|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
posted January 14, 2012 10:10 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Society is against the very nature of humans.
Maybe that's why people are banding together since before the dawn of civilization or even any form of advanced thinking. You are talking about the most gregarious animal on the planet and you are greatly overestimating its individuality.
|
|
Mentat
Disgraceful
Known Hero
|
|
posted January 14, 2012 12:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Society is against the very nature of humans.
Maybe that's why people are banding together since before the dawn of civilization or even any form of advanced thinking. You are talking about the most gregarious animal on the planet and you are greatly overestimating its individuality.
Even solitary creatures banded together if conditions turning to harsh. So did the ancient troglodytes. And I think if anyone of you look really deep inside of yourself you will know that you watching a solitary hunter. Someone who wants it very own territory and ain't want to share it with anyone else.
You taught to supress it, forgot it but you can't truly deny it. If you could deny it entirely then there won't be such things like wars, countries. Ultimate utopistic daydreams not more. Humans are solitaire creatures and as long as they can't kill this instinct from themselves they'll be territorial, warlike bands hiding behind the idea of society.
Now you want to point that we do support each other in families? Yes, we do. Why? Because otherwise raise or descendants will be harder and mor risky. And any single creatures' most strong instinct is to breed and ensure the survival of their offsprings, ensure the survival of their genetic traits.
But this instinct do not made us social creatures. We banded together for mutual benefits. But we could easily attack each others while social creatures tend to avoid fightings within their society.
But speaking about what we are really deep inside is off-topic. As I remember this topic was about something else... And YES, I remember that I were the on whom derailed it...
And at a second thought I think I like the end result. This topic is became something deeper IMO...
And this means there won't be any agreement about the old- and\or new topic... Usual human behaviour not to agree upon anything, but this is really another topic...
____________
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted January 14, 2012 01:09 PM |
|
|
|
Desiring your own personal space is not the same as wanting to be alone - at all. People are unwilling to let the environment - that includes other people - intrude on a certain territory, that's true, but at the same time people grown amidst the civilization prefer the company of other people, except if they suffer from some behaviouristic distortion. Whether it's about benefiting from each other in some way or about some built-in instinct to stay with the herd originating from the pre-historic time is irrelevant. The whole human civilization is a vastly complex social construct. You seem to be worried that it doesn't seem to be very... monolithic.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted January 14, 2012 04:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes? Maybe? Not? There is something called "human nature" what is full of such things, unseparatable from the very basics of "being human".
Bad things? Sure! Human things? Absolutely!
Exactly my point. 
Quote:
Quote:
Society is against the very nature of humans.
Maybe that's why people are banding together since before the dawn of civilization or even any form of advanced thinking. You are talking about the most gregarious animal on the planet and you are greatly overestimating its individuality.
This. Humans have an Id, or their own personal, selfish image. Some have it stronger than others, but every human has two other parts as well. They are what we call our Ego and Super Ego. Both are social aspects of your psychology, and both are required to function beyond the three-year-old "Mine" function of your brain. The Ego is why people look out for things like their family's and have a basic sense of what is right and wrong. This is the most basic function of social interaction and why our species is not extinct. (I will explain that later) The Super Ego is what is necessary for our societies to exist today. Loyalty, faith and planning for the good of a large group of people are created on this level. This is why humans create things like cultures and societies, why ideas like Countries, slavery and Racial Pride exit/ existed.
Now on to the "Solitary Predators" thing... Yes, we have the ingenuity to create things like tools, but even one, maybe two items of chipped rock or sharpened wood will not be able to honestly do anything in the hands of one of the weakest, slowest, clumsiest and smallest of predators alive if it is alone. Humans, and all primates, need their societies to protect them from death by something bigger in the wild. This dependency (or Ego) grew over the the years as social structures grew beyond tribes, and it finally culminated into what we have today. Separating a human from this connection is a massive strain on their mental health, and all humans will not be able to develop if it happens at a young age. Solitary predators we are most definitely not.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Mentat
Disgraceful
Known Hero
|
|
posted January 14, 2012 05:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The whole human civilization is a vastly complex social construct.
A crippled construct for sure...
Quote:
You seem to be worried that it doesn't seem to be very... monolithic.
I do not care much about it. I am a noble, despite my origin, and as such I more like chaos...
____________
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 14, 2012 06:26 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 18:28, 14 Jan 2012.
|
Quote:
The problem starts with the very sheer fact that humans basicly lone creatures, territorial and as such if they are live in great number on a territory they try to became "leaders", "rulers" and\or start wars to expand their territory.
lol what? there is certainly the will to survive, but why would we seek power at all cost? do other animals even do that?
do you personnaly know many people who have a need to dominate at all cost?
and on the contrary, I wouldn't say that society is trying to teach us to suppress it (I know that's the way society are often defined). I think it encourages violence. you are encouraged to pursue power because you will receive a lot of advantage. being a ruler normally should comes with a lot of responsibilities, but not necessarily advantages. unless we are talking about a tyrant of course. but now people want to rule because they know they will receive a lot of advantage while being able to ignore their responsibilities.
the worst you are, the more you will be respected. everything that revolves around war for example gets a lot of respect.
|
|
selcy
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 15, 2012 12:08 AM |
|
|
Being a parent is one of the hardest jobs ever. Your on duty 24/7 as you never know when an emergency will arise. Your a nurse, teacher, cleaner, cook, protector, banker and about a million other roles for little or no thanks. Thats what you sign yourself up for when you decide to have children and if you can't handle it don't have children, simple.
____________
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted January 15, 2012 12:53 AM |
|
|
There are those who revel in having the privilage of being responsible for their child, then there are those who get cripled by the mounting pressure. I blame state education, if people are allowed to breed and take responsibility for someone else's life without knowing how to, then I blame society. Society didn't take the necessary steps to prevent this, society doesn't get to throw blame at anyone.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
selcy
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 15, 2012 01:14 AM |
|
|
Yes but then it takes 2 people to make a baby so therefore they should both take responsibility. You can't just blame state education.
I don't agree with the fact my 10 year old daughter is having sex education at school I think that is way too young. In someways it is taking their childhood innocence away from them. My 14 year old daughter went to a youth centre and was given condoms and a card to show when she needed more.
You are right though in England some people have children just to get the family allowance and other handouts, they don't care what their children are doing. I had children at an early age and I took responsibilty for them and unlike most young mothers they all had the same father. It is tough being a mother and especially now as I am a singe one.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 15, 2012 10:24 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't agree with the fact my 10 year old daughter is having sex education at school I think that is way too young. In someways it is taking their childhood innocence away from them.
*facepalm*
|
|
selcy
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 15, 2012 10:37 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I don't agree with the fact my 10 year old daughter is having sex education at school I think that is way too young. In someways it is taking their childhood innocence away from them.
*facepalm*
WHY?
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 15, 2012 12:32 PM |
|
|
Obviously a lot, if not most of the stuff you learn in life (including school) is future-oriented. That people get sick and die - including oneself; that you have to work as a grown-up to afford a life; that there are things you are allowed to do and others not, and that this changes depending on your age; and of course all kind of reality stuff, like, that there is no Santa, that Heaven, if anywhere at all, is not "up in the skies", that the tooth fairy is just a tale, that Dragons, Wizards, Elves, and Unicorns are likewise not really existing - and all I named is somewhat neegative.
Now what is negative when it comes to sex? You lose "INNOCENCE"? That would mean, sex is somehow linked with GUILT - the most desastrous link that has ever been made.
That's why I facepalm, when I read something like that. Adolescence is a period of change. Girls may menstruate fairly early - 11 is not that uncommon. They have to KNOW about things, otherwise it may be a nightmarish. Boys is different, but still. Things are happening, and when they happen, those kids should know about them. They shouldn't be more surprised than necessary.
Besides, children are not asexual: Child sexuality
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 15, 2012 02:33 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 14:36, 15 Jan 2012.
|
well, people being considered as sexual objects is the other extreme.
btw, 10 years old kids watch war and horror movies and aren't even shocked. 
well, I don't actually know if my younger sister already saw a slasher movie, but she was like "it seems very fun"
in another hand she finds sex (or even just nudity) disgusting.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted January 15, 2012 02:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Society is against the very nature of humans.
Aristotle once said that he who has no need of society must be either a beast or a god. He was wise as hell and therefore, like all wise people, had a beard. I'd like to see you grow a beard, miss philosopher.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
selcy
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 15, 2012 03:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Now what is negative when it comes to sex? You lose "INNOCENCE"? That would mean, sex is somehow linked with GUILT - the most desastrous link that has ever been made.
That's why I facepalm, when I read something like that. Adolescence is a period of change. Girls may menstruate fairly early - 11 is not that uncommon. They have to KNOW about things, otherwise it may be a nightmarish. Boys is different, but still. Things are happening, and when they happen, those kids should know about them. They shouldn't be more surprised than necessary.
Yes I am the mother of 3 daughters so I don't need advice on girls menstrating at the age of 11 as I had 2 daughters who menstrated at 10 and 1 at 13. I agree they need to know about that which I discussed with them but do they really need to know about sex at the age of 10?
I never implied sex was linked to guilt and I have a friend who thinks it was quite normal for her and her children's dad to walk around naked in front of the children, I don't agree with her but that doesn't mean it is wrong.
All children develope at different rates mentally and physically but at the age of 10 are they really able to understand and process the informstion they are given in a sensible way. By what my daughter told me the boys just messed around during the lesson and were being stupid and laughing, to me this would imply no. The girls were then subjected to inappropriate comments and suggestions during playtime which upset them.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 15, 2012 04:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I never implied sex was linked to guilt
You link it automatically, when you come up with INNOCENCE as opposed to knowledge about sex. The meaning of INNOCENT is GUILTLESS.
Quote:
I agree they need to know about that which I discussed with them but do they really need to know about sex at the age of 10?
Yes.
What would be WRONG about knowing about it? Because withholding pertinent information to what is a basic function/ability of every human and probably the most important thing in life (we wouldn't exist without it) would indeed need a fairly good reason.
I don't see that good reason, though. The fact that children are making bad jokes about it is just a measure of the awkwardness involved, and the awkwardness involved is a function of the difference between the ACTUAL relevance of sex within a given society and the taboos involved when speaking about it -> that there is more involved than meets the eye and is actually told.
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted January 15, 2012 04:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
All children develope at different rates mentally and physically but at the age of 10 are they really able to understand and process the informstion they are given in a sensible way. By what my daughter told me the boys just messed around during the lesson and were being stupid and laughing, to me this would imply no. The girls were then subjected to inappropriate comments and suggestions during playtime which upset them.
Absolutely. JJ not all children are ready for sex education at 10. When my brother came home from school at 10 and asked my Father what anal sex is and why he should have it instead of 'normal' sex with girls ... my parents went ballistic. All because the English system focussed on tackling underage pregnancy!! Yes that's what they did. They actually encouraged oral and anal sex!!!
I went to a Catholic girl's school and our sex education was one day with a priest who (obviously never having sex) sweated, stuttered and eventually almost broke down trying to tell 10/11 year old girls that 'basically 'self abuse' and sex was evil'.
So its a subject that when just passed to schools to educate our children (when they see fit and often at an age where the information means literally nothing, or its too much information), doesn't help anyone. Currently British school children also have to contend with homosexual sex education.
Sex education can be much better learnt at home with child orientated 'innocent' books, giving them a better understanding when eventually beseiged at school by Sex Education Classes.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 15, 2012 04:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Absolutely. JJ not all children are ready for sex education at 10. When my brother came home from school at 10 and asked my Father what anal sex is and why he should have it instead of 'normal' sex with girls ... my parents went ballistic. All because the English system focussed on tackling underage pregnancy!! Yes that's what they did. They actually encouraged oral and anal sex!!!
You can't really blame educataion as a generalized entity on that. As with everything else, there are good and bad ways to teach children about sex.
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted January 15, 2012 04:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Absolutely. JJ not all children are ready for sex education at 10. When my brother came home from school at 10 and asked my Father what anal sex is and why he should have it instead of 'normal' sex with girls ... my parents went ballistic. All because the English system focussed on tackling underage pregnancy!! Yes that's what they did. They actually encouraged oral and anal sex!!!
You can't really blame educataion as a generalized entity on that. As with everything else, there are good and bad ways to teach children about sex.
@Corribus.
That's what I was clumsily trying to get at.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted January 15, 2012 05:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Absolutely. JJ not all children are ready for sex education at 10. .....
Sex education can be much better learnt at home with child orientated 'innocent' books, giving them a better understanding when eventually beseiged at school by Sex Education Classes.
I certainly agree that parents are in the best position to know when a child is ready to learn about sex. The parents are also in the best position to teach their child about sex with morality in mind. Those parents who see nothing wrong with their child having sex with everything that stands still long enough can teach their child that. Those parents who think sex should be reserved for marriage can teach their child that.
Some people want to push children to grow up too fast. 10 years old is too early for a school sex education class in my opinion. And it is certainly irresponsible for schools to hand out condoms and arrange for abortions.
In general your child will get a better education if you can homeschool him or send him to a private school. Of course that is not always possible. In any event a parent certainly has to be very actively involved and know what his child is being taught in the classroom.
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
