SudsyFist
-
Content
2,933 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never -
Feedback
0%
Everything posted by SudsyFist
-
Why not? By what definition of, "Brave," are you judging?
-
It runs in my veins.
-
When I tell chicks, "Hey, maybe you should take a shower first; I'm not a big fan of sauerbraten," they usually just have this vacant stare in response... Uncultured tramps.
-
-
I disagree. The nature part is what makes humans human. The nurture part is what makes humans what they are today. We'd definitely take away a lot of the modern joys, yes. I'd also agree that it would probably be more violent. That's one possible outcome. It's also very possible that they kill themselves off before even reaching spoken language. Regardless, though, that possibility isn't indicative of a true nature [sic] of man. Pour enough water on a mountain, and it will become a plain, then eventually a sea; does this mean that the true nature of a mountain is a sea? Of course not. It's the water that makes the sea, not the mountain.
-
Care to share? BTW, you got an A for rhyming. It's the rhythm that gotcha.
-
He's referring to a school of thought. Don't take it literally.
-
By whose definition??? The others you pointed out are societal. natural law How? No. I disagree entirely with this. What you're failing to acknowledge is the extreme importance of the environmental conditioning factors in place. My aforementioned hypothetical specifically addressed the complete stripping of these, leaving the human naked with only what nature actually gives them. We've seen examples of this, mate. It's not very supportive of your beliefs. Injustice? Maybe so. But I implore you to look at the likelihood that much of the credit you give to mankind is the result of millenia of cultural and societal evolution and conditioning. Still the result of man's potential? Sure, I'll give you that. But not necessarily what is innate, that with which we are born. Nurture. Nature. There's a very distinct difference.
-
I've read more than my fair share of teleological works, actually. I'm arguing against specifics.
-
The hell I can't. We're animals. More sentient than others? Absolutely. That gives us shitloads more flexibility in the realm of free will. By whose rules??? The *only* valid reason up with which I can come off the top of my head is that we currently participate in a complex society. And in order to function best in this society, we humans need all that nurturing you've described. Let's get hypothetical here: Let's get a group of babies, throw in some toddlers for some variety, give 'em some easy access to food for a while (weaning them off so they can learn to fend for themselves), and let 'em loose in the wild without language or rules. Watch what happens over time. You might be surprised just how animal we are without modern environmental conditioning.
-
Biology is not subjective (low nutrients leads to hunger). Physics is not subjective (jump off my balcony sans BASE gear and you leave an asphault divot). Morality is, however. Some Islamic states require women to cover up. Some Bible Belt states require forms and sworn non-pleasure-related reasons to buy a rubber cock. Subjective laws. Monogamy (as a moral requirement to overcome our instinct) is entirely a subjective law. It is written, not TAGC-encoded.
-
So you're saying it's a misnomer. It also sounds like it's a misleading term for something subjectively determined by the Church. No arguing against that, then. Carry on.
-
Longboard.
-
But how is this not in violation of natural law, as you've described it? Why would it be OK to violate natural law in one way (monogamy), but not in another (man-on-man bloody butt sex)? monogamy is not a violation of natural law, it is a fulfillment of it. You described natural law using urge: urge to eat, due to need for nutrition. I retorted with our urge to fuck: urge to fuck lots and spread our seed. I don't have the urge to be monogamous -- that's environmental conditioning (nurture vs. nature). How is monogamy a fulfillment of natural law, then?
-
Has it been 22.3 years yet?
-
But how is this not in violation of natural law, as you've described it? Why would it be OK to violate natural law in one way (monogamy), but not in another (man-on-man bloody butt sex)?
-
Did you even bother reading my post? Clean the ice cream off your hands and go read it. You just won coolass-motherfucker-of-the-day.
-
ha! then sudsy is REALLY out of the picture then! Keep it short, beverly, and you'll be safe Nah, she's already safe. She's proven herself iambic-impaired, so love don't live here anymore.
-
Dood, you're a sick puppy.
-
This is gonna be fun... I feel horny so that I'll go bone. Spew inside that vicious cunt, etc., etc. So she could end up preggers, and little Sudsies are gestated and whoofed out. Right? Hmm... I feel horny quite a bit. And for a lot of different women. It could be said that we males are naturally driven to spread our seed as much as possible, to as many as possible. It has something to do with survival of the species, but there's an evolutionary component, too, which I won't address here. Now, if the Good Book tells us that sex is sacred, shared in the bonds of monogamy and marriage, experiencing the pleasure only to make little Sudsies with one bitch, then is that also not a violation of natural law?
-
Since when did the church start condoning necrophilia?
-
Riiiiiiiiiiiigggghhht. You of all people should know you're talking to a guy who couldn't get worked up over Jolie nor Aniston. I'm just a teensy weensy bit particular, you know.
-
Static line jumpers, best to ignore them?
SudsyFist replied to artistcalledian's topic in The Bonfire
Cos everyone knows quite well I can't distinguish humour from the hole in my bottom. -
He doesn't. The fact that today's my appt. for Brazilian is proof.
-
What really possesses me, sinker, is why you have a stash of such photos on hand...