145 replies to this topic

[8143FF763271]

It's mostly through tradition. Sexual promiscuity not only has been shunned for religious and cultural reasons for centuries, but think about it back then from a practical standpoint. What do you do when the girl your fucking has a kid and you're married? What does it do to the child/girls husband? Who raises the child? Yes, in our current society this is becoming more of the norm and somewhat of a "non-issue" but it still has presented a serious problem for polyamory in the past. Back in the day there were only two main methods of "birth control"; Abstinence and coitus interruptus (our in the parlance of our times "Pulling out.") As I'm sure you know this second option isn't very effective. It only made sense for people to shun away from polyamorous relationships from a logistical standpoint... (This doesn't even account for the religious and cultural reasons before it...)

Just thought I'd add a different perspective. (No interest in discussing the matter further.)
Cody

I fully agree it mostly has to do with an institution that was useful to us in the past but that we have had trouble abandoning. My question is mainly why people still feel that way when monogamy has lost its function in society.

[Sweeney]

Because they feel like it.

Not much to discuss...

[8143FF763271]

Because they feel like it.

Not much to discuss...

Everything has a cause, including people's feelings.

Edited by kami12, 17 August 2012 - 04:40 PM.

[Bone]

Everything has a cause, including people's feelings.

True. But a quantifiable cause? Not always.

[8143FF763271]

True. But a quantifiable cause? Not always.

All causes are theoretically quantifiable.

[Romy]

All causes are theoretically quantifiable.

Edited by Ivysaur, 17 August 2012 - 10:02 PM.

[Sweeney]

Everything has a cause, including people's feelings.

And the causes of people's feelings are as infinitely variable as the feelings themselves. "Debating" the topic is absurd.

[8143FF763271]

And the causes of people's feelings are as infinitely variable as the feelings themselves. "Debating" the topic is absurd.

Under this logic, psychology doesn't exist. People are actually fairly predictable creatures that respond to stimuli in a limited number of ways and according to certain (also quantifiable) variables.

What that means is that causes are never missing, information is. Information is gathered through questioning and observation not saying "well, we don't know!"

[Romy]

Under this logic, psychology doesn't exist. People are actually fairly predictable creatures that respond to stimuli in a limited number of ways and according to certain (also quantifiable) variables.

So you are basing your ENTIRE point on theoretically "quantifiable causes" and the "theoretically quantifiable" amount of ways a human can respond to them.

You are really starting to fall apart here....

[8143FF763271]

So you are basing your ENTIRE point on theoretically "quantifiable causes" and the "theoretically quantifiable" amount of ways a human can respond to them.

You are really starting to fall apart here....

What? What else am I supposed to base arguments on if not prepositions leading to conclusions?

I said that everything is THEORETICALLY quantifiable because we do not always have the PRACTICAL means to prove something, like theoretical astrofuckingphysics and other dimensions. Plenty of empirically verifiable arguments can be made about human behaviour.

[Romy]

What? What else am I supposed to base arguments on if not prepositions leading to conclusions?

I said that everything is THEORETICALLY quantifiable because we do not always have the PRACTICAL means to prove something, like theoretical astrofuckingphysics and other dimensions. Plenty of empirically verifiable arguments can be made about human behaviour.

My point is, that you are basing your "conclusions" on a hypothetical based on another hypothetical.
You there have no SOLID ground to base your argument on. You are as correct as everyone else that voiced their opinions in this thread.

Sorry to burst your bubble there kiddo.
Oh wait.

Spoiler

No I'm not.

Edited by Ivysaur, 17 August 2012 - 11:36 PM.

[8143FF763271]

My point is, that you are basing your "conclusions" on a hypothetical based on another hypothetical.
You there have no SOLID ground to base your argument on. You are as correct as everyone else that voiced their opinions in this thread.

Sorry to burst your bubble their kiddo.
Oh wait.

Spoiler

No I'm not.

I never said that human emotions aren't practically quantifiable. They are. I said EVERYTHING is theoretically quantifiable (both the things that are practically quantifiable and the ones hat aren't). If you really need me to explain myself again. SMH.

[Sweeney]

Under this logic, psychology doesn't exist. People are actually fairly predictable creatures that respond to stimuli in a limited number of ways and according to certain (also quantifiable) variables.

No, they don't. The majority of people may fit into a limited range of subsets, but not everyone.

[Romy]

I never said that human emotions aren't practically quantifiable. They are. I said EVERYTHING is theoretically quantifiable (both the things that are practically quantifiable and the ones hat aren't). If you really need me to explain myself again. SMH.

That does NOT make your point anymore legitimate.
A definite amount of reactions to an indefinite amount of causes still gives you..
DRUM ROLL PLEASE
AN INDEFINITE AMOUNT OF OUTCOMES
Did you skip that day of second grade?

Again, you are not anymore correct then anyone else in this thread.

Spoiler

You still probably opened the spoiler.

[8143FF763271]

That does NOT make your point anymore legitimate.
A definite amount of reactions to an indefinite amount of causes still gives you..
DRUM ROLL PLEASE
AN INDEFINITE AMOUNT OF OUTCOMES
Did you skip that day of second grade?

Again, you are not anymore correct then anyone else in this thread.

Spoiler

You still probably opened the spoiler.

They aren't indefinite. If you're still not getting it.

No, they don't. The majority of people may fit into a limited range of subsets, but not everyone.

Sure they do. Why wouldn't they? Everything has proven to be pretty fucking predictable, especially when it comes to living beings. What makes you think humans are exempt? Humans are rational creatures, rationality is predictable by definition. They tend to have a pleasure principle that we're fairly familiar with and "social" drives in humans have also been studied at depth. Furthermore, we have ethnologists that find similarities and differences in human behaviour across cultures that allow us to discern the particular variables that factor in any of these behaviours. Yes, human beings are predictable and as science develops they are all the more predictable. No, it isn't "senseless" to ask questions about human beings and their actions. That's the first step in being able to quantify their actions.

Edited by kami12, 17 August 2012 - 11:49 PM.

[Romy]

They aren't indefinite. If you're still not getting it.

Oh! I'm sorry!
A "theoretically quantifiable" amount of causes.

Spoiler

Edited by Ivysaur, 17 August 2012 - 11:50 PM.

[8143FF763271]

Oh! I'm sorry!
A "theoretically quantifiable" amount of causes.

Spoiler

Dude........
causes for human behaviour are practically quantifiable. I was speaking of quantum mechanics and theoretical astrophysics. What part of that aren't you getting? Haven't you heard of social fucking science? *facepalm*

[Romy]

Dude........
causes for human behaviour are practically quantifiable. I was speaking of quantum mechanics and theoretical astrophysics. What part of that aren't you getting? Haven't you heard of social fucking science? *facepalm*

Practically ≠ definitely.
Your point is not looking any more solid.

I have heard of "Social Science" but not of "Social fucking Science".Is that what Bonobo monkeys do?

Spoiler

Edited by Ivysaur, 17 August 2012 - 11:58 PM.

[8143FF763271]

Practically ≠ definitely.
Your point is not looking any more solid.

I have heard of "Social Science" but not of "Social fucking Science".Is that what Bonobo monkeys do?

Spoiler

Emphasis on science because it depends on a scientific method. That's what the fucking is for, emphasis. Once you can prove how anything I've said is not empirically quantifiable, get on topic. In the meanwhile, stop saying that my point isn't solid because you (falsely) believe human behaviour isn't quantifiable.

Also when I say PRACTICALLY I don't mean PRACTICALLY in the conventional sense of "we can practically do it" as if for something that hasn't been done. No, with practically I mean in practice. I.E. It means people can definitely do it and do it because they have the tools to do it and they often do. This is different from theoretical, which is based on speculation.

Edited by kami12, 18 August 2012 - 12:11 AM.

[Romy]

Emphasis on science because it depends on a scientific method. That's what the fucking is for, emphasis.

Sorry for thinking you aren't a jerk
I'll adjust my opinion of you accordingly.

Once you can prove how anything I've said is not empirically quantifiable, get on topic. In the meanwhile, stop saying that my point isn't solid because you (falsely) believe human behaviour isn't quantifiable.

Once you prove to me that the causes of human behavior ARE quantifiable, feel free to pursue whatever point you are (poorly) attempting to justify.
Sorry kami, you are not making any sense.

CHALLENGE: NO WIKIPEDIA CITING THIS TIME

[8143FF763271]

Sorry for thinking you aren't a jerk
I'll adjust my opinion of you accordingly.


Once you prove to me that the causes of human behavior ARE quantifiable, feel free to pursue whatever point you are (poorly) attempting to justify.
Sorry kami, you are not making any sense.

CHALLENGE: NO WIKIPEDIA CITING THIS TIME

Observation: People get burned when they touch a hot stove.
Hypothesis: People with the ability to feel pain will experience discomfort when touching a hot stove.
Experiment: Gather sample, make them touch a hot stove.
Conclusion: People experienced discomfort upon touching a hot stove.
Theory: Touching hot stoves causes discomfort.

Idiot.

[Romy]

Observation: People get burned when they touch a hot stove.
Hypothesis: People with the ability to feel pain will experience discomfort when touching a hot stove.
Experiment: Gather sample, make them touch a hot stove.
Conclusion: People experienced discomfort upon touching a hot stove.
Theory: Touching hot stoves causes discomfort.

Idiot.

QUICK! NOW DO THAT FOR THE PLETHORA OF STIMULI HUMANS ARE ABLE TO PERCEIVE AND REACT TO!
(Even the ones we have may/may not react to in the future!)
1, 2 ,3 GO GO GO GO GO!

THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE IDIOT!

[8143FF763271]

QUICK! NOW DO THAT FOR THE PLETHORA OF STIMULI HUMANS ARE ABLE TO PERCEIVE AND REACT TO!
(Even the ones we have may/may not react to in the future!)
1, 2 ,3 GO GO GO GO GO!

THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE IDIOT!

It's not impossible. I'm obviously just not going to make a list of it? Ask me for the million of stimuli that animals respond to, I'm not going to be able to make a list either. Ask me for a million of chemical reactions, I'm not going to be able to make a list either. That I have not the time or the knowledge to go over every stimulus and reaction concerning human behaviour (or anything else) doesn't mean that such knowledge is impossible to be acquired. Furthermore, we're referring to something very specific here. Stop playing dumb and honestly just get on topic if you have something substantial to say. If not, consider any attempt to get me to repeat the same thing (that you're obviously having trouble grasping) ignored.

Edited by kami12, 18 August 2012 - 12:26 AM.

[Romy]

It's not impossible. I'm obviously just not going to make a list of it? Ask me for the million of stimuli that animals respond to, I'm not going to be able to make a list either. Ask me for a million of chemical reactions, I'm not going to be able to make a list either. That I have not the time or the knowledge to go over every stimulus and reaction concerning human behaviour (or anything else) doesn't mean that such knowledge is impossible to be acquired. Furthermore, we're referring to something very specific here. Stop playing dumb and honestly just get on topic if you have something substantial to say. If not, consider any attempt to get me to repeat the same thing (that you're obviously having trouble grasping) ignored.

Since when can you tell the future? You can tell me what future stimuli humans have yet to react/respond to?
Sorry, I am going to have to throw out your "psychic intuition" here and consider your last post since "such knowledge is impossible to be acquired".
We cannot tell the future. We cannot "list" future stimuli therefore making the causes for human "emotion" UNQUANTIFIABLE.

Edited by Ivysaur, 18 August 2012 - 12:35 AM.