BP Oil Spill, What the Experts Have Concluded

BP Oil Spill, What the Experts Have Concluded (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BenevolentM -> BP Oil Spill, What the Experts Have Concluded (2/24/2011 6:34:25 PM)
What I am suggesting below will likely be controversial. I am not a weak willed individual that succumbs to peer-pressure. I am presenting everyone with food for thought. That I desire sex doesn't mean I've got to be a far left wing liberal with no doubts concerning its wholesomeness. Today I came by the following article on the BP Oil Spill in the science news concerning what the experts have concluded: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-experts-bp.html They used an expression in the article that caught my attention, namely hyper-linear thinking. I recall reading an article concerning corporate executives and their penchant for pornography and sex. I suspect that there exists a correlation between sex and hyper-linear thinking. If such a correlation exists, this suggests that the fundamental cause of the disaster in all seriousness may have been BP executives having too much sex. Disclaimer I initially thought to post this under Off Topic Discussion since that is officially where matters concerning world events go, but as a practical matter I can see that this is where such material goes, that is there is a de facto convention. Politics and Religion are also intrinsically controversial and so it also makes sense to place material that is controversial here as well. The umbrella forum topic is sex since this is a forum on BDSM.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: BP Oil Spill, What the Experts Have Concluded (2/24/2011 8:58:22 PM)
LMAO. You think that corporate execs have any more of a penchant for porn and sex than any other group of people?

BenevolentM -> RE: BP Oil Spill, What the Experts Have Concluded (2/25/2011 12:10:12 AM)
My impression is there isn't much data on the subject. I looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_ethics, but it gave me nothing useful. It gave me the tired old "Consent is a key issue in sexual ethics." What I want is data on the relationship or lack thereof between sex and cognitive function. They will go into people will object to such and such because it's against their religion or it just offends them for no apparent reason. It offends them because it just does. Why is it against their religion? Obviously, it is against their religion because there is a relationship between sex and cognitive function. Sex impacts the individual in some way which is thought disagreeable. Why I feel a relationship likely exists likely has something to do with the triune brain hypothesis. "... some people find this to be a helpful model because of its broad explantatory value." Here is a copy of a letter I wrote several hours ago: quote: I am convinced that the problem has to do with excessive materialism. The people at http://collarme.com are too materialistically inclined and they can't handle the sex. It seems likely to me that you seem more normal due to your background. You come from a nation of people who are not especially materialistically inclined. The United States on the other hand is extremely materialistic which means for the most part its citizens cannot handle sex. Sex makes them go crazy. That is my analysis of the situation. The few I've encountered that seem civil are consistently individuals with a non-materialistic background. Materialism and sex don't mix. In a subsequent letter I wrote: quote: What I wrote in [the above letter] implies the following: Those religions that are strongly materialistic will likely have strong prohibitions against sex. Those religions that are weakly materialistic are likely to be lenient. Is Roman Catholicism strongly materialistic? It is because the worldly power of the Church is a central theme. In this sense it is strongly materialistic and low and behold it has strong prohibitions against sex. Wicca is strongly non-materialistic and is very lenient.

Hillwilliam -> RE: BP Oil Spill, What the Experts Have Concluded (2/25/2011 5:35:59 AM)
Ummmm wilbur, I'ma thinking that the OP is heavily tongue in cheek.

Moonhead -> RE: BP Oil Spill, What the Experts Have Concluded (2/25/2011 5:37:27 AM)
As any fool can plainly see...

Hillwilliam -> RE: BP Oil Spill, What the Experts Have Concluded (2/25/2011 5:50:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead As any fool can plainly see... which explains a lot.[:D]

Termyn8or -> RE: BP Oil Spill, What the Experts Have Concluded (2/25/2011 9:25:39 AM)
FR Actually addicts are quite motivated. T^T

BenevolentM -> RE: BP Oil Spill, What the Experts Have Concluded (2/25/2011 9:32:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam ... I'ma thinking that the OP is heavily tongue in cheek. quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead As any fool can plainly see. It is vastly more complex than this. quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM It is bizarre that you act as if you have no clue ... . It is as if there is a veil in front of your eyes. You behave as if you were clueless. It is common knowledge. ... It causes people to devolve, that is go in the wrong direction as human evolution is concerned. A man or woman who wishes to know what is true and thereby know what is false must transverse a hall of mirrors. He or she must find their way through a labyrinth.

rulemylife -> RE: BP Oil Spill, What the Experts Have Concluded (2/25/2011 9:38:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Ummmm wilbur, I'ma thinking that the OP is heavily tongue in cheek. I quite honestly can never figure that out myself.

BenevolentM -> RE: BP Oil Spill, What the Experts Have Concluded (2/25/2011 4:32:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or FR Actually addicts are quite motivated. T^T I give Termyn8or the prize for being the first to provide what I think is meaningful commentary. Are you willing to expand on this theme Termyn8or? Incidentally, what does FR stand for? I've been meaning to ask.

pogo4pres -> RE: BP Oil Spill, What the Experts Have Concluded (2/25/2011 7:04:37 PM)
FR Means Fast Reply Parenthetically, Some Knucklehead in NJ

BenevolentM -> RE: BP Oil Spill, What the Experts Have Concluded (2/25/2011 9:13:14 PM)
I saw a documentary film yesterday on the Independent Film Channel (IFC). It concerned a European man who lost the love of his life and developed erectile dysfunction, i.e. E.D., as a consequence. He was a male loser. Male loser makes you lower than whale crap as far as females are concerned. I regard this as interesting because it means that as females are concerned pimps have a higher social status. The E.D. made him desperate. He came up with an idea to make a documentary film where he would document his journey and interview former girlfriends of his. Wow, did he have a lot of former girlfriends, a lot more than I've ever had. Having said that I would like to point out that females do like me, I'm an excellent lover, and I'm not bad looking either. It was clear why he lost the love of his life. He wasn't the sort of a man that a woman could settle down to have a family with. He went to a physician for a physical exam to find out why he had E.D. The doctor could find nothing wrong with him so he was referred to a psychologist who specializes in this sort of thing. It wasn't his cup of tea. He tried a variety of things. One of the things he tried was a professional Dominatrix. In the following scene you could see him holding a bag of ice on his crotch in a mild state of shock. He got spanked too. He confessed some of his failings as a man to the Dominatrix. He didn't like the idea of taking Viagra or an alternative because it didn't seem practical to him. As he said what am I going to say; Excuse me, I've got to give my penis an injection? That was one of the options the doctor discussed with him if Viagra didn't work out. He finally tried Viagra. He did this privately so he had no one to ride him if he should get a hard on. He took one, nothing happened, he took another until he had taken six or seven. Eventually the Viagra took effect and he got an extreme hard on. This got him worried and he called the hospital. It was something he would have to wait out for six hours they said. It was something he wanted to happen for some time. In desperation he decided to go out to ask women at random on the street whether they would be willing to have sex with him. He found a pretty older woman who declined due to the age difference. One young woman he asked was pretty and agreed, but said that she couldn't right then because she had an appointment. She asked for his number. He gave it to her. At the time he didn't think she would keep her promise. He was filming all of this. He was carrying the microphone and he had a cameraman tail him. He eventually got arrested. He pissed off a few boyfriends in the process who expressed their displeasure. This was a European country and so the women were more polite than American woman would have been. A common response was he should have invited her out to dinner and drinks rather than just come out and ask her if she would be willing to fuck him. Women are always looking for a man who can provide for them so they could in theory settle down with the man to have a family even if they aren't family oriented. She kept her promise. She was a young journalist from Russia. She was very nice. He explained the problem he was having and invited her to dinner and explained that sex wasn't going to be an expectation. He wasn't indecent. They dated and she made him very happy. She wanted to know how many women he had to ask before anyone said yes. He asked 300. Most females are not that nice. What he needed in his case was a nice girlfriend who wasn't expressly interested in settling down to have a family. He required intimacy. That is something the psychologist picked up on. Who knows he might one day end up settling down with this Russian girl to start a family with her. She might teach him a thing or two. American females rarely keep their promises and rarely care about you unless you are already in a relationship with them. In the abstract the answer is, drop dead. Settling down to have a family is very materialistic activity. Most religions feel that this is the correct course of action, but it is nonetheless a very materialistic activity which is a dichotomy. You would think religion was exclusively about non-materialistic things and not about living in the real world. Though he talked to women about sex, what he really wanted was intimacy.

Termyn8or -> RE: BP Oil Spill, What the Experts Have Concluded (2/26/2011 12:35:22 AM)
"Are you willing to expand on this theme Termyn8or? " Simple - define addiction. Do it without specifying the type of addiction. What do these people have in common. The object of their addiction takes on an abnormal importance, the object is prioritized. I have known quite a few addicts. Two sex addicts. One has reformed, but he went so far as to violate the sanctity of marriage and bring home an STD that most likely caused his Woman to have two ecoptic pregnancies, and they will be her last. He permanently damaged her, even though I am convinced that he loves her and did at the time. The other sex addict has not reformed, and is quite motivated. Motivated to the point of legal battles. He was impelled to become a non taxpayer to have more money for sex, and it's companion, porn. One crack addict never reformed. He has blown his inheritance, and will be homeless as well soon. Another has reformed. That one told me that when he saw money he actually saw crack. Like the reformed ex addict, he can enjoy it from time to time while keeping it in it's proper perspective. Money addicts are the most hopeless. Those with other objects of addiction generally steal, lie and cheat to feed the addiction. But the addiction to money goes untreated and as far as I can see, undiagnosed. When money is the object, what would be the treatment ? Others will blow all the money and face the consequences, which teach them. The only way to beat any addiction is to mature out of it. A money addict in pursuit of his object is not likely to face many severe consequences. Some objects of addiction are necessities. You can tell an alcoholic never to drink, a coke addict to never do coke, but how do you tell a food addict not to eat, or a money addict to become less wealthy ? You either have an addictive personality or not. But then that is not absolute. While it doesn't exist now, there should be an addictability quotient, somewhat like an IQ. And different objects of addiction have different rates of allure for the addictable. I consider myself not to be addictable. I like the occasional snort, burn one and I like beer alot. OK fine, but that doesn't mean I am addicted to anything. If I stole and cheated to get these "objects" that would be evidence, but I do not and never have. But that allure. That is one of my few fears. As I may have mentioned, I do not fear death, not in the least. If someone put a gun to my head I would say " You gonna use that thing or is this fucking show and tell ? ". But I do fear ever trying heroin for example. From what I've heard, the allure is so great that even the strongest personality might not be able to withstand it. Even the lying and stealing is not the acid test. I have always had decent earning power, so I was able to satisfy my desires "legally ?". That means alcohol, pot, cocaine, pharmacuetical PCP, LSD and mescaline. I have the money for such things right now. All the bills are paid right now. It would be no sweat really. But I do not seek these things. They are in the past, when I was younger. I have matured out of it. The legal costs ? I didn't care one iota. I used to get two DUIs at a time. I've jettisoned very valuable "packages" before an impending traffic stop, and almost got pissed off when they didn't search me and the car. The lawyers loved me, I always paid up. To think of the things I could've gotten busted for sends chills up my spine. Now that I am settled I could easily do these things covertly with very little chance of getting caught. But I don't because, and only because I do not want to. No other reason. I don't fear the consequences imposed by society, I fear the detrimental effects for myself. Some of my old friends have not had it so good. I've seen what addiction can do to people. They get stupid, and ruthless. Sound familiar ? Notice actions by our "leaders" in big business and government ? What do these actions indicate ? They are immature and want more toys, or whatever their personal object of addiction may be. When you grow and learn, it is very difficult to addict you to anything. Take the King object in common knowledge - heroin. It's an opiate right ? So is morphine. So in the hospital my buddy is an bad shape and literally is hooked up to a "morphinomatic". Push the button and get a dose. When he got out of the hospital he never once sought to buy morphine on the street, or even persue keeping the supply coming legally. Why ? It's not one of the "objects". Is he unaddictable ? I doubt it. What's more this was my partying buddy and one of the biggest drug dealers in town. That is all the past now. What happened between then and now ? Maturity. T^T

BenevolentM -> RE: BP Oil Spill, What the Experts Have Concluded (2/26/2011 1:40:47 AM)
In response to Termyn8or post 13. Part 1 Does this mean realizing that there is more to life than pleasure or anyone object of desire? So long as a person is sober, they can be a force for good. But doesn't multiplicity result in possibilities for contradiction, that is opportunities for hypocrisy? We tend to think of the addict as a hypocrite, but in truth addicts are simple people. They just want one thing. They're hyper-linear. They have few opportunities in truth to be hypocrites. I am speaking about a matter that relates to the heart. Those who juggle may speak out against sex and warn of its dangers, but may also have occasion to indulge like the rest of us. Does it mean they were false and were never worth listening to? Part 2 Most would agree that addiction has certain properties, but I believe that it is in fact a continuum. An addict is simply a person who is obviously out of control, but does that imply that everyone else is in control? For example, you don't need to be an alcoholic to cause an accident due to drunkenness; consequently, I do not feel that I'm talking about addiction per se. There was a World War II slogan, Loose lips sink ships. Alcohol in even small amounts can loosen the lips; consequently, I do not feel that what I'm talking about is over indulgence either. Part 3 Is this thread about addiction or sex? I feel it is about masturbation, just kidding. The Termyn8or seems to feel that it is about addiction. So Termyn8or if you were a betting man would you bet that the BP oil executives were addicted to money or sex?

mnottertail -> RE: BP Oil Spill, What the Experts Have Concluded (2/26/2011 7:42:48 AM)
I don't see why every conversation has to be couched in the either; or.

BenevolentM -> RE: BP Oil Spill, What the Experts Have Concluded (2/26/2011 11:28:50 AM)
Think of it as a poll. Would you bet that the BP oil executives were addicted to money or sex?

Termyn8or -> RE: BP Oil Spill, What the Experts Have Concluded (2/26/2011 11:37:29 AM)
They're certainly in the game for money. Is it for the money itself or for what it can buy ? T^T

BenevolentM -> RE: BP Oil Spill, What the Experts Have Concluded (2/26/2011 2:26:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or They're certainly in the game for money. Is it for the money itself or for what it can buy ? The Termyn8or is shrewd. Given what you wrote saying money would seem to be the simpler answer, but such a position might be headache to defend. The reason for this is that money is intangible. What you can obtain with money on the other finger is not. If a person plays the market and has acquired a gambling addiction for having done so, then it isn't an addiction to money, but an addiction to gambling. Addictions concern activities that are intensely rewarding. Sex is the most fun you can have legally without having to be rich. Even the poor engage in it, but if you want movie actress pussy, you may need to acquire a taste for money because it helps. We can't all have Marilyn Monroe (1). There is something known as middle class morality. Historically, both the rich and the poor engage in sex freely. It is the middle class that traditionally states the most objections. It is clear that addiction warps the sensibilities, but I also suspect there is an unhealthy synergistic interaction between materialism and sex that may account for the many taboos surrounding sex. Footnote 1 Marilyn Monroe isn't my favorite, but that really isn't the point. She is an icon.

BenevolentM -> RE: BP Oil Spill, What the Experts Have Concluded (2/26/2011 2:56:58 PM)
I suspect that what I wrote quote: If you want movie actress pussy, you may need to acquire a taste for money. in post 18 says it all. The synergistic interaction between pussy and money is disagreeable. The Russian girl I wrote about earlier saw past the please fuck me to see his humanity. For those who do not feel that there is a synergistic interaction; hence, nothing disagreeable: I would say doesn't this suggest a one track mind which suggests the presence of a sexual addiction? If you can see a prostitute as a human being, then perhaps this is not the case. If you regard the prostitute as a human being, does it not follow that you are engaging in hypocrisy? There is prostitute as a commodity item, i.e. a living blow up doll, and the prostitute who has feelings. If you take the later position, you will be involved in a balancing act. If you are involved in a balancing act, you are a fence sitter who is not wholly in any camp. You are, thusly, a hypocrite. You will be saying one thing and doing another.

BenevolentM -> RE: BP Oil Spill, What the Experts Have Concluded (2/26/2011 3:29:17 PM)
Females in general want tokens of good faith. When they are doing this are they acknowledging your humanity? If your humanity is being denied, does it not follow that you are being raped? So what does this have to do with BP executives? While operating their business, were they acknowledging our humanity? or were we just getting raped?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875