but that's simply from a biological standpoint.



that's assuming a stance that behavior is influenced by genes, biological determinism.



it also brings up a point. it doesn't really answer the issue 'what is the point of life'.


it brings up a precursor, which is 'why are we here in the first place?'


you could take a nihilist approach and say, 'there is no point to us being here. all life is trite and meaningless.'


there are a million other approaches you could take.


while sex prodominantly plays a procreation role, there are so many other facets to it added by society and personal beliefs.


christian values have placed it as a gift, only to be experienced after marriage.

but, sex in humans, and even mammalia in general, is more than just procreation, maybe even it was intended to be.

sex is not the only factor in a rabbit's survival.


while continuing its genetic code is of great concern, in a Darwinistic sense, self-preservation is a greater motivating factor that encompasses the need to reproduce.

it does not apply to humans.


there are some who choose never to have kids and so do not.


and yet they do not find their existence meaningless.


there is no way to prove the 'point of life'[as of yet], as it will result in a circular argument.

saying that reproduction is the point of life is a truism.

yes, it represents a great motivating factor, but for the most part, and especially in human civilization, it does not hold true.

Life has no purpose other than to exist, nor does it need any. It just so happens that life must reproduce to continue to exist. But that doesn't mean that reproduction is the purpose of life. I refuse to believe that the meaning of life is something so base as plain sex. And humans aren't anything like rabbits, except that we're both mammals and therefore share some physiological similarities.

Of course... I really do need to experience it before I comment on it. I'm gonna go get on that.

EDIT: TBB beat me to the punch and definitely said something intelligent and probably something I sort of agree with. But I can't really be bothered to read all of that. Especially with like, three lines between every sentence.

existing for the sake of existing hardly proves that we have a purpose.


a circular arrangement that perpetuates itself.




it's not logical.

We have no purpose that I can discern. Does matter need a purpose for existence? Does something need to be to be? I wouldn't think so.

but that is what you're saying.



that we just are.




there may not be any purpose. there may be.

i'm arguing the point of life, not the fact that it might not have one.[which i still covered with my nihilism comment.]

I have no idea what nihilism is. But I think I should shut up now because I've helped to contribute to the hijacking of this thread.

Good god, I still can't believe a thread that I have created has gotten past one page. Hoo-wee.

Sir, you have made my day by saying this. I cannot stop grinning now.

Yes, this is a true statement. Yet also slightly false. Yes, they do not feel meaningless. But say they do not breed, and die. Since they have not continued their respective family tree, they have not started a new generation of their familys' offspring, therefore, making their famliy tree slightly pointless.

Now, if we all stopped breeding, would sex not seem like the meaning of life? So, in a sense, reproduction is the meaning of life. But why we are here is a different story. "Why are monkeys here?", you might ask. "Why are single celled amoeba here?" . No particular reason in general. I guess it is because a planet evolved to have some sort of watery surface, and it wasn't cleaned for a while, moss following. Bacteria grows off the moss, and eventually evolves into some sort of being.

Remember peepz, I try to be as non-offensive in my posts as possible. If it seems like I am argueing with you, in a non-happy way, kick me in the balls. Like, real hard. And thatbluebastard, you are really adding to this conversation, and for that I thank you :)

nihilism is skepticism to the extreme.


it is the belief that all values are without base and that nothing can ever truly be known.


in it's earliest use, nihilists were revolutionaries in 19th-century Russia that believed by destroying existing social and political anchors and institutions, change could be initiated and that that was, in fact, the ONLY way to instigate change.


in its modern day interpretation, nihilism is the belief[much like i described above] that traditional values and morals are pointless.


and to a further extreme, that nothing has value.


if nothing has value and you put value on nothing, then everything and anything is pointless.


i would go on some more about it, but it's an interesting subject that has many facets to it.



supermunch, you cannot define someone's life with your own views on purpose.


you say that that person's life is pointless because they did not propagate.


why? in what sense?



and the spontaneous generation theory is so ridiculous, it's amazing.


by simply forgoing reproduction[a theme explored in many books and movies, one being Y: The Last Man], this does not invoke purpose.

it may make the human species extinct, but it does not mean that procreation was the point to life.


this is akin to saying that if a burrito's purpose is unknown and is to be eaten, but does not get eaten, that being eaten was its purpose.

How quickly the conversation turns.

The question of purpose is a question no human can answer, or ever will. It amazes me when some people speak as if they can even comprehend life. I mean, what is anything? All the knowledge we have came from others just like us, independent beings who had to be taught how things are by way of example. Nobody actually understands what is actually going on. What we do is follow the herd, but who is leading? Nobody. Everyone acts as if they know what they're doing, they don't. We've developed culture to put this stuff into some kind of logical sense. We are now processed to beleive that there are certain ways of doing things and this is this, is that. The truth is we're all confused and alone, but because we have a false sense of togetherness and knowledge, we just go with it. I have nothing against this way of life and I enjoy living it this way. My point is nobody has the answers, and if they say they do, they have a false sense of reality. I keep an open mind, and beleive anything is possible, thinking anything less is just egotistical.

I'm not defining life by my opinion, but simply stating my opinion. You can agree or disagree.

Yes, it was rather stupid, yes. But then again, we do not know how we got here for sure...

But isn't the point of a burritos existence to be eaten? I mean, what other choice does it have except 'not be eaten'? Then again, burritos are more sentient than some forum users... :p

I'm not saying it is completely pointless, as I said that your view previously stated on life was true. I'm just saying, it is pretty much 50-50. The person life may not be pointless, but their sex life/ non-sex life was... Not to mention their previous kin's persistence to breed.

Wow, we have sort of trod off the topic of "Children dating"... Who thinks it's moral, or immoral? Myself, I think it is immoral, for previously stated reaons, many of which were not stated my moi. Anyway, I think it is just stupid and obviously peer-pressure induced.

Children socializing in a friendly manner and learning how to act around members of the opposite sex = good.

Children trying to act like adults = bad.

You'll notice I didn't use the word "dating". You can come up with your own definition of dating. That's more a matter of opinion than anything else.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

If humans were rabbits, we've could've died from having way too much sex.

this entire paragraph is a truism.


it's redundant.

but a sex life is vastly unimportant[in traditional views] compared to that of life itself.



a burrito could have infinite purpose. but that's mincing words.




i was just arguing the fact that you stated a person's life[or their predecessors] becomes pointless if they do not breed as an objective truth.



shit double post. my bad.


anyways, i may yet continue this. but i am tired and must go to sleep.

Couldn't have been said any better, TheRaisin. I agree that children need to learn how to act properly around the opposite sex at a young age, otherwise they may turn out to be a sexist person. Or worse.

But what I am reffering to is children trying to act 'adult', per se. Which I find immoral and stupid. But that is just my opinion.

Only in certain matters. I prefer adults to children in most situations :p
I was raised around many adults and few other children, it made me the mature and sensible person I am today. I now feel much more comfortable around older people and I hate children.

Children should strive to be intelligent and grown up, but not pre-teen lovers.

The kids round my age 13-14 all swear it was there time to smoke get drunk everything you'd expect you'd only do when your 18!, it's madness.

Thank you for reviewing my words. I'm glad to know you'll be evaluating peoples opinions.

You have good points, but this could go on forever considering there is no answer to the question you ask.

it's my right to review an opinion.



what you say is akin to saying, 'napoleon dynamite is a movie because it's a movie'



there isn't a definitive answer, but that doesn't stop debate.

I'm a teenager and I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I have some questions that might be taken that way.
What seperates a child from and adult? When we turn 16 or 18 do we magically transform out of innocence or something? I guess that might sound retarded but do you get what I'm saying?

And about the life without meaning thing some have posted I'd like to ask some more questions.
If you think that our lives don't have a purpose then do you believe the universe has a purpose? Maybe you think it does, but you believe we as humans can't know it? If you came face to face with truth do you think you would know it?

Obviously I'm hinting towards something with this second part, as I am a Christian, but I'd like to read your answers.

I prefer adults to children, but adults can sometimes be worse. When a child acts childish or petty or what have you, it's because he or she can't control him- or herself, or he or she hasn't learned how to behave. But adults can be just as petty, nasty, and cruel. The difference is that adults know exactly what they're doing. When an adult says something hurtful, it's because they want it to hurt. When they do something cruel, it's for the sake of being cruel. And of course, an adult's power to inflict harm is much greater than that of a child. An adult can hit someone where it hurts.

Of course, without adults there would be no art worth mentioning. Children can't experience real love or hate, anguish, heartbreak, ennui, any of the intense and deep emotions that lead to the creation of meaningful art.

So they have to grow up sometime. But they should enjoy their youth while they have it. I acted weird for years (I'm only just growing out of it). I wouldn't presume to say that I acted like an adult, but I certainly didn't act my age. My ettiquette, my vocabulary, my knowledge of natural science were all downright anomalous for a person of my age. But obviously it doesn't do to act older than you are when you're a little kid. I never acted like a kid when I was supposed to, and look how I turned out.

On an unrelated note, TBB, I am pleased at your use of the universal metaphor, the burrito, in this . . . d word (like an argument, but with bigger words involved). I love using the burrito as an example in any philosophical or theological debate. Like, "Could God make a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?".

I never said it wasn't. you can say anything you want. I was just pointing out your labeling of my opinion without a reasonable explanation.

Unlike life, we can find out who created it and why, so I'm not sure how that comparison applies.

it doesn't need a reasonable explanation.


i don't know how much clearer i can make it, short of creating a short film for you, sending it to the Sundance Film Festival, getting it aired on HBO, then making sure you're watching at primetime.



the napoleon dynamite comment was a situational definition of what a truism is.



other words that are similar are cliché.


it's a self-evident truth.

Okay seriously, this has gotten way off-topic. Some people are no longer talking about anything even remotely related to children dating. I must protest to this hijacking.

Okay, how about this: I can't believe that kids that young are dating. Most kids I know 13 and under won't go near each other because of girl/boy germs.

One camp that I led 12/13 year olds we ran a whole program in which every game we played was planned to maximise intra-gender contact, just because we thought it was silly that they ran away from each other and also we wanted some good on-camp gossip.

That's all I'm asking for.

13? u serious?

by 10 and a half I was encouraging the girl germs :)

Maybe in Oz we're a bit more sezually repressed. Hell, I just noticed I mispelled 'sexually'

For once I agree with you. Kids of that age think they are being cool when they smoke and get drunk. Luckily I somehow managed to fight right trough that phase of life and that left me a non smoker and drinker. A fact Im still verry proud off.

Anywayz, isn't this subject dead yet? I thought about everything was said by now O.o.

A girl I know who (a couple of years ago) was in year 1 said she was 'dating'. Now that's madness! Year 1 is waaay too young to have a boyfriend (or a girlfriend) if you ask me and any sensible person.

It's impossible for anyone in that age group to date or have a sexual relationship. They don't have the balls to do it.

It's more wierd if your'e having an affair at the age of 13!, yes my friend is cheating on his girlfriend.

TMM, what in the world is year 1? And how old is someone who is "in year 1"?

1 year old

You are joking, of course.

Does year 1 refer to like, the first year of school or something?

Most likely the first year of highschool, which would set the age to 12-13...

12 to 13? In the U.S. it's like fourteen to fifteen. Which would not be too young, in my opinion. But I would like to hear from The Marching Mudokon since he brought it up and presumably knows what he's talking about . . .

I was 13 when I began HS.......

Sorry I should have explained that better. Year 1 is the first year of primary school in Australia so she would have only been 5 or 6.

Well lets make clear that a 5 year old does NOT know what a date is in the first place. A normal 5 year old doesn't even see a girl as a potential life (or sex for that matter) partner O.o