Did you post that information in your reply to me because you thought I already had it? Of course not. You have shared that information with someone who didn't have it, and certainly had no need for it.
You've done something that the guy with the billboard didn't do. If you can't take responsibility for it, you should probably stop doing it.
You're missing the point.Purpose can simply be the result of an object coming into existence; whether the specific purpose it is serving was intended, or not. In this way, may biological functions have purpose.
You've gotta be joking. This is public information, it is not protected by the same right to privacy. I suppose you would agree then, that every time someone posts a thread with a news article in it, he is violating the privacy of all persons involved in the article?
Please be careful with your language. It is vitally important in this debate to understand the nuance between "human" (adj) and "a human" (n). There are lots of things that are human and alive which do not enjoy a right to live. Particularly, a right to life is entitled to persons, and persons are born.So, for you, humanity boils down to an IQ?
You're missing the point.
Purpose is only purpose to someone. It is subjective. To Alex Rodriguez, a the purpose of holding a baseball bat is to knock base hits into right-center field. To someone else, a the purpose of holding a baseball bat may be to use as a defensive weapon against home invasion.
You cannot state objectively that either of these things are the purpose of a baseball bat. They are merely several of its functions. The bat itself can serve any number of purposes to different people.
To you the purpose of sex may be to procreate. To me the purpose of sex is to have a pleasurable intimate experience with someone I care about. Neither of these things is the purpose of sex. Objectively, these are merely some of its functions.
So no, there is no purpose to sex except that which we individually give it. It is false to state factually that the purpose of sex is pregnancy.
Please be careful with your language. It is vitally important in this debate to understand the nuance between "human" (adj) and "a human" (n). There are lots of things that are human and alive which do not enjoy a right to live. Particularly, a right to life is entitled to persons, and persons are born.
Let's focus on the point, rather than on how defensive you're feeling.
The BF didn't make that information public, as I stated in the post you decided to argue with. I got more info from you than from his billboard.
And since you didn't share any information as part of a news article, your question is irrelevant.
I have not stepped back. I have had to be more explicit with my statements because you did not understand that when speaking factually, and without specifying the referent who is giving the purpose to sex, sex does not have a purpose.To be fair, you've stepped back from discussing how biological functions cannot have purpose and moved once again to your personal perception of sex.
Wrong. Untrue. False. Did you not grasp a single point in my previous post? Things do not come into being for an objective purpose. Read that again. Individuals ascribe purpose to things based on their own values. Nothing has purpose until someone assigns a purposeful value to it.An object/action can have secondary purposes aside from the primary purpose for which it came into existence .. having secondary effects does not preclude a purpose.
Here you continue to talk about a nonsensical entity: objective purpose. You do not get to tell me what the purpose of sex is. I don't get to tell you what the purpose of sex is, either. The reason is that the purpose of any thing is unique to each individual, because individuals give them purpose.To have a pleasurable intimate experience with someone is absolutely a reason to have sex (perhaps the best), but not the primary purpose for which the act is in existence.
Baseless assertion.Sex is pleasurable because it has a required function (reproduction), not because it just "happens" to also be pleasurable.
Purpose is a value. It is the value of any thing which can lead to an individual fulfillment.Would you please define purpose.
You can say that a broom has a common purpose to the vast majority of people, but you cannot say that the "primary purpose" of a broom is one thing or another. That would be nothing more than stating that to you the "primary purpose" is one thing. To me the primary purpose may be something else entirely.I would agree that many things may have multiple purposes, and that many things may not have a primary purpose; but I maintain that there are some things that have an absolute primary purpose (which does not prevent any number of secondary purposes).
Purpose is a value. It is the value of any thing which can lead to an individual fulfillment.
Example: I like clean floors. The purpose of owning a broom is to fulfill my value of clean floors. My little brother likes to play stickball. To him, the purpose of the broom is to feature a lovely handle for batting balls in the street. Objectively, the broom has no purpose. It's just a stick with straw fastened to the end of it. It takes and individual with an objective that can see a function of the broom to give it purpose.
You're asking a nonsensical -- or at least incomplete -- question. The human eye does not have a purpose independent of any individual. TO ME its purpose is to look at lovely female humans. To another it might be to read lengthy novels. To cannibals it might be a delicious ingredient in soup.What is the purpose of the human eye?
You're asking a nonsensical -- or at least incomplete -- question. The human eye does not have a purpose independent of any individual. TO ME its purpose is to look at lovely female humans. To another it might be to read lengthy novels. To cannibals it might be a delicious ingredient in soup.
You would be making a false statement. If you said that to you the purpose of the eye is to see, your statement would be true.What if I said the purpose of the eye is to see, to provide visual stimulus to the brain?
That one thing has a common purpose to the vast majority of people, even if it were the same to ALL people, it does not suddenly earn an "objective purpose."Even in your final example; wouldn't you have to agree that even to a cannibal the primary purpose would be to see, and not to eat? If that were not the case, would he not remove his eye and consume it?
That one thing has a common purpose to the vast majority of people, even if it were the same to ALL people, it does not suddenly earn an "objective purpose."
I don't know how to make this more simple.If it were the same to ALL people, and ALL people agreed, would ALL people be wrong?
I'm not "carrying" it anywhere. This is the nature of purpose. It has always been this way.How far can this lack of absolutes be carried? I mean really, aren't we just discussion philosophy?
I don't know how to make this more simple.
Nobody is wrong about the purpose of something to them -- just like nobody is "wrong" about their favorite color. If red was everyone's favorite color it wouldn't magically become the "best" color. You can't vote a subjective truth into objective fact.
I'm not "carrying" it anywhere. This is the nature of purpose. It has always been this way.
Objective reality simply exists. You can talk about causal factors which may have preceded something that exists, but calling it a "reason" for something's existence begins to obscure the distinction between objective fact and subjective projection. Furthermore, since objective reality is the purview of science, or at the very least a posteriori truth, nothing about it can be "absolute."I understand your point, perhaps I'm simply to used to the colloquial usage of the word "purpose." Do you extend this point to imply that is always impossible to define the reason for something's existence absolutely, as this would be assigning absolute purpose?
When did man actually own a woman's uterus?
never
When did man actually own a woman's uterus?
never
This.
/thread
It's his right to be a total douchebag, but he has absolutely no rights when it comes to his ex's babymaker.