THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (10456)	4/24/2002 3:47:39 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) of 21057

It seems common sense that making a conscious effort to avoid things that do not contribute to your well being is a wise course of action. I have an aversion to many things that, although having some element of attraction, I consider in the long run to be harmful. Adultery, drinking, gambling for example. I also have aversions to other things that have absolutely no element of attraction. The acts of a coprophiliac for example. I am not attracted to the idea of homosexual acts but can empathise with persons so inclined. I get along just fine with people who are living an alternative (alternative to my own) life style as long as I avoid involvement in salient aspects of the lifestyle itself. Is that phobic? According to the definition floating on this thread we all qualify as creatures existing in a vast multitude of phobias. Well, cept for those that have no aversion to anything???? I haven't met one of those yet btw...but then, I do have an aversion to such people. Relationship "issues" are so messy to discuss. Even if you are a homogeneous group (all heterosexuals for example) it doesn't take long before skinny starts calling fatty names and visa versa (analogous not literal). There are few exeptions. The only one that I know of is when one person loves the other (cares for his/her well being) as much as he/she loves himself/herself. (Notice how hard I am working to be PC here.) This kind of caring is, IMO, impossible without a common belief system. Any other type of intimate relationship is reduced to mutual usury at best. The potential here for betrayal of trust is immense. Why? Because these relationships are needs based only; and when needs are satisfied the usefulness is used up. So the glue of the relationships becomes soluble. When there is an issue of betrayal it never remains confined to the afore mentioned mutually consenting individuals.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next