VeggieBoards - Reply to Topic
Thread: Polygamy Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
05-02-2008 02:13 AM
Waikikamukau Ahh okay, I thought you were suggesting that people should play bunnies with anyone they think is cute. Gotcha! I agree, emotions shouldn't be denied; that isn't healthy.



Quote:
Originally Posted by sybaritik View Post

No you wouldn't because you'd have been wearing a condom...right?



Well, I could say that a condom isn't always effective, yadda yadda... But when I was a teenager and still drinking and kinda stupid, if I had decided to act on that all the time and hit on anyone I was attracted to? Hm, probably not. Thank goodness I had some control still.
05-02-2008 02:10 AM
sybaritik
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waikikamukau View Post

Hmm, I've certainly felt a bit of lust many times in my life. If I tried to go after that feeling every time I'd probably have a lot of diseases! We don't have to act on everything we feel! Hell, being "civilized" is all about not acting on a lot of emotions. Rage, for example... I'm sure we all know people (and some of you may be this type) who go insane over minor traffic problems. Would you say it's a good thing for them to act on that rage?



There was nothing in my post that you quoted that suggested anything about acting on feelings, I just said that we shouldn't try to deny that we feel them.....acknowledging a feeling doesn't mean that we have to act on it..... I actually agree with you in that we have to make sure that we channel the emotion correctly.





Quote:
If I tried to go after that feeling every time I'd probably have a lot of diseases!



No you wouldn't because you'd have been wearing a condom...right?
05-01-2008 09:21 PM
Waikikamukau We're actually play acting a polygamous arrangement here; the issue that arises when two of the three partners come into conflict with the third and the inherent difficulty with then keeping things reasonable, manageable, equal and finding a good resolution.
05-01-2008 09:16 PM
Skylark Can we try to focus this back on polygamy? Thanks!
05-01-2008 08:52 PM
Kiz WTF??? I just watched it two seconds ago! Let me fix that....



Works for me....



[youtube]Irt18dhFhHw[/youtube]



A longer one, you have to start at about 1:57 for the angerless meeting about self defence.
05-01-2008 08:48 PM
Waikikamukau I remember that one! Man I haven't seen that show in years... The video is gone from youtube, though You lose!



Here, I'm just going to quote wikipedia on anger. I spent years studying psychology in school, this isn't just some wikipediaism. it's the modern psychological view.



Quote:

Modern Psychology



Anger is viewed as a natural and healthy response that has evolved to enable us to deal with threats.[4] Three types of anger are recognized by psychologists: The first form of anger, named "hasty and sudden anger" by Joseph Butler, an 18th century Engish bishop, is connected to the impulse for self-preservation. It is shared between humans and animals and occurs when tormented or trapped. The second type of anger is named "settled and deliberate" anger is a reaction to perceived deliberate harm doing or unfair treatment by others. These two forms anger are episodic. The third type of anger is however dispositional and is related more to character traits than to instincts or cognitions. Irritability, sullenness and churlishness postures are examples of the last form of anger.[14]



Anger can potentially mobilize psychological resources and boost determination toward correction of wrong behaviors, promotion of social justice, communication of negative sentiment and redress of grievances. It can also facilitate patience. On the other hand, anger can be destructive when it does not find its appropriate outlet in expression. Anger, in its strong form, impairs one's ability to process information and to exert cognitive control over his behavior. An angry person may lose his objectivity, empathy, prudence or thoughtfulness and may cause harm to others.[6]



There is a sharp distinction between anger and aggression (verbal or physical, direct or indirect) even though they mutually influence each other. While anger can activate aggression or increase its probability or intensity, it is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for anger.[6]

05-01-2008 08:40 PM
Kiz To lighten up, here is a nice clip about getting rid of "negative" emotions, anger, fear, pride, vanity and guilt. The back story: Crew members displayed all these negative emotions to the point of, well, disaster. They are sucked out of them by a killer polymorphic life form. The crew must find a way to kill the life form or be killed themselves.



(For those people who can't play it embedded here is the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WgUktfdDy4)



[youtube]5WgUktfdDy4[/youtube]
05-01-2008 08:14 PM
nookle Seriously - I am not endorsing not feeling any emotion! I think that there are constructive replacements to anger - particularly in the majority of situations in which we feel them. I am not saying we should be drones.



And I think you can act on injustices without feeling anger - you can know and recognize and feel something to be wrong without being angry about it - and again - the anger does not allow you to accomplish more than you would without it.



Quote:
Why do we feel anger if it is a useless emotion? Would it not have been bred out of all mammals by now if it was solely a harmful thing?



Really? Does everything we feel and do and have and think have a use? I don't think it does. And because we needed it or used it at some point in evolutionary history, it does not follow that it's equally as useful or good or beneficial or even necessary today..... Hmm... this argument sounds familiar.
05-01-2008 08:03 PM
Kiz
Quote:
Originally Posted by nookle View Post

I think this is how it works. You get in a frustrating situation, you get angry. You work through that emotion, fully analyzing it and figuring it out, and then you don't feel it anymore. After this has been done many times, you start to feel less anger, less often. Eventually, these frustrating situations no longer make you angry. Hence the emotion has been 'destroyed'. I think that sounds healthy - not mean and denial-y.



Man! There is a Red Dwarf episode I so have to get you to watch, where members of the crew lose their ability to feel certain emotions, like anger. It's good.
05-01-2008 08:02 PM
Kiz Because if we did not feel anger we would not act on injustices, whether to ourselves or others. Sitting back and watching a wrong perpetrated against oneself or against another, while just feeling love and joy in the watching, or to even just sit back and feel nothing at all - where would that get us in life?



Why do we feel anger if it is a useless emotion? Would it not have been bred out of all mammals by now if it was solely a harmful thing?



I think nookle is the Vulcan here, not Waiki
05-01-2008 08:01 PM
nookle I think this is how it works. You get in a frustrating situation, you get angry. You work through that emotion, fully analyzing it and figuring it out, and then you don't feel it anymore. After this has been done many times, you start to feel less anger, less often. Eventually, these frustrating situations no longer make you angry. Hence the emotion has been 'destroyed'. I think that sounds healthy - not mean and denial-y.
05-01-2008 07:57 PM
nookle Why would you need anger to identify a threat?
05-01-2008 07:55 PM
Waikikamukau
Quote:
Originally Posted by nookle View Post

I disagree - we would be better off identifying what the threat is and using other emotions and our problem solving skills to fix serious problems. The anger itself accomplishes nothing.



The anger accomplishes exactly what I just bolded. Then, once recognized, you say "okay, what can I do about this?" and that's where other emotions come into play. You don't feed the anger, it's just a cue.



Proper use of emotions. That's all I'm talking about.
05-01-2008 07:49 PM
nookle I disagree - we would be better off identifying what the threat is and using other emotions and our problem solving skills to fix serious problems. The anger itself accomplishes nothing.
05-01-2008 07:44 PM
Waikikamukau
Quote:
Originally Posted by nookle View Post

I think there are times where anger may be appropriate - it's still destructive



Anger is actually seen as a fairly positive emotion in psychology; it's supposed to be used as a cue to identify dislikes, life issues and such. It's a good tool.



Letting it turn into rage tends to be inappropriate; yet in our evolutionary past that's probably saved many a life, and even today! Using rage to overcome fear and being able to stop an attacker, for example, is a good thing.



It's all about how you use it...
05-01-2008 07:43 PM
nookle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiz View Post

I know, you are arguing both sides of the issue at once.





That's the inside of my head all the time......
05-01-2008 07:42 PM
nookle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waikikamukau View Post

Feeling rage because of a cat doing that isn't fairly reasonable (I think that's an interesting choice, though, because I'm house sitting for someone and their cat does that)... but it's extremely likely that the rage doesn't just stem from that. People who get angry over many aspects of their life have failed to appropriately deal with that anger. I think that if they had done so, then that rage over the cat wouldn't exist.



I'm just advocating proper use of emotions... Okay, so it'd be better if someone was empty inside rather than a rapist; but wouldn't it be even better if they were a well-managed person instead?



I'd be concerned that someone shutting away their emotions isn't going to know how to deal with difficult situations in any other way. Definitely seems like a slippery slope... instead, know what to do when those emotions arise, don't just turn them off.



But, disagreeing is okay



I think you guys are misunderstanding me... To me, 'dealing with your emotion' is understanding why you feel it, and learning not to feel it inappropriately Not denying it, or shutting it down, or ignoring it, or being empty inside....





Quote:
...if people dealt with their sexuality and frustrations better they wouldn't become rapists. I'd prefer they learn to deal with those issues instead of just destroying them. O



So what is dealing with them if it's not learning to not feel them inappropriately?
05-01-2008 07:35 PM
Kiz
Quote:
Originally Posted by nookle View Post

(multiquotes).





I know, you are arguing both sides of the issue at once.
05-01-2008 07:33 PM
Kiz Appropriate and valid are very different things. Anger is not always destructive though, otherwise it would have been bred out of us a long time ago. Anger can keep us alive.
05-01-2008 07:33 PM
nookle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiz View Post

You can't do any of that if you just declare an emotion invalid. You need to own up to the fact you are feeling it and work from there. The emotion is there. It is real. It's coming from somewhere. Work out where it's coming from. If it's not from the cat crap in the bath then where is it from? Is there an issue in your life causing you grief? Maybe you have a chemical imbalance? Declaring emotions to be invalid and just shutting down goes against your other advice of declaring emotions to be valid and working through them.



...

Quote:
Originally Posted by nookle View Post

... I don't propose that you call yourself a fool and launch into denial or distraction, or beat yourself up - but look at it. Figure out what you feel, and why you feel it - which are all valid processes - and then work on - yes - eradicating it.

05-01-2008 07:32 PM
Waikikamukau Feeling rage because of a cat doing that isn't fairly reasonable (I think that's an interesting choice, though, because I'm house sitting for someone and their cat does that)... but it's extremely likely that the rage doesn't just stem from that. People who get angry over many aspects of their life have failed to appropriately deal with that anger. I think that if they had done so, then that rage over the cat wouldn't exist.



I'm just advocating proper use of emotions... if people dealt with their sexuality and frustrations better they wouldn't become rapists. I'd prefer they learn to deal with those issues instead of just destroying them. Okay, so it'd be better if someone was empty inside rather than a rapist; but wouldn't it be even better if they were a well-managed person instead?



I'd be concerned that someone shutting away their emotions isn't going to know how to deal with difficult situations in any other way. Definitely seems like a slippery slope... instead, know what to do when those emotions arise, don't just turn them off.



But, disagreeing is okay
05-01-2008 07:31 PM
nookle I think there are times where anger may be appropriate - it's still destructive - but that's where dealing with it comes in. It's reasonable to feel angry at a friend who stole your last 10$ that you needed to feed your child. But there are times, and it seems to me that most of the time when we feel anger, that it is inappropriate, and should not be felt for that reason.
05-01-2008 07:28 PM
Kiz
Quote:
Originally Posted by nookle View Post

I guess I disagree. I think some emotions are wrong. Why keep the feeling but channel it constructively - why not work at it until you can change the emotion itself? Sometimes having the feeling itself is a problem, no? Feeling angry because the cat shat in the bath, or because the food is overcooked, or whatever... how is it beneficial to have that feeling, and what is channeling it constructively? Would it not be a great thing to no longer feel angry in a situation like that instead?



You can't do any of that if you just declare an emotion invalid. You need to own up to the fact you are feeling it and work from there. The emotion is there. It is real. It's coming from somewhere. Work out where it's coming from. If it's not from the cat crap in the bath then where is it from? Is there an issue in your life causing you grief? Maybe you have a chemical imbalance? Declaring emotions to be invalid and just shutting down goes against your other advice of declaring emotions to be valid and working through them.
05-01-2008 07:22 PM
nookle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waikikamukau View Post

...... Emotions shouldn't be seen as wrong; it's how you use them. If you're full of anger and sadness and you don't manage them appropriately (in other words, not ignoring them, bottling them up, and such) they can become rage and hatred... .....





I guess I disagree. I think some emotions are wrong. Why keep the feeling but channel it constructively - why not work at it until you can change the emotion itself? Sometimes having the feeling itself is a problem, no? Feeling angry because the cat shat in the bath, or because the food is overcooked, or whatever... how is it beneficial to have that feeling, and what is channeling it constructively? Would it not be a great thing to no longer feel angry in a situation like that instead?
05-01-2008 07:16 PM
Waikikamukau
Quote:
Originally Posted by nookle View Post

And they need to be fixed, and sometimes eradicated. It's not dramatic, it's not mean or heartless, it's understanding yourself, and working to be a better person instead of glossing over your problems with blammer about 'everything being valid and healthy'.



My post has nothing to do with glossing over emotions; in fact, I encourage people to look at them in greater depth. As I said, they need to be channel constructively. Emotions shouldn't be seen as wrong; it's how you use them. If you're full of anger and sadness and you don't manage them appropriately (in other words, not ignoring them, bottling them up, and such) they can become rage and hatred... then you could hurt someone, or yourself. They need to be used in such a way to be clues, guidance and enhancement of life... A lot of people seem to think of emotions as burdensome and want to get rid of them. I could never advocate eradicating emotions... they're a huge part of who we are as people!



...although I would look pretty good with pointy ears.
05-01-2008 07:13 PM
nookle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiz View Post

....They were fired from work, their dinner was burnt and the cat shat in the bath. ... Bad day, maybe they are not good at dealing with things, maybe they are just plumb crazy. ....



Right, but feeling rage because the cat shat in the bath or whatever is not reasonable. It's a completely inappropriate feeling. I don't think it's beneficial in any way to have that feeling. We feel it naturally, yes, and I think most of us do feel that from time to time, I sure as hell do, but it doesn't make it 'valid'. I don't propose that you call yourself a fool and launch into denial or distraction, or beat yourself up - but look at it. Figure out what you feel, and why you feel it - which are all valid processes - and then work on - yes - eradicating it.
05-01-2008 07:08 PM
nookle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waikikamukau View Post

Agreed; emotions should never be treated like they're an error in your personality to be destroyed. If it's a "negative" emotion, it's all about channeling it appropriately; not decrying its existence.....



I think that when you are assessing yourself, it is absolutely fair to consider an emotion a problem. It does sound a bit harsh to say that it's an error in your personality, as that implies that there is something wrong with the way you're constructed...or something. But definitely there are emotions that people have that are problematic, pointless, destructive and dangerous, so therefore 'wrong'. And they need to be fixed, and sometimes eradicated. It's not dramatic, it's not mean or heartless, it's understanding yourself, and working to be a better person instead of glossing over your problems with blammer about 'everything being valid and healthy'.
05-01-2008 07:06 PM
Kiz
Quote:
Originally Posted by nookle View Post

Bleeblooblah. Ok, you're right - that was not the right word, necessarily..... but - your emotion, and how you feel may be valid, and should be respected, but it doesn't necessarily mean the emotion is reasonable or good or healthy. A bit like a child having a tantrum - or for that matter, an adult having a tantrum. The fact that they are feeling this right now means their feelings are very real, and should be respected - but not necessarily 'valid'. Does that make sense?



No, the person throwing the tantrum has feelings that are perfectly valid. They were fired from work, their dinner was burnt and the cat shat in the bath. They are expressing their emotions in an unhelpful manner but that does not somehow mean their emotions are invalid and meaningless. There is a reason they feel that way. Bad day, maybe they are not good at dealing with things, maybe they are just plumb crazy. But even people with severe mental and emotional disorders have valid emotions. Dismissing then as not being valid, as not really existing in the same way "good" emotions exist, is an approach that I disagree with.
05-01-2008 06:55 PM
Waikikamukau
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiz View Post

Not "valid"? I can see an emotion being harmful, destructive or having a negative impact on one's life but not "valid"?



Agreed; emotions should never be treated like they're an error in your personality to be destroyed. If it's a "negative" emotion, it's all about channeling it appropriately; not decrying its existence.



Quote:
Originally Posted by sybaritik View Post

Anytime we try to deny feelings that we really feel, it ends up coming back to biting us in the arse in some way later on down the track.



Hmm, I've certainly felt a bit of lust many times in my life. If I tried to go after that feeling every time I'd probably have a lot of diseases! We don't have to act on everything we feel! Hell, being "civilized" is all about not acting on a lot of emotions. Rage, for example... I'm sure we all know people (and some of you may be this type) who go insane over minor traffic problems. Would you say it's a good thing for them to act on that rage?
05-01-2008 06:50 PM
nookle Bleeblooblah. Ok, you're right - that was not the right word, necessarily..... but - your emotion, and how you feel may be valid, and should be respected, but it doesn't necessarily mean the emotion is reasonable or good or healthy. A bit like a child having a tantrum - or for that matter, an adult having a tantrum. The fact that they are feeling this right now means their feelings are very real, and should be respected - but not necessarily 'valid'. Does that make sense?
This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off