Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have a dinner engagement!
he no longer engages in the practice of drinking alcohol excessively and is therefore no longer an alcoholic, clear, conscience and accurate. Now if you are quite finished my illustrious friends, I have a dinner engagement!
Have a good one.
--- Penguin
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobieso a man who is sexually attracted to women but never has sex is not a heterosexual.
he no longer engages in the practice of drinking alcohol excessively and is therefore no longer an alcoholic, clear, conscience and accurate. Now if you are quite finished my illustrious friends, I have a dinner engagement!
a man who craves alcohol every minute of the day but manages not to drink is not an alcoholic
a man is only a pedophile while he is having sex with children and is not a pedophile if he controls his urges and restricts himself to just thinking about children sexually.
i think you have just broken your own record for the most fek'd up thinking ever written on here.
im off to work in a few hours where ill be interacting with some men who i thought were pedophiles, ill let them know that under the robbie school of thought that they are no longer pedophiles im sure they will be chuffed to bits.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo if someone is no longer abusing children or conspiring to abuse children, but has done so in the past, they are no longer a paedophile in your scheme of things?
If they abuse children or conspire to abuse children by some evil machination they are a paedophile. Why this should be so difficult to grasp, I cannot say.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by Proper Knobit was around 3 years between jimmy savilles last victim and his death. i wonder if robbie thinks its wrong to refer to jimmy saville as a pedophile???
So if someone is no longer abusing children or conspiring to abuse children, but has done so in the past, they are no longer a paedophile in your scheme of things?
1 edit
Originally posted by stellspalfieMy great theory has had previous proponents! unbeknown to me.
bump.
According to most existentialist philosophers, however, this would constitute an inauthentic existence. Instead, the phrase should be taken to say that the person is (1) defined only insofar as he or she acts and (2) that he or she is responsible for his or her actions. For example, someone who acts cruelly towards other people is, by that act, defined as a cruel person. Furthermore, by this action of cruelty, such persons are themselves responsible for their new identity (a cruel person). This is as opposed to their genes, or 'human nature', bearing the blame.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhoa. That cite goes on to say: "A person can choose to act in a different way, and to be a good person instead of a cruel person. Here it is also clear that since humans can choose to be either cruel or good, they are, in fact, neither of these things essentially."
My great theory has had previous proponents! unbeknown to me.
According to most existentialist philosophers, however, this would constitute an inauthentic existence. Instead, the phrase should be taken to say that the person is (1) defined only insofar as he or she acts and (2) that he or she is responsible for his or her actions. For example, som ...[text shortened]... ir genes, or 'human nature', bearing the blame.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism
3 edits
Originally posted by JS357Yes indeed, therefore seeing that the statement comes with a qualifier, that being, essentially or in essence and applying it to sexuality, it would therefore appear that being in a particular state is neither to be a heterosexual or a homosexual or not to be a heterosexual or a homosexual which is simply another way of saying that a potentiality exists and we are therefore left with the incontrovertible truth that it is the act that is the defining criteria! I and all other existentialists stand vindicated! Now you can argue that they are neither heterosexual or homosexual in essence, but its a semantic argument and we are dealing with empirics.
Whoa. That cite goes on to say: "A person can choose to act in a different way, and to be a good person instead of a cruel person. Here it is also clear that since humans can choose to be either cruel or good, [b]they are, in fact, neither of these things essentially."[/b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt says one is not defined essentially (in essence) by one's acts.
Yes indeed, therefore seeing that the statement comes with a qualifier, that being, essentially or in essence and applying it to sexuality, it would therefore appear that being in a particular state is neither to be a heterosexual or a homosexual or not to be a heterosexual or a homosexual which is simply another way of saying that a potentiality exi ...[text shortened]... it is the act that is the defining criteria! I and all other existentialists stand vindicated!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI see. So what about 'corrective rape'? When a lesbian is being raped by a man are they then heterosexual?
Yes indeed, therefore seeing that the statement comes with a qualifier, that being, essentially or in essence and applying it to sexuality, it would therefore appear that being in a particular state is neither to be a heterosexual or a homosexual or not to be a heterosexual or a homosexual which is simply another way of saying that a potentiality exi ...[text shortened]... it is the act that is the defining criteria! I and all other existentialists stand vindicated!
3 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobcorrective? whoa? that a new term, anyhow, its a simple thing to answer, they are engaging in a heterosexual act and at the point of being raped they are a heterosexual as defined by the act (although its tricky because its against their will which adds a different parameter), afterwards they return to the state of being a potentiality and if the engage in a homosexual act, they become a homosexual. I would say that while being raped she is in a state of inauthentic existence.
I see. So what about 'corrective rape'? When a lesbian is being raped by a man are they then heterosexual?
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobyou are a musician right? does music exist? yes potentially, but until you take a drum stick and strike the pad causing the air to send sound waves out which are audibly deciphered by the mind, does it exist? Its only through the act of striking the drum that music is caused to exist, tis it not? After you put the drum stick away and go and do something else, music only has a potentiality to exist.
I see. So what about 'corrective rape'? When a lesbian is being raped by a man are they then heterosexual?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI see. All the best on your new classification system, personally I think it will get as far as the 'B&Q doctrine', flat on it's arse.
corrective? whoa? that a new term, anyhow, its a simple thing to answer, they are engaging in a heterosexual act and at the point of being raped they are a heterosexual as defined by the act (although its tricky because its against their will which adds a different parameter), afterwards they return to the state of being a potentiality and if the eng ...[text shortened]... me a homosexual. I would say that while being raped she is in a state of inauthentic existence.