Pornography
Since my discussion on monogamy, I have realized that most of you think that cheating is wrong and monogamy is the only way to go (unless, of course, you have an agreement with your partner to be open).
I would define cheating as sexual stimulation, whether it be oral or just plain out intercourse, by someone other than your partner. Some say that watching pornography is cheating. I guess I can understand that, in some cases, porn could cause a partner to fantasize more about the women/men in the videos and find themselves less attracted to their partner.
My question to all of you is:
What do you define as cheating? And, more importantly, Is pornography cheating (especially if the spouse doesn't approve of it)?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Mo Trauen on -
The same is true of all morals worth having. They exist because of our nature and the nature of our world. Religion claims them because it claims to speak for the source of everything.
-
Permalink Reply by Gold Guy on -
True, and the arrogance and audacity of religion to think that morals did not exist before men wrote their books of fables. Shear idiocy.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael on -
Evolution has become a catch all explanation of everything when there exist no salient theory of how a brain mutates and/ or simultaneously mutates to make physical mutations functional.
Do not give Darwin more credit then he rightfully deserves.
-
Permalink Reply by Gold Guy on
-
There is some unsubstantiated speculation in the area of evolutionary psychology, but that does not discredit the science of evolution.
Darwin in fact deserves MORE credit than he is currently given. He was a genius. You should silence yourself in respect. He foretold much of what is now known as evolutionary psychology in is observations about human emotion.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael on
-
Once again how do neuro-nets mutate, let alone create altruistic behaviors? the animal kingdom is hard wired to utilized their physical attributes at a maximum. But there exist no theory on how a neuro-net so happens to mutate to make said mutations functional. circuitry wiring and external morphology are completely independent of each other. There is no context that it can be speculated that they are functions of the same independent variables in any causal mutational legacy.
-
Permalink Reply by Gold Guy on
-
First. it is not "neuro-nets" but "neural nets." That alone shows that you not should even be involved in this discussion.
Altruistic behaviors are characteristics of a species, not a neural net. Your utter incompetence in this arena makes any discussion a waste of time.
You are wrong. Theories are plentiful that explain how variations in neural nets are progressively functional and increase the inclusive fitness of the individuals that possess those genes. You are completely out of your league in talking about these subjects and have been feed a lot useless religious bullshit.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael on
-
Lets hear some facts, name at least one reference then I will believe you are not just blowing smoke.
You're a cute icon with a bad bad mouth. Aw the little icon likes to poop insults.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael on
-
Neuro-nets is correct. And your insulting comments are tantamount to you being removed from this site. One more, unprovoked insult and your name is being reported. And that goes for Lee Brashear also. Yes, I played with you, but now it's getting old.
-
Permalink Reply by Gold Guy on
-
Ugh, no. The term is neural nets, not neuro-nets. A Google of "neuro nets" results in only references to neural networks. You appear to be a unfamiliar with the literature and not understand neural networks. I would conclude that you are a troll that is not intelligent enough to use accurate terminology. You seem to have no understanding of evolution and sprout meaningless creationist bullshit. I will not waste further bandwidth responding to you.
ps. If anyone doubts what I just posted, give it a try. Search for "neuro-nets."
As for "removed from this site" it is clear you are the christian troll. If the mods were so inclined, I'm sure you would be baned, not I.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael on
-
You are DEAD WRONG. Read the guideline.
And one more time neuro-net is applied, informally to the general class of circuitry emulating a neural net, including, CPUs and analog processors.
And don't break your arm patting yourself on the back for being able to google or making up high school level derogatory comments in clear violation of the guidelines.
How old are you anyway?
What's new today
Forum
The history of bibleland
Started by Matt Giwer in History, Archaeology, Paleontology 3 minutes ago. 0 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
How Jesus' Views on Marriage Proves Yahweh's Laws are NOT Absolute OR Jesus is Mistaken
Posted by Cathy Cooper on May 17, 2013 at 10:00am 3 Comments 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
