• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Choices [W:1315]

RamFel said:
You say that as if you knew for sure. Some may but not everyone
Click to expand...

I think she us pretty sure that her SO won't knock her up. Pretty damned sure she knows that the intent is not procreation.:lamo
 
year2late said:
I think she us pretty sure that her SO won't knock her up. Pretty damned sure she knows that the intent is not procreation.:lamo
Click to expand...

If I ever did end up getting pregnant, I'd be one confused mother****er. :lamo
 
RamFel said:
Then I stand corrected on those points but I stand by the fact that you don't know for sure. How could you. You weren't around those thousands of years ago. Guessing proves nothing. Btw. You don't use it for procreation but others do.
Click to expand...

What on earth are you on about regarding thousands of years ago???? Yes, I do know for sure that humans have sex for reasons other than procreation. Something like 85% of my fellow Canadian women use contraception, so that's a pretty good indication they are not having sex to reproduce.
 
Scrabaholic said:
You said "The whole entire purpose, I have shown, is and will always be PROCREATION." which means you are saying that there is only one purpose of sex. That is incorrect. Humans use sex to bond, for pleasure and sometimes even to make money (ie. prostitutes) as well as for procreation. If procreation was the only purpose of sex, women would only be horny when ovulating, like in most of the non-human animal kingdom.
Click to expand...

I say again procreation is sex's primary purpose. And I don't mind if you say different. Because you're making me look good.
 
Scrabaholic said:
What on earth are you on about regarding thousands of years ago???? Yes, I do know for sure that humans have sex for reasons other than procreation. Something like 85% of my fellow Canadian women use contraception, so that's a pretty good indication they are not having sex to reproduce.
Click to expand...

How can you ask that with a straight face. Today you do it for your own pleasure. Yesteryear they did it for procreation this it's primary purpose is, and remains procreation.
 
RamFel said:
I say again procreation is sex's primary purpose. And I don't mind if you say different. Because you're making me look good.
Click to expand...

The purpose of sex is what the individual wants it to be.
 
[part 1 of 2, in reply to Msg #1165]

RamFel said:
And for that matter, you have failed to show how your statement about the what the purpose of sex is,
Click to expand...
FALSE. I provided links to supporting Facts. Your Denial of those Facts does not change their Factuality to the slightest degree.

RamFel said:
and you forget to state how you knew that what you claim is true.
Click to expand...
FACTS ARE FACTS. They are independent of any beliefs (or disbeliefs) in their validity; they can be Objectively Verified if they are true. YOU apparently don't seem to understand that there is often more than just one way to Objectively Verify a Fact.

RamFel said:
You have not spoken to any pre-historic individuals, nor have you interviewed any witnesses.
Click to expand...
NOT NECESSARY. Humans have been "anatomically modern" for about 200,000 years. That means the basic physical capabilities/characteristics of humans today are pretty much the same as in cave-man times (if anything we are probably wimpier and fatter now than back then). Human infants are just as helpless now as back then. Human females have "concealed ovulation" now, just like back then --and that means, while most species only have sex when it is practically certain that reproduction can happen, for humans the situation is different. Human females don't innately know when reproduction is possible (it is a learned thing). If the primary purpose of human sex is reproduction, then why does that huge difference exist, from other animal species???

RamFel said:
Also, I cannot claim anything I state is true or false.
Click to expand...
THAT INCLUDES YOUR ARBITRARY DECLARATIONS ABOUT THE WRONGNESS OF WHAT OTHERS POST HERE, RIGHT? Do note that there are at least two significantly different types of "wrong". One is the opposite of "right" (per ethics), and the second is the opposite of "correct" (factuality). Nature cares nothing about the first type of "wrong" --remember the Law of the Jungle, "might makes right"? Are you aware that when praying mantises mate, the female bites off the head of the male during the sex act, and eats it? You probably would consider that to be ethically wrong, but Nature doesn't care; it works to cause the male body to inject even more sperm into the female --and Nature only cares about what works.

RamFel said:
That's not my task.
Click to expand...
ANY POSITIVE CLAIMS YOU POST AT A DEBATE SITE CAN BE EXPECTED BY OTHERS TO BE SUPPORTED WITH EVIDENCE. After all, it works both ways:
You are wrong. Your lifestyle is wrong. Your clothing choices are wrong. Your diet is wrong.
SEE? If you don't support your claims with evidence, then no one else needs to do that, either! The result is a devolution from Debate into a shouting match between 4-year-olds: "Is so!" ... "Is not!" ... "Is so!" ... "Is not!" ... So if you want to show others that you are more intellectual than a 4-year-old, you need to support your positive claims with evidence!

RamFel said:
My intent is to cast doubt on the multitude of questionable untruths you have posted. I believe that I have done that.
Click to expand...
YOU BELIEVE WRONG. As explained above. The mere claim that something is wrong is not-at-all proof, or even evidence, that that thing is wrong.
 
[part 2 of 2, in reply to Msg #1165]

RamFel said:
The whole entire purpose of sex is not to bond.
Click to expand...
DO NOT CONFUSE FACTS ABOUT HUMAN SEX WITH THE FACTS ABOUT SEX IN OTHER SPECIES. Answer the question in red above. (in part 1) If the whole entire purpose of human sex is reproduction, the why did something that works perfectly well for hundreds of thousands of other species on Earth get so drastically changed for humans?

RamFel said:
Bonding is merely a secondary by product,
Click to expand...
ONLY AFTER YOU CONCLUDE THAT FOR HUMANS THE PRIMARY PRODUCT IS PLEASURE. You do know, don't you, that women are able to choose to indulge in sex at just about any time? Why would any woman be interested in contraception and/or birth control if the primary purpose of sex was reproduction?

RamFel said:
I have shown this before against captain courtesy
Click to expand...
NOT RELEVANT. Especially if all you did before was blather unsupported **claims**.

RamFel said:
and the second time here.
Click to expand...
FALSE; YOU HAVE SHOWN NOTHING BUT UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS HERE.

RamFel said:
The whole entire purpose, I have shown,
Click to expand...
YOU HAVE SHOWN US NOTHING BUT UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS. MORE, you appear to be trying to "conflate" data about generic animal sex with human sex, when they are notably different things, thanks to concealed ovulation for humans, but not for the generic animal.

RamFel said:
is and will always be PROCREATION.
Click to expand...
FALSE. As a typical abortion opponent, you apparently completely ignore the Fact that after a birth happens, a human infant is helpless and needs lots of care. Abortion opponents don't seem to care how many babies die after birth. It takes more for a species to survive than just reproduction!!!

NATURE ALWAYS ONLY CARES ABOUT WHAT WORKS. Humans like sex and are free to indulge at almost any time. This tends to lead to pair-bond formation, WHICH IN TURN tends to significantly increase the survival rate of helpless infants after birth. And enough sex, of course, tends to lead to production of those infants, despite concealed ovulation!
 
Last edited:
RamFel said:
I say again procreation is sex's primary purpose. And I don't mind if you say different. Because you're making me look good.
Click to expand...

Make up your mind.
RamFel said:
The whole entire purpose of sex is not to bond. Bonding is merely a secondary by product, I have shown this before against captain courtesy and the second time here. The whole entire purpose, I have shown, is and will always be PROCREATION.
Click to expand...
 
Scrabaholic said:
Make up your mind.
Click to expand...

It sounds like the same thing to me. I have to say it again. Sex is still the baby maker around here. You want a baby? Yes? Then have sex. Seriously, unless you really like me, and want to see me win, you must give up being wrong.
 
RamFel said:
It sounds like the same thing to me. I have to say it again. Sex is still the baby maker around here. You want a baby? Yes? Then have sex. Seriously, unless you really like me, and want to see me win, you must give up being wrong.
Click to expand...

Take away the ability to have orgasims and the planet would lack about 99% of people - who actually dig having orgasims.

Remember when the Catholic Church taught that masturbation causes blindness? Can you guess why they made that claim?
 
Scrabaholic said:
Prove it.
Click to expand...

OK, but I will have to do it without the biggest and best proof of them all. And that is an interview with a member of pre-historic man. And since I don't have one of those fine people, ill have to do it without absolute proof. The absolute main purpose of sex is, and still continues to be procreation. Without this act, we would be wasting a lot babies. Sex makes babies and that is your proof.

But you know what I don't get is what the big deal is. If babies are our enemies then why try and protect the process that produces them? You want to know something else, I believe all liberals should be prohibited from having sex since they seem to want the destruction of the human population.
 
Last edited:
Removable Mind said:
Take away the ability to have orgasims and the planet would lack about 99% of people - who actually dig having orgasims.

Remember when the Catholic Church taught that masturbation causes blindness? Can you guess why they made that claim?
Click to expand...

No, but it wasn't to prove silly claims about the waste of ejaculation, I'll tell you that.
 
RamFel said:
It sounds like the same thing to me. I have to say it again. Sex is still the baby maker around here. You want a baby? Yes? Then have sex. Seriously, unless you really like me, and want to see me win, you must give up being wrong.
Click to expand...

You are not "winning". You've been proven wrong, over and over again.
 
RamFel said:
OK, but I will have to do it without the biggest and best proof of them all. And that is an interview with a member of pre-historic man. And since I don't have one of those fine people, ill have to do it without absolute proof. The absolute main purpose of sex is, and still continues to be procreation. Without this act, we would be wasting a lot babies. Sex makes babies and that is your proof.

But you know what I don't get is what the big deal is. If babies are our enemies then why try and protect the process that produces them? You want to know something else, I believe all liberals should be prohibited from having sex since they seem to want the destruction of the human population.
Click to expand...

IOW, you can't prove your claim. I understand.

And good luck on making it illegal for liberals to have sex. smh
 
Scrabaholic said:
IOW, you can't prove your claim. I understand.

And good luck on making it illegal for liberals to have sex. smh
Click to expand...

And i understand the same thing about you
 
Scrabaholic said:
You are not "winning". You've been proven wrong, over and over again.
Click to expand...

If I have (and I have not) then it has happened more so to you than it has to me. You and your side keep coming up with the rediculous and the ubsurd. Sorry, but to convince anyone, you have to come up with specifics. Because statements that I've been proven wrong, especially when I have torn apart such rediculous notions such as the reasons for sex being for bonding (and babies attacking mothers and the millions of deaths all to protect something as lame as her right to choose her right to choose) so please, be more specific.
 
RamFel said:
If I have (and I have not) then it has happened more so to you than it has to me. You and your side keep coming up with the rediculous and the ubsurd. Sorry, but to convince anyone, you have to come up with specifics. Because statements that I've been proven wrong, especially when I have torn apart such rediculous notions such as the reasons for sex being for bonding (and babies attacking mothers and the millions of deaths all to protect something as lame as her right to choose her right to choose) so please, be more specific.
Click to expand...

Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks for the laugh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom