I feel the sudden need to attempt suicide near hot female lifeguards
I had a thought quite recently about a world without religion. Superficially, I thought the same as you. Yet, another thought hit me. What if religion is the only thing keeping some people sane? Could that aspect of religion outweigh the bad? I don't know myself.
Stop lying to yourself.
First, you cannot get off without some thought of some kind
Second, you are bi
Here is what I don't get:
a boner unless I am attracted to someone.
I have had sex with women I am attracted to
and sex with men I am attracted to.
But I have never had sex with someone I was not attracted to.
You and Jillky say it is a matter of who what sex you are attracted to, and that you (or people you know) have sex with another man or woman that you are apparently not attracted to. So to me that is fucked-up.
I understand the difference between and "act"
and an "attraction"
but I argue that you (at least I) cannot perform the "act"
if you aren't "attracted" enough to get a stiffy.
Getting a boner is attraction - sorry, but it is.
It's the Count that counts.
That's the second time you've misunderstood that. MANY is not the same as MOST. There is no implication of proportion, but rather just a large number. In this he is correct. It is not hard to reel off a string of things that would be impossible for you to achieve. He said many, he means many. Many things are indeed impossible. It's only a realistic view, there's no need to be so hostile towards it.
He didn't say you don't get a parachute, but he didn't say you get one either. Like I say, freelance gave you the benefit of an acknowledgement of your own ability to infer and not to snark. You turned that back on him....kinda lame in my opinion, but that's up to you I guess. He was giving YOU a chance to engage in meaningful discussion, but you just nitpicked. Lame.
What do you have against impossibility? Don't you regard the ability to accept impossibility as a sign of maturity and realism? Don't you think it's good that humanity can recognize its limits?
If equality is the ultimate goal, then we'll probably still be trying to achieve it when we reach our ultimate year of existence. The real issue is, at what point do we draw the line and agree we are equal? Some say that a society with both rich and poor is not equal. But if all the people of that society have the vote, a primary and secondary education, healthcare, access to welfare when they need it, are subject to thge same laws and have the same opportunity to get ahead in whatever way the law allows, that's equality, right?
Some would say yes (me included), others would say NO! Inequality can seep so deep down into every aspect of society, but in my view we have to know when to draw the line and admit that there will always be measures of inequality between people. It's unrealistic and probably impossible to achieve absolute equality as long as we're still human beings. Fundamental equality is achievable within a society. Same law, same rights, same opportunities. That's what we should be trying to achieve. Pretending that we're all exactly the same or will always be totally equal to one another in every way is a dream.
Actually, i would venture to say that every single human being is both smart and dumb. There some things you know about, and some things you don't, therefore making one both knowledgeable, and ignorant, depending on the subject.
First I was going to pick "agree"
then I thought, "no, I will pick 'disagree'."
Those are the only two choices presented to me.
I finally made my choice,
I chose not to choose.
Suicide is always the fault of the person who chose to commit suicide. I don't care what motive or reasoning they had for doing it, the decision was ultimately theirs.
Not that this excuses bullies to bully. Harassing someone to the point that they would resort to killing themselves is just shameful and wrong (as most would agree). However, the suicide is still the fault of the person who committed it.