Hacker News Reader

>>you know what I mean

I'm afraid not. Your implication does not really define anything.

>>If you want to argue

I don't. But I'd like to impart the following.

>>If you <snip> maybe you are the type of person that believes in which case our views are inherently different.

That exceedlingly bad form in any sort of argument, and a very weak position to take.

To paraphrase: "If you don't believe in God, then maybe you are just the sort of person who believes not in God, in which case I'm just going to ignore any argument you make anyway because I'm inherently not that sort of person."

Basically it reduces whatever case you're arguing to your personal opinion/ pet theory.

It basically fails falsifiability, because every objection that can be made against your point can be countered with "Yes, but in my mind .... " reducing everything you say to "true", and becomes thus useless for further discourse.

@@gavanwoolery @swa14 - Have you ever tried to argue with a believer of god (from an atheist perspective)?

"God" was just a drop-in example to illustrate the point in arguing with someone who believes in his opinion so strongly that arguing against it would automatically classify that person as "that (opposite) kind of person".

So to answer your question, ironically, yes; in fact, I'm doing so right at this moment.

>It is pretty fruitless, which is why I would advise to avoid it, just as I would advise arguing against me if you believe in mysticism like soul-mates.

"mysticism like soul-mates" are your words and have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

The "type of person" you argue with is not "they who believe in 'mysticism like soul-mates'", but, "They who do not take your inner ideas and values as granted truths".

The point of my post was that the way you put your argument puts it firmly in the "pretty fruitless" category, since it can neither be denied or confirmed. If you want your argument to be given serious though, you would need to rephrase it.

>>Anything which cannot be scientifically proven or disproven (like the existence of a god) generally leads to fruitless arguments.

Which is why token_female's "[citation needed]" was right on the spot.

No, I don't know what you mean, because you seem to be saying that the definition of "sexual health" is to primarily evaluate a subset of humans on their gene-passing potential. "News flash": that's sexual dysfunction.

There are a bunch of different forces at play in the "design" (random evolution to local minima) of humans. There are also a huge set of behaviours that we throw out because we've decided they're not compatible with how we want to live, among them murder, rape, and paedophilia. So if you want to make the case for your "natural" inclination towards the opposite sex, can I assume that you are also a supporter of these "natural" inclinations too?

[citation needed]

I would love to see the study that demonstrates this, controlling for all societal factors.

Do you need a citation if I tell you the sky is blue? What would you argue love is based on? Magical unicorns?

For the claim that all forms of love, respect etc. Boil down to sexual attraction? Yes. I don't know where you've been for the past 40 years, but Freud's theories on sexuality had no basis in empiricism and are no longer accepted among modern psychologists.

If you want to argue a counter theory, that is fine, but simply saying "you are wrong" is not sufficient. Like I said, what biological impulse would YOU account for love? What is the reason for love, evolutionarily speaking? The answer is pretty clear, and is not nearly exclusive to Freud's theories alone.