where's the endothermic reaction in a combustion reaction of say, carbon in oxygen? Heat is created, you can not reverse it and force it into an endothermic reaction because it's not an equilibrium reaction. Heat loss doesn't mean there is an endothermic reaction. Besides, in hell they probably have a giant fire place and small rooms and all the logged trees that died go there to make the place so freaky hot ^_~[color=#000000][/QUOTE][/color] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]The endothermic reaction would not be the reverse of the combustion of a hydrocarbon. It would simply be a different reaction that requires energy to proceed.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=DerelictDestiny] Btw, the mods will decided if what's being said is spam. Saying that hell may not neccessarily follow our rules of physics sounds reasonable. We're talking about a religliously conceptual idea, not a fact.[/color][/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]We are discussing it in the context of physical attributes. To disregard that fact will cause the thread to go off-topic and ultimately cause it to be closed.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]EDIT: Umm, Chibi, if Hell is exothermic it is hot. If it is endothermic it is cold.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]First of all, in the context of the question (applying physical conditions to hell), saying, "Hell doesn't follow laws of physics." completely disregards the context of the original question (a choice between two opposite physical attributes) and is spam.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Furthermore, most cases of exo/endothermicity deal with chemical reactions. Hell, therefore, must be a reaction. Since the souls burning in hell feel unimaginable heat (probably around the temp. of boiling water), how that heat is produced must be balanced in order to produce the correct temperature. Since most combustion reactions produce large amounts of energy that would excede a torturous temperature, the reactions must be balanced.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Therefore, I would say that hell consists of an exothermic reaction in balance with an endothermic reaction to produce the heat required to keep the souls of the damned toasty and not charred.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]However, if you're going to pick away at things, the combination of the exothermic and endothermic reactions would be overall exothermic as is necessary to produce the energy.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]However (again), if the temperature of hell is normally low, an exothermic reaction would be required to heat it to get that nice toasty feeling, without an endothermic reaction because heat would be lost to the souls as they suffered.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Hell, therefore, cannot be only endothermic, because a reaction would be required to produce the heat that an endothermic reaction would lower.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Hell is either exothermic, or both exothermic and endothermic.[/color][/size][/font]

[quote name='Siren']Then, Adahn, you show me where we're sending over HDTVs, Rolex watches (luxuries that are unnecessary at this point in time), and I'll concede this point. Otherwise, there was never any reason for you to talk about sending luxuries over, because we're not doing it to begin with.[/quote] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]It was a hypothetical example, Siren. I won't pretend I know enough to present any idea applicable to today's society. I could have just as easily said something about giving a native tribe a box of crispy creme donuts. If they are human, they will want more crispy cremes, and they won't be able to have them.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] If you're unable to provide any evidence that we're giving them a Gamecube instead of fresh, clean water, or monetary funds so they can improve their living spaces, then I think you need to realize that your post amounts to spam, because...you're essentially complaining about something that doesn't even exist to begin with.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]It's called an abstract concept, Siren. There are many things that don't exist that can be discussed. I'm not complaining so much as presenting an idea as a topic for discussion.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] You're not dealing in any concrete examples, firstly. You use this vague idea of "[b]relatively[/b] low requirement" but then refuse to define anything regarding specifics. Why would you refuse to define what is necessary?[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Fine, I'll name off some necessary things if it will make you happy. Food, water, medicine, baths, free time, love, friends, heat, fire, and iodized salt. There are lots and lots of necessary things, and I don't want to name them all.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] I think you refuse because there are very real required needs in the world today, regardless of where you go (contrary to what you've been trying to say). There is in fact a worldly standard that most nations try to go by. Human rights violations, starvation, malnutrition, disease, etc, are things that most nations try to remedy in the best way that they can.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I never set up those places as good places in terms of meeting needs. I merely used them as an example of places with a much lower level of comfortability. Hey, that ties in with everything I said, doesn't it?[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Obviously, some countries aren't going to do anything, like the former Taliban regime, but there are many people in the world who make it their life-goals to help improve the lives of people living in impoverished lands, because somebody starving isn't good no matter where you are.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Again, that's a good thing. It's not good, however, to provide people with something very desirable, and not continue to fulfill that desire.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Answer me this, do you believe cars are a False Need or a True Need? This relates to your "relatively low requirement" line.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]With how our world is set up today, cars are a need for many people.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] I'd like to see you establish a concrete and clear correlative link between "luxuries" and "resources," because that portion of your reply was conspicuously absent.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I'm not exactly sure what you're asking about here, but I'll try. Excessive luxury is unnecessary and consumes resources.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Okay, so...are you saying that my 7-year-old cousin, Kayla, getting so excited about Christmas because it means she gets to see her family, exchange presents, and Santa comes, and her face lights up around this time because just the very idea of Christmas...is a bad thing? Yes, toys are useless pieces of plastic, but you should see how bubbly she gets when she's playing with those useless pieces of plastic. Hell, because those useless pieces of plastic make her so happy and excited, I think that'd prove they're not quite so useless after all. Kayla's a happy girl all year round, but Xmas just boosts her up like nothing else. Hell, you should see how happy I get when I'm enjoying my presents. Are you saying that getting happy from getting Metroid Prime 2: Echoes for Xmas is something people should be ashamed of?[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]If there weren't pieces of plastic, would she not be just as excited about a hand-carved toy made by her mother and/or father? Would you not appreciate something given in love at the same cost just as much as Metroid Prime 2?[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] I seriously think you're just vainly trying to take a moralistic "high-road" here by condemning Capitalism, lol. I think Baron's comment is quite true. This entire thread is just your carbon-copy lash-out at consumerism.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I can't attack capitalism, it's necessary for today's society. I can argue, however, that in terms of an ideal, it raises our level of comfortability to the point where excess resources are required to keep us in a good mood, and that it would be better to be comfortable with less material possessions.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I apologize for not doing this immediately after the first reply.[/color][/size][/font] [quote name='Adahn][font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Instead of asking a question, I'll make an assertion.[font=Tahoma'][color=#000000][/quote][/color][/font][/color][/size][/font] [size=2][/size] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]This requires no explanation.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Adahn] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I will define contentment as being satisfied with one's current situation.[font=Tahoma][color=#000000][/QUOTE][/color][/font][/color][/size][/font] [size=2][/size] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]This requires no explanation.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Adahn] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]This contentment is based solely upon one's level of comfortability, and how one's situation relates to that level of comfortability.[font=Tahoma][color=#000000][/QUOTE][/color][/font][/color][/size][/font] [size=2][/size] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]This requires no explanation.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Adahn] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Therefore, it is unfair to judge the contentment of others based upon what you see as comfortable.[font=Tahoma][color=#000000][/QUOTE][/color][/font][/color][/size][/font] [size=2][/size] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]This requires no explanation.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Adahn] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I assert that if someone lives in a 'third world country', and lacks [b]luxuries[/b] we take for granted, it is wrong to provide such [b]luxuries[/b] for those people, unless one can provide a [b]steady supply[/b]. It will only raise that person's level of desire, and make that person feel that he/she is no longer within his/her bounds of comfortability. It would make that person unhappy. It would harm that person.[font=Tahoma][color=#000000][/QUOTE][/color][/font][/color][/size][/font] [size=2][/size] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]This is what Siren managed to twist. I was talking about giving things to people that they don't need, and that they can't receive a steady supply of. I used Third World Countries as an example because they tend to lack the luxuries we possess. I said luxuries, Siren, I wasn't talking about humanitarian aid, and you know it. Do you honestly think that I would argue against that? Look beyond your own desire to prove how idiotic I am and you'll see that I said no such thing. What I did say was that one should not provide someone with a luxury unless one could continue to provide that luxury. Even if you did somehow see humanitarian aid as a luxury, it would still be ok by what I originally said so long as they could provide a steady supply.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Adahn] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Furthermore, the ideal human situation would be to have a relatively low requirement for comfortability. To desire anything more than what is necessary is a complete waste. I will not, however, define what is necessary.[font=Tahoma][color=#000000][/QUOTE][/color][/font][/color][/size][/font] [size=2][/size] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Despite what you say, Siren, this follows the idea of my whole post. You disregarded this and what follows because of your deliberate misinterpretation of what I stated earlier.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Adahn] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]In conclusion, societies that raise this level of comfortability are detrimental to humanity, and we should praise societies where contentment is dependent on less resources.[font=Tahoma][color=#000000][/QUOTE][/color][/font][/color][/size][/font] [size=2][/size] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]This requires no explanation.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Adahn] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]If our level of comfortability were more on a level with human necessity, there would be an abundance of all things necessary to be comfortable, and everyone would be happier.[/color][/size][/font][/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]This requires no explanation.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I'd like to thank cinnamon for seeing through Siren's attempt to undermine everything I've said and respond to the topic intelligently.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][QUOTE=cinnamon][/color][/size][/font] [size=1][color=#006400]I have a feeling that human nature is to be greedy, and to take more than one needs. If we were all living on basic needs, we wouldn't be here discussing this. Just pointing that out.[/QUOTE][/color][/size] [size=1][color=#006400][/color][/size] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Yes, if we had a lower level of comfortability, we certainly wouldn't have computers.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][QUOTE=cinnamon][/color][/size][/font] [size=1][color=#006400]However, if the worlds resources were shared out equally between all peoples, how would those with more handle it? Would they be content with less, and willing to give it all up? Would it be fair to take what they have earned from them? Not all people are money hoarding tyrants, you know. Would they be bitter, and try to take back what was originally theirs?[/QUOTE][/color][/size] [size=1][color=#006400][/color][/size] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I would not suggest that everyone have an equal share (communism), just that each person's requirements to be comfortable be on a lower level. Our waste of resources is abominable.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][QUOTE=cinnamon][/color][/size][/font] [size=1][color=#006400]Also, how would those with less handle it? To be given more, would they be grateful, or wasteful? Would they dominate the previously rich part of society by being able to work harder, and with their newfound better conditions be 100 times more productive? Would they turn on their former suppressers, and beat them at their own game?[/QUOTE][/color][/size] [size=1][color=#006400][/color][/size] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]One would never have to give up what one worked for to another person. If someone cannot support themselves, most people would have enough extra (because of lack of waste) to be charitable.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][QUOTE=cinnamon][/color][/size][/font] [size=1][color=#006400]If this could be done by human means, the changes would have to be made extremely slowly- a peaceful revolution. Overall, it might be more satisfying for everyone's best intrests, but individuals will always be hungry for more- money, power, respect. It's a part of human nature, as I said before. But whether it can be overcome or not is a different story. Me being a christian, I belive we missed out on harmony a long time ago. To me, contentment is more than physical. But physically- I suppose we need nothing more than the bare necessities. Its just the self control that trips us up.[/QUOTE][/color][/size] [size=1][color=#006400][/color][/size] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I can only hope that you're wrong. If we always want more and more, we [i]will[/i] relieve this world of all its resources. I did not say contentment was physical. I would call love and human contact necessities, also. There's nothing I would desire more than to be completely self-sufficient. If I could live with my family and provide for it well consuming less resources, I would do it. All I really want is to be happy.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][QUOTE=cinnamon][/color][/size][/font] [size=1][color=#006400]However, in this case, contentment all boils down to whether we have already tasted the chicken, or whether we've spent our lives eating nothing but rats.[/QUOTE][/color][/size] [size=1][color=#006400][/color][/size] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I think that if we understood what unnecessary desire gets us, we wouldn't want to be presented with something better. You don't have to eat rats. I'd be happy with a fertile plot of land and a forest to hunt and trap in. To me, everything is a means to an end. I'm here in college because I feel that I need lots of money to live comfortably and provide for those I love. If I could leave college and go make a living for myself right now, and make my girl happy, I would do it in a heartbeat. If only we could be comfortable living that way, it would be like heaven.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren]You're bristling. I fail to see how I'm putting words into your mouth, when it's rather clear the words in your mouth were BS to begin with, Adahn. [b]You were saying that it's inappropriate to send humanitarian aid to Third World Countries because it gives them false Hope.[/b] We all know that's bullsh-t, and you did, too, and now you're trying to deny [b]that's what you were saying[/b]. Why not just admit it and walk away?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Adahn] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I assert that if someone lives in a 'third world country', and lacks [b]luxuries[/b] we take for granted, it is wrong to provide such [b]luxuries[/b] for those people, unless one can provide a steady supply.[font=Tahoma][color=#000000][/QUOTE][/color][/font][/color][/size][/font] [size=2][/size] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I specifically used the word luxuries, Siren. I didn't say humanitarian aid. I know this, and you know this. Why must you insist on attacking everything I say?[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Dragging this out isn't going to make you look any better to anyone here, because like I said in a previous thread of yours, around here, you're not viewed as some great thinker, or someone who's capable of successfully leading a discussion, because you don't have a strong enough grasp on things to begin with. No offense, dude, but like I told Jordan, you can't back up your ego (and Jordan understood this, by the way). You're a poseur, a fake, a phony. You're just lying to yourself if you think otherwise. Listen to me, okay? You can't cut it, and until you realize that, [b]you've[/b] always going to sound like a little child trying to use big words.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]You're doing more harm to yourself than you are to me. You're so angry you used 'you've' instead of 'you're'. You're no longer 'not sugar-coating', you're insulting.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Liar? You're bristling. Third World Countries [i]have no resources[/i]. They're not content with having nothing. They're starving, Adahn, because they have virtually no grain, no fresh water, [i]nothing[/i]. They're not able to survive with what they have, because they don't have anything. Do you honestly believe they're enjoying living like that?[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]No, I don't think they enjoy living without necessities. Did I ever say that? Again, show me where I said it, Siren.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] If we've got the power to give them a better life, why in the hell shouldn't we do that? Oh, because you have this asinine and Idealistic notion that scraping the dirt for food, suffering from malnutrition, disease, and dehydration, is somehow more noble than being able to provide a stable income, good healthcare, and still have enough left over from being responsible workers to have some fun?[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Giving people necessities is a good thing, Siren.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] [b]You mentioned "resources" once in your entire post[/b], and then try to spin it like your post was focused on resources the entire time? Your entire post was focused on luxuries (HDTV, Ferraris, Cell Phones, etc...) we take for granted, and that focus is not going to magically change by tacking one word to the end of it, Adahn. Remember, you're not trained in Lit Theory; don't pretend to be.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Siren] [b]Never[/b] in your post were you ever [b]explicitly[/b] or [b]implicitly[/b] talking about [b]natural resources[/b], Adahn. Don't try to pull that here.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Adahn] [font=Courier New][color=#0000ff]In conclusion, societies that raise this level of comfortability are detrimental to humanity, and we should praise societies where contentment is dependent on less [b]resources[/b].[/QUOTE][/color][/font] [font=Courier New][color=#0000ff][/color][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Just admit that you were wrong, and walk away.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] If by "had a point," you mean that you never were trying to make that particular point to begin with, only trying to tack it on at the end and thinking it will change the entire meaning and point of your post, then, yes. Otherwise, I think you're trying to rationalize your way out of a snag that isn't looking favorable for you at all.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]You're absolutely right, Siren. It's a bad idea to make clarifications and provide an example before stating the point behind said clarifications and example. I hope I get as good an education as you some day.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Okay, Adahn, you head on over to Somalia and ask the stick-children, who can't even keep their heads vertical because they're so malnourished, if they're happy. Don't be stupid, Adahn; don't drag this one out like the others.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I can't afford a plane ticket to Somalia.[/color][/size][/font]

[quote name='Baron Samedi][size=1']A person can 'live' on rat-meat and dirty water. Therefore, they have the necessities to live.[size=2][/quote][/size][/size] [size=1][size=2][/size][/size] [size=1][font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]If someone can survive on dirty water and rat meat, and be content with it, is there anything wrong with it? I don't know what rat meat tastes like, but maybe it tastes like chicken.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Baron Samedi] Anyway, this feels like a carbon-copy lash out at consumerism. There is amazing waste occurring in the world. If everyone on Earth used as much oil as the average American, supplies would be gone within a decade. Americans constitute 5% of the population, and 25% of oil consumption. Entire countries agriculture can be aimed at sating McDonalds cows. 10 calories of South African wheat make 1 calorie of beef, and the wastage of energy in that cycle costs $2 billion a year. Consumerism can be a monster. [/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Yes, consumerism is a monster. I didn't know all that stuff, though. My idea is not even close to being applicable, so it's different from any classic argument.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Baron Samedi] Which is why I said that management, not deprivation is the way to go. You think people can, and should give up their luxury, and get back to the bare necessities for survival. But why?[/size][/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I don't know whether people can do it, or should. I'm wondering if it would be best for us to exist that way, if it could be done.[/color][/size][/font]

[quote name='Baron Samedi][size=1]So, Adahn, you're saying that a third-world child who is deliriously happy that he has found a rat for dinner [i]is not deprived[/i']?[/size][/quote] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I was never talking about food or medicine. Those are necessities. I stated that in my original post.[/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]Furthermore, the ideal human situation would be to have a relatively low requirement for comfortability. To desire anything more than what is [b]necessary[/b] is a complete waste. I will not, however, define what is necessary.[/QUOTE][/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren] We often take good medical care and good food for granted in the USA. Connect the dots in your own post. Think about it. If we're providing food, medicine, and humanitarian aid (things that we don't realize just how great they are) to Third World Countries, we're [i]helping[/i] those people, [i]not[/i] hurting them.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I agree that giving food and medical care to other countries is good, but if and only if we can continue to support them. If we give them something like that and withdraw support, we've done more harm than good.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Read between the lines in your own posts, man, and just admit that you've gotten called on your BS yet again, lol.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]The only BS here involves you putting words into my mouth.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Never in your post were you ever explicitly or implicitly talking about natural resources, Adahn. Don't try to pull that here. The entire focus of your post was on the state of "comfortability" in Third World Countries and how it's wrong to help them, because it will give them a "false" Hope. That's talking about humanitarian aid, though it seems you don't even realize that.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Adahn] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]In conclusion, societies that raise this level of comfortability are detrimental to humanity, and we should praise societies where contentment is dependent on less [b]resources[/b].[/QUOTE][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Liar. Second of all, the state of Third World Countries was an example.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Okay...this "point" of yours has no point, and it's more or less a thinly-veiled insult, so it doesn't serve your argument any benefit whatsoever. I like how you tried to insult me, Adahn, but it's not working. And the fact of the matter is, I was addressing your points in the correct context and wrecking them, but you wouldn't care to admit that. You don't have a problem with me, Adahn; you have a problem with yourself.[/QUOTE][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][Quote=Adahn][/color][/size][/font] [color=#0000ff][font=Courier New][size=2]In conclusion, societies that raise this level of comfortability are detrimental to humanity, and we should praise societies where contentment is dependent on less resources.[/size] [size=2]If our level of comfortability were more on a level with human necessity, there would be an abundance of all things necessary to be comfortable, and everyone would be happier.[/QUOTE][/size][/font][/color] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I thought I had a point. If you would like me to clarify it more in some way, I'll try. I do think I've made myself clear already, though.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]EDIT: To Baron[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]If one is happy with what one has, how, may I ask, is that person deprived of anything? You are saying those people aren't happy based upon what you require in order to be happy.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Siren] I think the [i]starving[/i], [i]malnourished[/i], [i]sickly[/i], and [i]dying[/i] children in Third World Countries in East Africa would disagree with you when you say that sending humanitarian aid, food, medicine to them is something people shouldn't be doing.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Please be so kind as to show me where I said that sending humanitarian aid to Third World Countries is a bad thing.[/color][/size][/font] [Quote=Siren] So, we're actually sending over big screen HDTVs, Super Bowl tickets, cell phones, Ferraris and no food or medicinal items (food and medicine, by the way, to improve their quality of health, and health is not a "false need") whatsoever?[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Again, show me where I said that.[/color][/size][/font] [Quote=Siren] Your take on things is, again, completely asinine.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]If I had said any of the things you've stated here, I'd have to agree with you.[/color][/size][/font] [Quote=Siren] Okay, so...are you saying that Third World Countries are what we should look to for an ideal human situation? There's nothing in your post to suggest otherwise.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]There's also nothing in my post that suggests that.[/color][/size][/font] [Quote=Siren] Okay, so by the USA and a few other superpowers sending humanitarian aid to poor and starving children in Third World Countries, humanity is worse-off? Is that what you're trying to say here?[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]No, it's not.[/color][/size][/font] [Quote=Siren] The more we produce, the more we have to give to others. America is one of the, if not the, most powerful and richest nations on the face of the planet. If we're the top dog, as it were, why shouldn't we help people out? Why should we feel guilty about being a powerhouse? Because we're so posh, we have the ability to help others. How is that a bad thing? How is our wealth and power a bad thing?[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Because our level of comfortability requires us to consume more natural resources than we should. Would it not be better to desire and obtain less?[/color][/size][/font] [Quote=Siren] Come on, dude. Just stop trying[/Quote] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Try addressing any point of my post in the correct context and refute me there, and perhaps I will stop trying. I did purposely bait you into replying like this. You're so very predictable.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Instead of asking a question, I'll make an assertion.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I will define contentment as being satisfied with one's current situation.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]This contentment is based solely upon one's level of comfortability, and how one's situation relates to that level of comfortability.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Therefore, it is unfair to judge the contentment of others based upon what you see as comfortable.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I assert that if someone lives in a 'third world country', and lacks luxuries we take for granted, it is wrong to provide such luxuries for those people, unless one can provide a steady supply. It will only raise that person's level of desire, and make that person feel that he/she is no longer within his/her bounds of comfortability. It would make that person unhappy. It would harm that person.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Furthermore, the ideal human situation would be to have a relatively low requirement for comfortability. To desire anything more than what is necessary is a complete waste. I will not, however, define what is necessary.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]In conclusion, societies that raise this level of comfortability are detrimental to humanity, and we should praise societies where contentment is dependent on less resources.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]If our level of comfortability were more on a level with human necessity, there would be an abundance of all things necessary to be comfortable, and everyone would be happier.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I think actions are dependent upon intentions. There are essentially three relationships one can desire with a girl.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]1. Friendship[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]2. Intimacy[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]3. Love[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Depending on your intent, your approach should differ. If you're looking for friendship, be yourself. It makes no sense to pursue a friendship with someone who doesn't like you for who you are. If you want intimacy, do whatever you want. Anything and everything that gives you a better chance of accomplishing your ultimate goal is allowed. I think this is what the thread starter was aiming for in his 'formula'. If you're looking for love, do what's within your normal bounds of presenting yourself as an attractive person, but don't change who you are. Nurture a friendship and let your desire for intimacy be known. It will be easier for you to find and maintain love if you act within your character.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]As for the original topic, I have a plan (though I'd never use it). Find a girl you like, and through whatever means, find out what she likes. Be as perfect for that girl as is possible, and if you're good enough, she'll fall in love with you. You'll get everything you want from her until she realizes how shallow your intentions are. However, it is possible to hide your intentions with clever lies when you feel the relationship is nearing the breaking point. She will go away sad that the relationship is over, but she will still think your motives were pure.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]There is no formula for 'getting chicks'. There are things that are potentially good, but they don't apply to all girls. Your best bet is to custom-tailor yourself to fit a girl's desires, and perpetuate that lie of a relationship for as long as possible. The key is letting her down with very, very good lies, so that your reputation isn't tarnished, and may very well improve.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]If you can't tell how disgusted I am with the whole idea behind 'getting chicks', then I guess I wasn't obvious enough.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][color=#0000ff][/color][/font]

[font=Courier New][color=blue]Actually, I met someone from the 'church of satan' at school. She said they believed in God, but didn't think he was right. So, maybe satanism is different from, umm, satanism.[/color][/font]

[quote name='Siren']If it isn't enough, or if it doesn't seem to be helping enough, we'll figure something else out, and we'll double our efforts, devise new ways to help remedy this.[/quote] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]So, you have a certain faith in the fact that mankind will do what's necessary to survive?[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Mankind is hardly doomed, because it's still very possible to fix a lot of what's wrong. When you think about the only finite resources (coals, fossil fuels, etc), they're finite because they dry up, and they would have dried up eventually.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Yes, those are the only things we can't replace. However, there are things that we [i]can[/i] replace, but not as fast as we use them. Trees can be replaced, but we'll always cut them down faster than we regrow them. Freshwater sources are replenished naturally, but we are slowly draining and contaminating these sources. I however, am fine, because I'm surrounded by the great lakes.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] And really, it's not [i]modern[/i] society's fault; the immense coal mining back in the 50s and earlier is really what drained those resources, when you think about it. There are coal mining towns in the Virginia/Kentucky/Pennsylvania areas that have been around for decades that are drying up.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I agree. Modern society did not create the problems, but it is necessary that we fix them.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Any effort on modern society's part is a very noble thing, I think, and I seriously do not think we can be faulted for that. We're going to be doing more, as well. When more and more people become aware of the problem, more and more will be done. It's a type of social awareness leading to social progression.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I fear that people won't care. If man becomes to comfortable, he will wallow in his own waste. I think of mankind as a big greasy fat guy sitting on a couch watching t.v., surrounded by candy wrappers and whatnot. It is good for him to pick up a few wrappers, but he's still not willing to clean up the whole mess.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Well, firstly, the ideal society for man would not be a society ripped out of Thoreau's Walden, because that wouldn't help anyone or anything. Conversely, tearing down all of nature is clearly not beneficial, and would not be the ideal society, either.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Yes, that would not be good at all. The situation is not drastic yet, so such drastic measures need not even be considered.[/color][/size][/font] [QUOTE=Siren] Regarding current society, I feel it's closer to to what an ideal society is than some are suggesting in this thread. I mean, let's be frank here. Our society today isn't perfect, but it's not doomed. We're actually doing pretty good on most things, and environmental concern is one of them.[/QUOTE] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I believe the society is too large. Isn't it around 25% of people in the U.S. who actually vote? I'd be willing to bet that an even smaller percentage take part/pay close attention to matters of the state, and an even smaller number to those of the community.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Now, this is just an idea. If we could make our government more dependent on smaller areas, our government and awareness would improve.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]1. In each community (a certain number of people or an area), representatives would be chosen, depending on the size of the community. Those representatives would be elected by the community, and would oversee local matters.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]2. Next, a certain number of community leaders would be involved in regional politics. These would, obviously, oversee matters of the region. It would be in the best interests of the citizens to send someone to the region who would best represent the community.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]3. This regional council would discuss matters of the region, of course. They would, among themselves, send representatives to the state council. Again, it would be in their best interests to find someone who would best represent the region. With each higher level, we're getting the best representative.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]4. The state council would be rather large, and would discuss matters of the state. The regional members would try the best to represent their region, and think of what's best for the state. The state council would then elect those best suited to argue matters of their state to go to a national council.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]5. The national council would consist of the most talented, intelligent, and respected members of each state. Each of them would have come from a small community, so the sampling of thoughts and ideas would be very diverse. This council would control everything that dealt with affairs of the country as a whole.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]6. Each proposal passed by the national council would then go the the state council. If it passes there, it goes to the region. If it passes there, it goes to the community. If a certin percentage of communities pass it, it becomes national law. This way, everyone is involved in the most important decisions, and it is essential for everyone to vote.[/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font] [font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I can't just create a perfect government from scratch, though, so I'm sure there are holes. If you see any basic flaws in my idea, you could point them out. It's just an idea.[/color][/size][/font]