Anyone up for an argument?
- Thread starter Code Monkey
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Pleasure is cause by endorphins, released through both sports and sex.IcePho3nix said:
Not sure how reliable this source is but:
http://organizedwisdom.com/Endorphins_and_Sex
And quoting wiki ('Pleasure' page):
'Certain chemicals are known to stimulate the pleasure centers of the brain. These include dopamine[7] and various endorphins. It has been specifically stated that physical exertion can release endorphines in what is called the runner's high, and equally it has been found that chocolate and certain spices, such as from the family of the chilli, can release or cause to be released similar psychoactive chemicals to those released during sexual acts.'
Edit: Realised last sentence wasn't quite right. Should have read: The pleasure from sports is similar to the from sex.
Not really, 'cause I know I've also done something nice for a couple who wanted their own child =]Code Monkey said:
The equivalent would be pleasure at defeat in sport. The pleasure of victory is part of the motivation, and so if the pleasure is gained without the objective, then the pleasure is a waste.lostclause said:
I'll address your first point, then your second. Firstly (or to you secondly), though it is true that a six year old and a foetus, ie about six years of life, how does that change things? The foetus is undeniably human, and I would say that to destroy another human is a good definition of murderCode Monkey said:
Secondly (or firstly) I agree with you here, and will argue no further. Yes, if someone is unable to give birth, for their own safety, then they should be allowed an abortion. However, the inabilty to get pregnant almost always comes with the ability to bear the child, and so the decision is left to mental, legal or financial readiness.
Protecting and caring? It's leeching your food and living in your womb. It's 9 months of passive nurture. You aren't actually taking care of it or trying to look after it. You're hardly protecting it. The actual task comes after those 9 months. And if you don't feel up to the task, you can find someone who is. I'm sure that people live around that want to be parents but are unable to give birth.Code Monkey said:
No, the desire for and enjoying of defeat is. If you always wanted to come second best, you'd always lose about and, in the long run, be left behind by evolutionlostclause said:
A few problems with that. Firstly that being homosexual doesn't actually bar you from reproducing (and especially not these days) and secondly, just because something is unproductive doesn't mean it is unnatural. One could argue that a human swimming is unnatural simply because we can't match the fish if you take that attitude. What is the point of any animal having a brain if humans have a better one? (The second one is probably the better example there since, unlike the first, it is not dependent on the environment and has actually increased our chances of survival significantly.)ThreeWords said:
This argument is beginning to boil down to 'what do you define as natural?' and I think we both have different criterea that we're judging by. So here's my definition: 'Natural is anything derived from genetic compulsion.' (When we're relating it to desires/emotions obviously.) Is aggression natural? Yes, it has been bred into us. Is social interaction natural? Again, yes. Is lust? Yes. Is rape natural? No, it's not evolutionarily feasible. Is murder? No, it goes against our social conduct (although murdering a murderer is slightly different). When someone's compulsion goes against the norms (as it is with homosexuals) it doesn't make them any less natural since they're still being compelled by their genes.
I'm not sure if I've explained my definition very well but let's hear yours as well.
Natural is, as you say derived, from genes, yet it is obvious that none can be born form fully homosexual parents, and thus cannot have fully homosexual genes. Therefore, either the fully homosexual genes are a mutation (and therefore an error, and wrong) or the person in question has only part homosexual genes, and is thus able to defy them, and chose otherwiselostclause said:
I should point out, for purposes of avoiding upsetting people/gving the wrong impression, that I do not support this argument, and am simply arguing for the sake of a mental exercise
Don't worry, I got that from your original statement. I often do the same thing, once justifying to a friend that a pen was better than himThreeWords said:
It was a long and boring maths lesson.Anyway, I'd like to refer you to this (skip the first part):
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus3.htm
It sums up quite nicely that you can carry homosexual genes and still be straight. Note that the second twin will carry the homosexual gene but still have a 45% chance of being straight. Now whether they only have one of the alleles for homosexuality or two is unknown (although whether that is relevant or not depends on whether the gene has partial dominance or not, I'll look that up) but it does suggest that one can defy their genes. Furthermore, as I've said, your sexual preference doesn't bar you from reproducing, either normally or with a surragote (sp?) (if male) or IVF (if female). After all, you have some people who date or marry and have children before they realise they're gay (such as Elton John who was married for 4 years. That's not a great example since he considered himself bisexual at the time, but the only one I can think of.)
And this isn't really relevant to the argument but fairly interesting anyway:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Sexual_orientation_and_evolution