homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam

The Geek Culture Forums!


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Geek Culture Forums!   » Love!   » Looking for Love   » Women vs. Men (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!  
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4 
 
Author Topic: Women vs. Men
Xanthine

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 736

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted January 29, 2007 11:53      Profile for Xanthine     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
dnm: chromatic has been around for a very long time.

Mr. Spastic, before you get overly concerned about the use of Mr., I want you to sit back and say Mr. Spastic several times.

The alternative, of course, is Dirtboy.

--------------------
And it's one, two, three / On the wrong side of the lee / What were you meant for? / What were you meant for?
- The Decemberists

Posts: 7670 | From: the lab | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
ScholasticSpastic
Highlie
Member # 6919

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted January 29, 2007 12:01      Profile for ScholasticSpastic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I can be Dirtboy. How'bout Mr. DirtBoy? The last time I made a fuss about names my best friend called me Bernice. That shut me up fast. Essentially, Femgeeks can call me whatever they like, so long as they call me often [evil] .

--------------------
"As in repeating a well-known song, so in instincts, one action follows another by a sort of rhythm; if a person be interrupted in a song, or in repeating anything by rote, he is generally forced to go back to recover the habitual train of thought..." (Darwin, The Origin of Species)

Posts: 540 | From: Vernal, UT | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
drunkennewfiemidget
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2814

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted January 29, 2007 12:10      Profile for drunkennewfiemidget     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
dnm: chromatic has been around for a very long time.

I didn't know. It's not like I get bored and browse the userlist. [Smile]

chromatic is very well known in the opensource/perl community. It's kind of cool to have him around these parts, is all.

Posts: 4897 | From: Cambridge, ON, Canada | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Colonel Panic
BlabberMouth, the Next Generation
Member # 1200

Icon 1 posted January 29, 2007 17:18      Profile for Colonel Panic         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
geek lovin' princess,

-- and geek guys --

Oh, I think women and men can both have sexual relationships without a long-term emotional commitment.

I think some of this, "a female needs a male to provide, and is therefore more predisposed to monogamy" is hogwash -- primarily distributed by selfish men who believe that by "providing" they have somehow purchased a woman's loyalty, or worse, her soul. I view these men as selfish and unsure of their sexuality.

Current trends show that the more that as women become financially independant, the less monogamous they become. Think "fish needs a bicycle."

Of course, "fish likes a worm, too."

Right now, more than 50% of men and women report being "unfaithful" during their marriages, with the percentage of women rapidly making up for lost time.

The guys who lose out in the deal are the guys who ain't got it. Harley-Davidson has made a fortune selling rumbling thunder to fellows who, by birth and lack of confidence, naturally lack that quality between their legs and feel they must find a substitute. It's not that some fellows with those motorcycles aren't real men, it's just that there is a reason why many of the pretenders are known as "weenies".

This goes to the idea of purchasing power, instead of wielding prowess.

But -- I digress.

Anthropologists point to primative societies, many of which still exist today in remote areas, and show a seven-year cycle of monogamy. This cycle is the time a man and a woman develop an inerest in each other, mate, give birth and raise a child until the community can take over responsibilities for child rearing. After that, it's every man and woman for his/her self,

Chimpanzees, a primate that genetically is almost identical to us humans, have been known to engage in group sex simply to ease tensions. This has been observed in a tribe of chimps in Madagascar. Female champanzees come into estrus about once every two years or so, and when they do they don't simply settle for the "big chimp on campus"; instead, it's more "hail, hail the gang's all here." As for reputation, when was the last time you read, "For a good time, call Cheetah" on the side of some tropical tree?

Uum-gawa, baby.

Mind you, this is not something they want taught in "creationist science" class in Kansas. Then again, most conservative theologians -- priests, congressmen, preachers -- are well known to prefer little boys. So their opinions are a little skewed towards, if not actually inside, the closet.

Some Polynesian societies, practiced monogamy, but codified and celebrated a day of freedom every year where commited people could formally pair off with an alternate partner. Fun, I think.

Reading accounts of the "Sandstone" experiment, Gay Talese's "Thy Neighbor's Wife", and reports by Masters & Johnson, open sexual lifestyles are accepted by at least 3% of the US population (1 in 30, or one family in an average suburban block). That's only what is reported.

I've noted two keys that exist in opening women to casual sexual encounters 1) eliminate possesiveness and 2) keep your mouths shut, boys.

For a fellow who can keep his mouth shut and his mind open, a casual social encounter with a woman will almost inevitably result in a casual sexual encounter as well. Be tender. Be Real. Be Honest.

Women aren't nearly as prudish as most men imagine them to be. Guys just need to keep the locker room (ok, server room) talk to a minimum. It's better to have the women go "Sex in the City" on you and chat you up!

I've been maintaining this since joined GC.

Colonel Panic

--------------------
Free! Free at last!

Posts: 1809 | From: Glacier Melt, USA | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
catgoddess
Geek
Member # 6838

Icon 1 posted January 29, 2007 19:52      Profile for catgoddess     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The very notion that a blanket statement can be made about the nature of the sexes is so 1980.

... and I thought the "if it doesn't lay an egg..." discussion was about the most ludicrous argument ever to be uttered within the ivory towers of higher education, but then I recalled my own overpriced education and realized... I truly missed my calling in life. How I wish I could be paid $90k+ to make such statements and still have a job.

But I digress...

I tend to agree with SS that the problem is in the question itself. We have this beautiful language and yet, use so little of it... and understand it even less.

Monogamy (or monogamous) merely means: "to be married to one person at a time" or "having a single sexual partner during a period of time." Nothing more, nothing less. The "period of time" is typically where people differ in their opinions and is usually the only real area for debate in relationships.

Polygamy (or polygamous) is merely: "to be married to more than one person at a time" or "to mate with more than one individual, either simultaneously or successively."

Naturally, most people are polygamous. Unless you married the first person you ever slept with (and haven't strayed) or have only been with one person your entire life, you're polygamous.

The two words are not opposites (as was inferred in at least one previous post). A person, such as myself, can be polygamous and monogamous.

Back to the original "question," I say, any person who honestly believes any other person can be "programmed" (outside of some sort of mental experiment) to do anything seriously needs to test such "programming" on every man who can't put his socks in a hamper and every woman who feels compelled to apply lipstick while driving 70mph on the expressway.

Human beings possess something that no other species (known at this time) possesses: free will.

Free will: the power to make choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or physical or divine forces.

Therefore, whether a person chooses to shag one or one hundred people in their lifetime is purely of their own accord and no amount of perceived "programming" will ever change a person. The only person who can change himself is himself.

To me, the only question worth asking is, "Does this person standing before me want the same things out of life as I do and if so, are they capable of providing them?"

--------------------
"I love humanity but I hate people." Edna St. Vincent Millay

Posts: 102 | From: Rochester, NY | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
catgoddess
Geek
Member # 6838

Icon 1 posted January 29, 2007 20:16      Profile for catgoddess     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh... and I also add that we would have to define "sex" or "mating" as well to truly have a valid question or debate.

--------------------
"I love humanity but I hate people." Edna St. Vincent Millay

Posts: 102 | From: Rochester, NY | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
ScholasticSpastic
Highlie
Member # 6919

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted January 29, 2007 20:37      Profile for ScholasticSpastic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
catgoddess:
I tend to agree with SS that the problem is in the question itself.

It makes me tingle pleasantly when I'm agreed with.... So I feel a little uncomfortable that I'm posting to disagree, although the rest of catgoddess's post that I do not specifically mention can be assumed to be agreeable to me.

Pointing out another moot argument:
quote:
Human beings possess something that no other species (known at this time) possesses: free will.
"Free Will: the power to make choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or physical or divine forces." -catgoddess

Everything is constrained in some way. If you eliminate the physical world, both personal and external, and divine intervention (which I would support, by the way), what's left? You've just eliminated all constraints. Without constraints we cannot act at all because we become unable to cope with the infinity of choices we are presented with.

Our beliefs (constrained by the external world and the people in it), our bodies (another physical constraint), our genetic predispositions (a specific function of our bodies), and the laws of nature/physics form the basis for all of our choices. They are our set of constraints. It may seem as if we have free will, but I would maintain that the illusion arrises from the fact that we cannot define all of the inputs that result in each of our actions.

The system is chaotic, but it is not chaos. We have no more free will than any dog or cat or amoeba- we're just loaded with a few more features than the other animals. We have a much larger array of synapses than most of the other animals and so our behavior begins to seem more random. But if you really watch an animal you will find that its actions are as essentially unpredictable as those of a human. By the same token, if you really watch humans, you will find that most of us follow patterns that we are not aware of AND that we have a really difficult time breaking those patterns if/when we do become aware of them.

To the extent that animals, including humans, can learn new behavior patterns we are free to grow and change and adapt to our environment. Our will is not free, though, in the sense that it is unconstrained.

--------------------
"As in repeating a well-known song, so in instincts, one action follows another by a sort of rhythm; if a person be interrupted in a song, or in repeating anything by rote, he is generally forced to go back to recover the habitual train of thought..." (Darwin, The Origin of Species)

Posts: 540 | From: Vernal, UT | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
ScholasticSpastic
Highlie
Member # 6919

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted January 29, 2007 20:41      Profile for ScholasticSpastic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
catgoddess:
Oh... and I also add that we would have to define "sex" or "mating" as well to truly have a valid question or debate.

I agree, but are we really talking about sex or are we talking about pair-bonding? Or are we contrasting sex with mating? Or mating with pair-bonding? Or sex with bondage? And where do we classify those special couplings that include most or all of the above?

--------------------
"As in repeating a well-known song, so in instincts, one action follows another by a sort of rhythm; if a person be interrupted in a song, or in repeating anything by rote, he is generally forced to go back to recover the habitual train of thought..." (Darwin, The Origin of Species)

Posts: 540 | From: Vernal, UT | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
catgoddess
Geek
Member # 6838

Icon 1 posted January 29, 2007 20:51      Profile for catgoddess     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ScholasticSpastic:
It makes me tingle pleasantly when I'm agreed with.... So I feel a little uncomfortable that I'm posting to disagree, although the rest of catgoddess's post that I do not specifically mention can be assumed to be agreeable to me.

It is not me you disagree with; it is thousands of years of accepted philosophy (that spans across hundreds of cultures) you disagree with.

So I take no offense. [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by ScholasticSpastic:
I agree, but are we really talking about sex or are we talking about pair-bonding?

I'm pretty sure sex is required for monogamy or polygamy to exist. Unless something has changed since I last had sex... who knows; it is 2007 and all. However, since the original question posed mentioned monogamy, I feel confident in the assertion that we're talking about sex.

Whether or not that includes bondage is purely dependent on if Steen is a party in the conversation.

--------------------
"I love humanity but I hate people." Edna St. Vincent Millay

Posts: 102 | From: Rochester, NY | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
GrumpySteen

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan
Member # 170

Icon 1 posted January 29, 2007 20:55      Profile for GrumpySteen     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
catgoddess wrote:
Whether or not that includes bondage is purely dependent on if Steen is a party in the conversation.

*gasp*
I can't believe you'd suggest such a thing. I'd post a come-back, but I'm a bit tongue tied...

--------------------
Worst. Celibate. Ever.

Posts: 6364 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Xanthine

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 736

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted January 29, 2007 21:38      Profile for Xanthine     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh don't pretend you don't enjoy it.

--------------------
And it's one, two, three / On the wrong side of the lee / What were you meant for? / What were you meant for?
- The Decemberists

Posts: 7670 | From: the lab | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
GrumpySteen

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan
Member # 170

Icon 1 posted January 29, 2007 21:48      Profile for GrumpySteen     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Only on days ending with a 'Y'...

--------------------
Worst. Celibate. Ever.

Posts: 6364 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
ScholasticSpastic
Highlie
Member # 6919

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted January 29, 2007 21:57      Profile for ScholasticSpastic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
catgoddess:
It is not me you disagree with; it is thousands of years of accepted philosophy (that spans across hundreds of cultures) you disagree with.

You're right- I especially disagree with thousands of years of accepted philosophy! If we don't know more now than we did then, we have no business pretending to know anything at all. The fact that it's accepted is a strong indicator that we ought to have progressed further. Any theory that's been around long enough to have been accepted is probably outdated.

That's how I differ from accepted philosophy: I'm not out-dated, I'm underdated. It probably stems from the fact that I'm a man on a budget who doesn't like the cheap dates...

--------------------
"As in repeating a well-known song, so in instincts, one action follows another by a sort of rhythm; if a person be interrupted in a song, or in repeating anything by rote, he is generally forced to go back to recover the habitual train of thought..." (Darwin, The Origin of Species)

Posts: 540 | From: Vernal, UT | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted January 30, 2007 00:20      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by catgoddess:
Human beings possess something that no other species (known at this time) possesses: free will.

Do any cat owners (sorry, 'cat domestic staff') agree with the above statement?

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10702 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
SpazGirl
Assimilated
Member # 4915

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted January 30, 2007 06:14      Profile for SpazGirl   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Uhm... Cats absolutely have free will... spend two minutes at my house and you will see this fact...

--------------------
Things, and things.

Posts: 465 | From: Ypsilanti, MI | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
BooBooKitty

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 5566

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted January 30, 2007 06:28      Profile for BooBooKitty     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree with that statement as well... Having had 4 cats at one point (now down to 2). Free will and cats are pretty synonymous in my book.
Posts: 796 | From: Montreal, Canada | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
fs

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 1181

Icon 1 posted January 30, 2007 06:29      Profile for fs   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ScholasticSpastic:
I would also disagree that monogamy is for a certainty the very best structure for human relationships. Genetically, it provides some advantage to the male while disadvantaging the female. The female genes are actually the most important because she can only pop out one or two wee ones at a time.

Monogamy isn't necessarily a disadvantage. One just needs to choose a good partner.

There are reasons monogamy is a good idea, but I think it needs to be left to the people involved to determine what works for them. It's not really anyone else's business.

--------------------
I'm in ur database, makin' moar recordz.

Posts: 1973 | From: The Cat Ship | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
catgoddess
Geek
Member # 6838

Icon 1 posted January 30, 2007 07:36      Profile for catgoddess     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BooBooKitty:
I agree with that statement as well... Having had 4 cats at one point (now down to 2). Free will and cats are pretty synonymous in my book.

Free Will is defined (whether correctly or incorrectly) as a HUMAN condition.

The fact that 90% (a rough, and probably conservative estimate) of all felines (domesticated or not) act in a manner which is seen as "free will" indicates that it is a behavioral characteristic common to that species.

The fact that every cat owner can relate to that statement, for more than likely the same exact reasons, actually proves my initial statement correct. Unless you're trying to say that all (or almost all) of the felines of the world choose to act in the same ways at the same times just out of mere coincidence. In which case, I might suggest laying off the catnip a little.

--------------------
"I love humanity but I hate people." Edna St. Vincent Millay

Posts: 102 | From: Rochester, NY | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
catgoddess
Geek
Member # 6838

Icon 1 posted January 30, 2007 07:51      Profile for catgoddess     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ScholasticSpastic:
Any theory that's been around long enough to have been accepted is probably outdated.

I actually find that statement disturbing. Shall we throw the fundamentals of Physics and Calculus (insert any topic in there) because they're old and accepted? Shall we toss our old spouse to the curb because s/he's outdated and we need a newer model?

We have the capability to make new discoveries every day, in every field of study, because those "old and outdated" theories ARE accepted. Without them, we would have nothing to build on. There are very few things created that don't have ties to at least one old thing.

I also find it amusing that the statement came from someone who quotes Descartes. He's so "old and outdated," Philosophy students across the world are emitting a collective sigh of boredom over wondering if they exist.

--------------------
"I love humanity but I hate people." Edna St. Vincent Millay

Posts: 102 | From: Rochester, NY | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
ScholasticSpastic
Highlie
Member # 6919

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted January 30, 2007 09:07      Profile for ScholasticSpastic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
catgoddess:
I also find it amusing that the statement came from someone who quotes Descartes. He's so "old and outdated," Philosophy students across the world are emitting a collective sigh of boredom over wondering if they exist.

First: You rock! I LOVE arguing! You are so totally my new friend!

Second: I almost entirely disagree with Descarte's philosophy because almost all of it has been torn down very thoroughly by advancements in neurophysics and other, less exciting fields of science. His math still stands, but you must understand that pure math exists in a seperate realm from other knowledge because it is philosophy with numbers. You can only disprove math with math.

On the other hand, it is easy to prove that the soul does not reside in the pineal gland and there is no Cartesian Theatre of The Mind that it watches in our head. Leading scientific theory calls for an understanding that there is no dualism between body and mind/soul. Our limbs are not animated by animal spirits under the control of our soul (from its corner office in the pineal gland [crazy] ). There is no interface within this great, complex glob of flesh that allows for any kind of "ghost in the machine."

Descartes also classified emotions as animal and logic as human, asserting that emotion must be pushed aside in order that higher logic might prevail (thus wounding entire generations of men and women). More recent work has demonstrated (see any book by Antonio Damasio- one of the premeire neurosurgeons and an all-around great guy) that emotions are absolutely vital to rational thought and that all rational thought breaks down in their absence. Before tackling his book, try "The man who mistook his wife for a hat," I forget the author, but it's a funny and informative book introducing us to the consequences of localized lesions or dysfunction in the brain.

I quote Descartes because I, like him, feel most alive when I am thinking and can perceive no moment at which I do not think. I do not take it as far as he did and insist that I would cease to exist if I did not think, but I maintain that I would most certainly die. For what is brain death if not cessation of thought? I also feel tremendously lucky that we have learned enough that I can disagree with Descartes because he was a brilliant man doing the best he could with what was known at the time.

Compare and contrast classical physics vs. quantum physics. Take Mendelian genetics and compare it to modern neoDarwinism informed by our knowledge of biochemistry. There is a moment in any expansion of a scientific field at which the entire field obtains a new character because, while it may encompase all of the old field, it has incorporated so much more that it is like a new science. We do not learn about the ancient Greek beliefs in four elements in chemistry classes (but we do learn about elements).

This is why I stand behind my assertion that any belief that has been held for thousands of years is probably outdated. What did we know thousands of years ago compared to what we know today? How could we fail to benefit from the periodic reexamination of long-held beliefs in the light of new information? The well of knowledge from which we may drink is deepening as much each decade as it used to every thousand years.

This is the part where I overextend a metaphor: While all knowledge can slake our thirst, wouldn't you rather drink glacier-fresh science than centuries-old philosophy from a well?

quote:
catgoddess:
Free Will is defined (whether correctly or incorrectly) as a HUMAN condition.

One of the boons of growing scientific understanding of the world is the growing evidence of a lack of any real division between what is human and what is animal. There is no argument against humans-AS-animals that must not, eventually, fall back on the supernatural because it lacks the support of science. We are all animals, and not just in the sack. We are bipedal mammals with enlarged prefrontal cortices. We are no more special in the universe than are dogs or cats or cockroaches (actually, the universe loves cockroaches and I suspect they may be (G)od's true chosen people- that's why they have been bestowed with so many abilities that we lack).

I really hope you pick another argument with me because I'm having big, chunky loads of fun and I hope you are, too!

--------------------
"As in repeating a well-known song, so in instincts, one action follows another by a sort of rhythm; if a person be interrupted in a song, or in repeating anything by rote, he is generally forced to go back to recover the habitual train of thought..." (Darwin, The Origin of Species)

Posts: 540 | From: Vernal, UT | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
atayarani
Geek-in-Training
Member # 4268

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted January 30, 2007 11:21      Profile for atayarani     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I recently read a good book dealing with this exact issue Sperm Are from Men, Eggs Are from Women: The Real Reason Men And Women Are Different

One of the points it makes is that while men are predisposed to having multiple partners, they generally have overcome this urge. On the other hand, while women are predisposed to having a single mate, they are generally less faithful than other primates.

Posts: 33 | From: Cambridge, MA | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted January 30, 2007 11:44      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by catgoddess:
quote:
Originally posted by BooBooKitty:
I agree with that statement as well... Having had 4 cats at one point (now down to 2). Free will and cats are pretty synonymous in my book.

Free Will is defined (whether correctly or incorrectly) as a HUMAN condition.

The fact that 90% (a rough, and probably conservative estimate) of all felines (domesticated or not) act in a manner which is seen as "free will" indicates that it is a behavioral characteristic common to that species.

The fact that every cat owner can relate to that statement, for more than likely the same exact reasons, actually proves my initial statement correct. Unless you're trying to say that all (or almost all) of the felines of the world choose to act in the same ways at the same times just out of mere coincidence. In which case, I might suggest laying off the catnip a little.

Um, let me get this straight...

1. The fact that most cats act like they've got free will proves that they don't.

2. Humans are the only species to have free will, because you've defined "free will" as "something only humans have".


Ever considered a career in politics?

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10702 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Shadow
Assimilated
Member # 1558

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted January 30, 2007 12:24      Profile for Shadow     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Can someone tell me who "Will" is and why we are freeing him? [crazy]

--------------------
I do but keep the peace: put up thy sword,
Or manage it to part these men with me. - Benvolio (Romeo & Juliet)

Posts: 415 | From: /dev/geek/ | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
garlicguy

Member # 3166

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted January 30, 2007 12:43      Profile for garlicguy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Shadow:
Can someone tell me who "Will" is and why we are freeing him? [crazy]

No.

But you could Google Search on "Free Willy" and probably come up with some interesting stuff on the Clinton Impeachment. [Razz]

--------------------
I don't know what I was thinking... it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Posts: 3753 | From: Pluto, no matter what you call it, is still my home. | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
GrumpySteen

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan
Member # 170

Icon 1 posted January 30, 2007 14:43      Profile for GrumpySteen     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Famous Druid wrote:
1. The fact that most cats act like they've got free will proves that they don't.

Not quite what she had in mind, but close. The fact that most cats follow the same behavior patterns in given situations indicates that the behavior isn't a result of free will, but rather of instinct.

Free will is strictly defined as the ability to make decisions without the influence of external forces. In general use, however, most people use the term to refer to the ability to make a logical decision based on the available information. Using the latter definition, you would expect decisions based on free will to vary widely because each individual has different information available to them. If a reaction stems from instinct and not free will, however, you would expect to find a vast majority making the same decision.

So, if 90% of all cats do the same things (which they do... there's a reason cat owners nod knowingly when you mention things like the cat plopping it's ass on the newspaper you're trying to read), it indicates an instinctual response of some sort rather than a choice based on free will.

2. Humans are the only species to have free will, because you've defined "free will" as "something only humans have".

Not at all. catgoddess said free will was defined as a human condition, but added the qualifier "rightly or wrongly" to clearly indicate that her own opinion was not represented in the statement. The fact that you ignored that qualifier in no way alters her own opinion to match your expectations.

Her own opinion, if I were to hazard a guess, would be that cats have a smaller measure of free will than humans and are ruled primarily by instinct, but do have some free will of their own. I expect she'll not hesitate to tell me if I'm wrong.

Ever considered a career in politics?

You deserve whatever reply you get for saying that. *chuckle*

--------------------
Worst. Celibate. Ever.

Posts: 6364 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged


All times are Eastern Time
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4 
 
Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Geek Culture Home Page

© 2018 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0



homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam