I will ask mods to sticky this after it gets threadstopped, for now let's pack it full of the most important information a new /prog/star needs to know.
When He Who Transcends All Time and Space wrested us out of the bonds of Egyptian slavery, toppling its pyramid of social caste and shattering its concept of naturalist determinism, it was then that freedom first entered the world. If anywhere today human beings strive for a better world, their story begins with that Exodus. Not just because slaves were freed. Not just because the simple serf could cry to the Master of the Universe as his own Father and the laws of nature would be broken for him if only he comprehends the secrets of the Torah. But because the humanity was lifted outside and beyond the circle, no longer enslaved to the tyrannical millstone of the gods of Nature, Time and Fate. It was then that sentient life on earth was empowered and told, "Take your destiny in your hands my child. Go forward. If this is not a world with which you can make peace, change it, make it so. If you find suffering, banish it. If your karma stinks, get past it. Never be satisfied. Be not the prisoner of fate but its master. Become the mater of the Universe my child, and take the planet for all it's worth."
We haven't had vaginal/anal sex yet. We've done plenty of oral and mutual masturbation, but she's too afraid of being penetrated. She doesn't finger herself and won't use tampons. I think she was raped as a kid and just doesn't remember, but she says she wasn't.
Anyways, I crushed up a 2mg Xanax and put it in a hot cup of tea. She drank it and got all loopy. I got to finger her after half an hour of kissing, and then while she was all loopy I fucked her.
Now she thinks the haze was just from losing her virgininity, but I feel insanely guilty. Is it rape if she's proud of herself for facing fears of penetration even if I doped her?
>>12
#1 Don't give her any more xanax. =/ or anything else.
#2 If she still doesn't want to do it again, then it was a massive failure.. otherwise, i'd say it wasn't entirely evil, but still pretty bad.. What would she think if she knew?
>>12
Did she actively choose to be drugged? If not, she couldn't consent to sex.
Name:
Anonymous2013-05-14 3:16
>>16
Did she actively choose to be in a relationship with a person lacking the brain capacity necessary to grasp the concept of consent? If not, she couldn't consent to sex.
>>12
I know I'm replying to kopipe, but why would one absolutely desire vaginal/anal penetration? Given the potential ineffectiveness of contraceptive methods as well as the well-known medical risks associated with anal sex, they both sound quite unattractive. Mutual masturbation also has the advantage of added control, considering the great dexterity human hands have evolved over millions of years.
Name:
Anonymous2013-05-14 6:35
Did she actively choose to actively choose to be in a relationship with a person lacking the brain capacity necessary to grasp the concept of consent? If not, she couldn't consent to sex.
>>27
Do you have proof, since you are the opposer.
We are the believers, we are free to believe in anything we choose.
However for one to disprove someone's belief, solid proof must be submitted.
Name:
Anonymous2013-05-14 18:38
>>29
Illogical, it is only needed to prove that something does exist, not the opposite.
Name:
Anonymous2013-05-14 19:03
>>30
Henceforth, if it cannot be proved, it cannot be denied. Just because dark matter is unobservable, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We are confined to the laws of this Universe, the creator of such a thing following logic would be more complex than it's creation. If one cannot fully comprehend the Universe, how is one to comprehend it's architect.
>>29
If P is ``X exists'', Q is ``P is false'', and there exists a proof of P, then using P ⇒ ¬(¬P) and ¬P ≡ Q it is shown that ``A proof of Q does not exist'' has been proven. Likewise, if a proof of Q exists, then it is shown that ``No proof of P can exist''.
Therefore, for each proof of existence of some X, a negative is proved, and this negative is such that proof of this negative assures existence of X. Similarly, for each proof of nonexistence of X, a positive is proved, and this positive is such that its proof assures nonexistence of X.
Name:
Anonymous2013-05-14 19:52
>>30
Says you, says occam.
See? subjective, not objective.
deal with it, atheist.
go back to /sci/, new-atheist kiddies
Name:
Aristotle!AcHRXzpEys2013-05-14 20:11
>>35
Firstly I don't think you understand what an atheist is. I am agnostic. I do indeed only visit /sci/ and /prog/.
I have had plenty of debates with atheists on other forums, my philosophy knowledge is vast.
It is not subjective you pleb, rather completely objective as it's directly correlated to the human condition as a whole.
Let's first define the term logic as "valid human reasoning" and illogic the antithesis.
Within the Universe, the components are subject to the mathematical laws of nature. Before the start of Universe, the basic first law of thermodynamics "energy cannot be created or destroyed" is broken down, along with many other human logics being challenged such as why was it created, what was the purpose of its creation, how, when and so forth.
As we are no way near understanding how the entire universe works as of yet, then logically the architect of such a Universe cannot be understood either. Man is just a minuscule integral part of the Universe, and the Universe will always be more complex than it's components. Now, the creator of such a vast and intricate Universe should be even more complex than its creation, following logic.
We simply can not comprehend the nature of such an entity, in any way or form, and we can not know in any way if our concepts of it are even applicable. I always see people giving human concepts to God but that is anthropomorphizing the Universe itself, which is quite a petty and ignorant thing to do. Neither the Universe nor God would have our perspective of things, nor our way of subjective human understanding.
We know the Universe was created by the big bang, but we can never know what occurred before time existed. Any theory can be created to guess, and mathematical proofs can be bent to do things it was not meant to do (I.e. 0.999999..9 = 1, and 0.999999..9 = 0.999999..9, can both be explained using proofs, which to an extent occurs in String theory [but String theory is not the subject of this thread]). Since every law in Science is broken down before the creation of the Universe, the Universe was illogically created. A logical abstract entity cannot create an illogical thing, only an illogical abstract entity could create an illogical universe.
As strange as it may seem, but that is the only rational answer. The direct opposite of logic is illogic, the Universe's creation was completely opposed to logic. Therefore the creation of the Universe is illogical, thus the creator of the illogical Universe must also be illogical, hence the creator is beyond the human mode of logical comprehension.
Name:
Anonymous2013-05-14 20:16
>>36
But how can you be sure that your reasoning is valid?
>>36 Now, the creator of such a vast and intricate Universe should be even more complex than its creation, following logic.
I agree with some of the points you make, but this is complete and utter bullshit.
>>40
Existing beyond time has nothing to do with it. We can't comprehend something that exists beyond space as well, but very few depictions of a [near] omnipotent deity include being restricted in space. Time has just been a pop physics buzzword since relativity.
Clearly you're trying to comprehend a thing that exists `beyond time,' so just take it one step further and try to comprehend a thing that has no origin. One of the first logical arguments for the existence of a God was `The Unmoved Mover', which uses that exact paradox. It's pretty much what ``I am the Alpha and the Omega'' means, and what all that ``I AM'' stuff is about.
Name:
Anonymous2013-05-14 21:26
>>41 His father was the leader of Beth El Synagogue, the only Conservative congregation in Omaha, Nebraska, while his mother wrote educational Jewish books for children
but ugh, my emotions have been acting up..
And you should've seen me shaking mondy night..
fairly spooked tuesday, kind of grumpy today..
can't believe it =( you didn't... did you..?
...i guess it's not the first time i've been spiked..
probably the closest thing i've had to a date though ;_; it was kind of a date wasn't it?
Anyway, i really don't want to give her anymore sadness.. i know she's already had plenty, and i can't doubt the best intentions were there..
Just i'm a bit confused now i suppose..
You must grasp the counter-intuitive logic, for it goes beyond mere human logic. Before the Universe came into existence, our laws do not apply. Entropy, enthalpy, reason, logic, does not apply. Henceforth any attempt at reasoning with the logic of a creator is beyond out comprehension, for we are parts it's creation, we live in the Universe of logic, created from illogic. However you also get Physicists, who say in accordance with "Mathematical proofs" i.e. Larengian's model, there is a probability of virtual particles spontaneously popping into existence, but the problem herein lies with the application of the laws of this Universe to pre-creation, that is wrong. And nothing is probable, it is all determined. It is unknown factors which cause these seemingly random results, and extremely sensitive initial conditions. Mathematics is the language of nature. Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers. If you graph these numbers, patterns emerge. Therefore there are patterns everywhere in nature. We live in a deterministic Universe.
9:13, Personal note: When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun. So once when I was six I did. The doctors didn't know if my eyes would ever heal. I was terrified, alone in that darkness. Slowly, daylight crept in through the bandages, and I could see. But something else had changed inside of me. That day I had my first headache.
Name:
Anonymous2013-05-16 20:29
>>54
But the burden of ad hominem big words strawman fallacy is on his cognitive non sequitur bias!