• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

How valid are human beings when they are old and unattractive?


  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic
⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#1 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,096 posts
  • 229

Posted 17 February 2010 - 07:56 PM


I hate to create a post like this but I have been thinking alot about this subject lately. What validates people the most in life? Obviously socio-sexual factors. This is probably 95% of the purpose of our existence outside of artistry (note very few people become professional creative artists). So in the absence of this validating factor what point is there in further existing? Could this be the reason why so many middle-aged and older people seem cynical and miserable? Have they, in effect, out lived their usefulness? And is this cynicism and misery healthy for society as a whole? Does it bring us down? Destroy the fabric of our existence as a society? Let's discuss this because I feel it is a very important psychological issue we all need to face, young, old, middle aged, whatever. And be brutally honest, don't hold anything back. Show your compassion and your anger in the same breath if you must.

#2 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 60
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 17 February 2010 - 08:07 PM

Just so you know, Power has an sexual attractiveness of it's own, and is extremely validating.
Note the politicians having affairs with younger women.

If you play things right, you can trade youth for money and/or power.

#3 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 17 February 2010 - 08:32 PM

I was about to write a long post dissecting every shred of your absurd logic.

But I won't. You are going to be a very miserable person before very much longer if this is the way you think. Rejuvenating technologies robust enough to reverse what you fear most (not looking quite as sexy?! seriously?!) won't be here that soon. Enjoy.

Edited by eternaltraveler, 17 February 2010 - 08:33 PM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#4 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 17 February 2010 - 08:59 PM

I hate to create a post like this but I have been thinking alot about this subject lately. What validates people the most in life? Obviously socio-sexual factors. This is probably 95% of the purpose of our existence outside of artistry (note very few people become professional creative artists). So in the absence of this validating factor what point is there in further existing? Could this be the reason why so many middle-aged and older people seem cynical and miserable? Have they, in effect, out lived their usefulness? And is this cynicism and misery healthy for society as a whole? Does it bring us down? Destroy the fabric of our existence as a society? Let's discuss this because I feel it is a very important psychological issue we all need to face, young, old, middle aged, whatever. And be brutally honest, don't hold anything back. Show your compassion and your anger in the same breath if you must.


What validates people the most in life is their abilities and potentials of their 5 senses, their ability to think, and the opportunities that abound in this mysterious shot here at existence.

If along the way people have a shiny gold bracelet, thats just an infinitely small fraction of what it means to exist. If along the way they have smooth skin that makes people want to try to win them over so they can get in bed with them then that is just one tiny small miniscule, insignificant in the scheme of things, peice of this almost unrealistically ginormous mysterious puzzle and play ground here.

Sexuality is an overpowering urge not because it is so pioneering and productive and out of this world in and of itself. Its that way because its programmed that way. The chemicals in the body force most people to think about sexuality. Those chemicals could be hypothetically, and in some cases can be, programmed to create just about any urge.

If you ask me sexuality is becoming more of a relic of times coming to pass and is more of a scourge to this day and age than anything. I like to say that if people didnt have to think about dating and getting together with so much of their time then the industrial and technological revolutions and others would have probably been here thousands of years ago because people would have had more time to devote to innovation and progress.

Older people with less sexuality dont bring us down, theyre lessened sexuality makes them more equiped to help bring us up. Of course, Im not against sexuality, I do though wish there was a switch that would allow us to turn it on and off. I dont want to think about women all day long any more than I want to think about picking blue berries or painting houses all day long. I cant wait until Im older and that urge subsides more.

I cant wait until a time when we have developed methods, maybe drugs, maybe therapies, maybe computer interfaces, or whatever it may be, that will allow us to have urges on these same kinds of levels that allow us to put more of our focus into things like exploring the universe, seeking out the big questions of existence, innovating more, digging deeper into the possibilities of sub atomic particles and combinations of technologies, etc...

Existence represents a far, far greater opportunity to us here than sexuality.

#5 kenj

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Copenhagen.

Posted 17 February 2010 - 09:37 PM

I hate to create a post like this but I have been thinking alot about this subject lately. What validates people the most in life? Obviously socio-sexual factors. This is probably 95% of the purpose of our existence outside of artistry (note very few people become professional creative artists). So in the absence of this validating factor what point is there in further existing? Could this be the reason why so many middle-aged and older people seem cynical and miserable? Have they, in effect, out lived their usefulness? And is this cynicism and misery healthy for society as a whole? Does it bring us down? Destroy the fabric of our existence as a society? Let's discuss this because I feel it is a very important psychological issue we all need to face, young, old, middle aged, whatever. And be brutally honest, don't hold anything back. Show your compassion and your anger in the same breath if you must.


In case this ^^ is not a 'trolling' post; -

I think this kind of view, (cynicism) is your *own* perception of the consequence of 'aging': as soon as you lose the 'socio-sexual factor' you are more susceptible to being an outcast, and not being accepted. IMO, this is a very inflammatory (and paradoxically 'pro-aging') 'mindset' to adapt, and will only lead to misery, - until we can actually cure aging :-), - because -roughly speaking- each neXt day puts you in a more sad state than the previous (despite creams and pills, and diets, etc.), -- you're no fool, you know that the grim reaper is waiting, and your 'socio-sexual' factor eventually fades out.
Perhaps think of aging as a developing phenomenon, like a fine wine gets better with age, --instead of aging being simple liquidation of Life.

I'd recommend you reading and/or refreshing the 2006 book "Healthy At 100" by John Robbins, - with much elegance he describes the long-lived cultures of the world, and they all have a very positive attitude toward aging, and respect their elders exactly like a Fine Wine with much eXperience and wisdom, and deep understanding of Life. Age-related disease as we know it, is almost absent in these cultures. No, this is no plaster saint or random fairytale, but a well researched book, IMO. And, very interestingly, these people remain very productive into very old age.

I've looked abit into the 'rebuilding' and 'anti-stress' hormone oxytocin, which seems to be produced and increased by forming meaningful relationships. In this regard it makes sense to me, that there is a purpose for people over the hill, also when the 'socio-sexual' trump is fading, or should I say 'sexual' trump. If you age with grace and still think you have a place in this world when the first wrinkle becomes evident, you may radiate a wonderful 'fresh' maturity in life, and attract your surroundings, which will only help you age slower, and possibly protect you from diseases.
Ultimately you just have to open your arms, being the young..... Part of the deal.

#6 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,096 posts
  • 229

Posted 18 February 2010 - 04:04 AM

Just so you know, Power has an sexual attractiveness of it's own, and is extremely validating.
Note the politicians having affairs with younger women.

If you play things right, you can trade youth for money and/or power.


This isn't really socio-sexual in the sense of sheer biological efficacy. Yea these old politicians can get some young meat but that is the problem, it is essentially cattle they are gaining access to. When it comes to the relationship of young females to older males it is always the relationship of commodity to consumer. What a depressing state of affairs. I am not sure I would want this when I get older. I'd prefer both the sex and the more transcendent aspect of the relationship equally. Besides do you really think may of these old men have the sexual potency to do much with their acquisitions? Money doesn't make your blood flow where it needs to if you get my meaning.

#7 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,096 posts
  • 229

Posted 18 February 2010 - 04:08 AM

I hate to create a post like this but I have been thinking alot about this subject lately. What validates people the most in life? Obviously socio-sexual factors. This is probably 95% of the purpose of our existence outside of artistry (note very few people become professional creative artists). So in the absence of this validating factor what point is there in further existing? Could this be the reason why so many middle-aged and older people seem cynical and miserable? Have they, in effect, out lived their usefulness? And is this cynicism and misery healthy for society as a whole? Does it bring us down? Destroy the fabric of our existence as a society? Let's discuss this because I feel it is a very important psychological issue we all need to face, young, old, middle aged, whatever. And be brutally honest, don't hold anything back. Show your compassion and your anger in the same breath if you must.


In case this ^^ is not a 'trolling' post; -

I think this kind of view, (cynicism) is your *own* perception of the consequence of 'aging': as soon as you lose the 'socio-sexual factor' you are more susceptible to being an outcast, and not being accepted. IMO, this is a very inflammatory (and paradoxically 'pro-aging') 'mindset' to adapt, and will only lead to misery, - until we can actually cure aging :-), - because -roughly speaking- each neXt day puts you in a more sad state than the previous (despite creams and pills, and diets, etc.), -- you're no fool, you know that the grim reaper is waiting, and your 'socio-sexual' factor eventually fades out.
Perhaps think of aging as a developing phenomenon, like a fine wine gets better with age, --instead of aging being simple liquidation of Life.

I'd recommend you reading and/or refreshing the 2006 book "Healthy At 100" by John Robbins, - with much elegance he describes the long-lived cultures of the world, and they all have a very positive attitude toward aging, and respect their elders exactly like a Fine Wine with much eXperience and wisdom, and deep understanding of Life. Age-related disease as we know it, is almost absent in these cultures. No, this is no plaster saint or random fairytale, but a well researched book, IMO. And, very interestingly, these people remain very productive into very old age.

I've looked abit into the 'rebuilding' and 'anti-stress' hormone oxytocin, which seems to be produced and increased by forming meaningful relationships. In this regard it makes sense to me, that there is a purpose for people over the hill, also when the 'socio-sexual' trump is fading, or should I say 'sexual' trump. If you age with grace and still think you have a place in this world when the first wrinkle becomes evident, you may radiate a wonderful 'fresh' maturity in life, and attract your surroundings, which will only help you age slower, and possibly protect you from diseases.
Ultimately you just have to open your arms, being the young..... Part of the deal.


This reasoning reminds me of the 'make them feel useful' argument. Why? Is this a genuine extension of their usefulness or are we as a society making it up to humour them? And while I appreciate your candor your post does not address the fundamental issue of the one big validating factor in life, socio-sexual efficacy. Basically, by your reasoning, old people retreat into sexual passivity and become like children who we must all use reverse psychology with so they feel as if their lives mean more than just being dried out has beens. Don't get me wrong I have lots of compassion for older people but aren't we being a bit condescending when we try our hardest to make them 'feel useful'? Let's dive head first into this conversation. No holds barred! Empty the pool and dive in!

#8 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,096 posts
  • 229

Posted 18 February 2010 - 04:16 AM

You are going to be a very miserable person before very much longer if this is the way you think. Rejuvenating technologies robust enough to reverse what you fear most (not looking quite as sexy?! seriously?!) won't be here that soon. Enjoy.


So you're saying that rejuvenating technologies won't be here in about 20 years (roughly by the time I am about 45)? I think this seems like a cynical disposition for someone who fights every day for such break throughs. My understanding is that technology is like any other novelty throughout history in that it incurs at random intervals. There is no telling the exact moment the break through will be made. Could be 50 years, could be tomorrow. This is a more optimistic perspective.

#9 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 18 February 2010 - 05:07 AM

Older people are usually nicer, not more cynical O_o

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#10 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 18 February 2010 - 05:11 AM

You are going to be a very miserable person before very much longer if this is the way you think. Rejuvenating technologies robust enough to reverse what you fear most (not looking quite as sexy?! seriously?!) won't be here that soon. Enjoy.


So you're saying that rejuvenating technologies won't be here in about 20 years (roughly by the time I am about 45)? I think this seems like a cynical disposition for someone who fights every day for such break throughs. My understanding is that technology is like any other novelty throughout history in that it incurs at random intervals. There is no telling the exact moment the break through will be made. Could be 50 years, could be tomorrow. This is a more optimistic perspective.



They might not be here in even 200 years :/

#11 Traclo

  • Guest, F@H
  • 101 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Ontario

Posted 18 February 2010 - 07:43 AM

Ok, a few questions and comments.

I hate to create a post like this but I have been thinking alot about this subject lately. What validates people the most in life?

First, validates? What exactly do you mean by validates? To whom? Society? Because if you mean to suggest that life only has meaning if it is useful to society then you need to take an honest hard look at your values, because you may find them wanting.
Either way please clarify what you mean, because much of your argument rests on this rather vague term. You don't need to define everything. Only the things that your entire argument rests on.

Obviously socio-sexual factors. This is probably 95% of the purpose of our existence outside of artistry (note very few people become professional creative artists). So in the absence of this validating factor what point is there in further existing?

Ignoring the problems with the previous stuff let's take a look at this. You suggest that socio-sexual factors are the main 'purpose' for existence, and these socio-sexual factors are primarily defined by our 'attractiveness'. I don't believe that you can possibly mean this. Can you really suggest that those who aren't 'attractive' (Whoo boy that definition's a landmine too) have no value?

If so why restrict it to old and middle aged people? What about those who aren't 'attractive' even in their youth? Are they too without any value?
Following your logic we must kill all those who aren't attractive and/or socially competent enough, because after all they are without value AND are using resources.
Reductio ad absurdum.

Could this be the reason why so many middle-aged and older people seem cynical and miserable? Have they, in effect, out lived their usefulness? And is this cynicism and misery healthy for society as a whole? Does it bring us down? Destroy the fabric of our existence as a society?

Bait and switch. You, my friend, are now talking about two different issues. The first is the 'value' attributed to a person in a metaphysical sense (and your analysis of this does NOT, in my opinion, demonstrate 'thinking alot[sic] about the subject'). Then you switch to talking about a potential psychological characteristic.

Two different things. Two different arguments. Your proposal for why people have these mid-life crises (for lack of a better term) is a valid one, but also one that is testable. If you are only arguing the psychological side of this issue (i.e. the reason older people feel depressed and without value is because of their reduction in socio-sexual activity) then please say so, so I don't have to worry about the philosophical implications of assigning 0 value to unattractive people.

#12 VictorBjoerk

  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,761 posts
  • 90
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 18 February 2010 - 09:01 AM

What validates people is their mind, not how they look physically. Stephen Hawking has contributed a lot more to humanity than a 20-year-old who by coincidence happens to look in a way that encourages breeding.

I understand that old people get bitter and cynical, and they have all right in the world to be so. Your body feels bad and doesn't work properly and the focus of the world lies on young people, the worst thing though is that the state of mind often remains young.

The thing to realize is that a 90-year-old for example is a 20-year-old trapped in a malfunctioning body. Young people don't always understand it, they think subconsiously that old people is a race of their own. For example I have all sympathy in the world for old guys having relationships with teenage girls, because the old guy is just a damaged 20-year-old.

#13 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,096 posts
  • 229

Posted 18 February 2010 - 06:07 PM

First, validates? What exactly do you mean by validates? To whom? Society?

Isn't validation an objective thing? Isn't anything that is not contingent upon what is 'out there' thus subjective and introspective? My initial post relies on the societal validating principal of course. Not the journey of personal discovery one. I am not saying 'personal discovery' is non-existent but it is something altogether different than validation.

Because if you mean to suggest that life only has meaning if it is useful to society then you need to take an honest hard look at your values, because you may find them wanting.

No, I am not melding meaningful and validating into a synonymous entity here. I am actually saying they are two completely different things. Validation always emanating from 'out there' as it were. Meaning being subjective is not something that can necessarily be shared, thus does not validate you as a person.


why restrict it to old and middle aged people? What about those who aren't 'attractive' even in their youth? Are they too without any value?

This is a good question. However 'attraction' is not necessarily a uniform concept when it comes to biology. The face and the body are not necessarily the only biological driving force here but what we call physical energy or sexual energy. If a man is lacking in his face or his body but still has sexual energy he still has a much greater chance of getting validation than someone of the same condition but who lacks such energy. I believe freud called it Libido. I am not saying older people lack Libido only the corresponding energy with which to do anything with it. At least to the degree their younger counterparts do.

Following your logic we must kill all those who aren't attractive and/or socially competent enough, because after all they are without value AND are using resources.

I said no such thing.

Reductio ad absurdum.

On your part, yes.

Bait and switch. You, my friend, are now talking about two different issues. The first is the 'value' attributed to a person in a metaphysical sense (and your analysis of this does NOT, in my opinion, demonstrate 'thinking alot[sic] about the subject'). Then you switch to talking about a potential psychological characteristic.

Your assessment of my presentation is subjective and has no basis in factual principles.

Two different things. Two different arguments.

Your opinion.

#14 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,096 posts
  • 229

Posted 18 February 2010 - 06:33 PM

What validates people is their mind, not how they look physically. Stephen Hawking has contributed a lot more to humanity than a 20-year-old who by coincidence happens to look in a way that encourages breeding.

Do you think stephen hawking does not experience loneliness and a desire to be embraced? Do you think Stephen Hawking lacks a Libido that he cannot exercise, thus taking a very important aspect away from his happiness? He is one of the most amazing minds to ever exist. Yes. But he is still a human being who deserves to exercise his Libido. Especially with regard to all he has accomplished for us. But this brings up an interesting question. I wonder if he has been able to redirect his Libido into his mental work, and if so, to what degree?

I understand that old people get bitter and cynical, and they have all right in the world to be so. Your body feels bad and doesn't work properly and the focus of the world lies on young people, the worst thing though is that the state of mind often remains young.

Yes, but in the immediate eyes of those who are able to exercise their Libidos they are not seeing a sexually valid person when looking at an 80 year old with the mind of a 20 year old. In fact they do not see a 20 year old mind at all (how can we change this to make people see that edlerly people still have young minds?). This reminds me of an intrview I recently saw on youtube of George harrison months before his death. He said something like 'you're still 17 in your mind at 57 and you can't believe 40 years has gone by'.

The thing to realize is that a 90-year-old for example is a 20-year-old trapped in a malfunctioning body. Young people don't always understand it, they think subconsiously that old people is a race of their own.

But how do we change this state of affairs? How do we raise awareness of the fact that 'older people' are strucken by a disease known as aging and until there is a cure found for the disease they must be addressed as 20 yeaar olds trapped in decrepit old bodies?

For example I have all sympathy in the world for old guys having relationships with teenage girls, because the old guy is just a damaged 20-year-old.

The most unfortunate example of this is the dateline NBC show to catch a predator. Middle-aged men (and even some guys in their early 20s!) basically entrapped by decoys and reduced to crying children (perhaps more evidence their minds have not aged?) on national television. And so so so so many people, in their mental sickness, finding enjoyment from it. Sometimes I think the show was staged but if it was real it was definitely a low point in our species, along with several other reality shows. I also think the show host must have a guilty conscience of his own and probably harbors an even greater desire to sleep with teenage girls than the men portrayed. But the fundamental issue is to the Libido of ALL men of ALL ages teenage girls are seen as objects not just of lust but of validation. I am not assigning moral character to this statement, I am not saying it is right, wrong or inbetween. Only that it is so by recourse of the natural state of the male psyche (and anyone who denies this is full of shit). But I am not saying it is right for older men to force themselves onto teenage girls or to lie their way into their lives. I am saying that if a teenage girl makes the conscious decision to have sexual relations with an older man, that is something that should not be treated like a crime. Of course many of the men shown were assuming they were getting involved with teenage girls who were making the choice to have relations with them. If they arrived at the house after the decoys stated that they did not want them coming then it would be, legally, a completely different situation.

Here is a exerpt from that sick, compassionless, exploitative show. And the masses, I might add, fed it (by the way it gives me great pleasure that this show was canceled and the cases dismissed for the most obvious reason that the person these men were going to see never existed!).


Edited by TheFountain, 18 February 2010 - 06:45 PM.


#15 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 18 February 2010 - 06:58 PM

Isn't validation an objective thing?


validation is the process of determining if something fulfills certain criteria. Those criteria can be anything depending on what's being validated. What you've chosen as the criteria for validating human existence are complete nonsense as you could choose any random criteria (money, how good they are at golf, diameter of the left index finger). Many people would argue quite compellingly that nothing validates a person more than how they preform at football. The criteria are completely subjective, it doesn't matter if they yield an answer based on objective reality.

So No; we do not agree that nothing is more important in validating a person than your version of socio sexual factors. This is your subjective determination.

I'd expect something better from an insecure 16 year old girl. How many threads have you started like this now?

#16 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,096 posts
  • 229

Posted 18 February 2010 - 07:05 PM

What you've chosen as the criteria for validating human existence are complete nonsense as you could choose any random criteria (money, how good they are at golf, diameter of the left index finger).

Except that apes in the wild do not play golf or measure one another's index fingers. They simply express their sexual/physical energy with no delay in their pursuits.

Many people would argue quite compellingly that nothing validates a person more than how they preform at football. The criteria are completely subjective, it doesn't matter if they yield an answer based on objective reality.

If objective reality is based on biological efficacy than it could be noted that a healthy, young person is always more efficacious than an older, less energized, more worn down person. At least in terms of how Libido relates to biology.

I'd expect something better from an insecure 16 year old girl. How many threads have you started like this now?

Now you're saying all 16 year old girls are insecure? That is just as bad as saying that to judge all elderly people is a generality.

#17 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 18 February 2010 - 07:18 PM

Except that apes in the wild do not play golf or measure one another's index fingers. They simply express their sexual/physical energy with no delay in their pursuits


your point? However even the above isn't based on anything other than your feelings. No delay in their pursuits? Apes think you know, even if most of them aren't quite as good at it as the particular kind of ape we are.

If objective reality is based on biological efficacy[...



what? rephrase in a way that makes sense. Though i believe the answer is the two are not related. I think you are having trouble with definitions.

it could be noted that a healthy, young person is always more efficacious than an older, less energized, more worn down person. At least in terms of how Libido relates to biology


A healthy young person would be more efficacious at what? Having sex with a teenage girl without being arrested or ending up on some reality show?

Now you're saying all 16 year old girls are insecure? That is just as bad as saying that to judge all elderly people is a generality.


that is not what I said. Please read it again.

#18 ben951

  • Guest
  • 111 posts
  • 15
  • Location:France

Posted 18 February 2010 - 08:03 PM

I hate to create a post like this but I have been thinking alot about this subject lately. What validates people the most in life? Obviously socio-sexual factors. This is probably 95% of the purpose of our existence outside of artistry (note very few people become professional creative artists). So in the absence of this validating factor what point is there in further existing? Could this be the reason why so many middle-aged and older people seem cynical and miserable? Have they, in effect, out lived their usefulness? And is this cynicism and misery healthy for society as a whole? Does it bring us down? Destroy the fabric of our existence as a society? Let's discuss this because I feel it is a very important psychological issue we all need to face, young, old, middle aged, whatever. And be brutally honest, don't hold anything back. Show your compassion and your anger in the same breath if you must.


There's a lot of unattractive young people too you know, I'd say a majority actually.

It's just a genetic lotteries witch few win.

So you could have posted :

"How valid are human beings when they are unattractive ?"

#19 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,096 posts
  • 229

Posted 18 February 2010 - 09:15 PM

I hate to create a post like this but I have been thinking alot about this subject lately. What validates people the most in life? Obviously socio-sexual factors. This is probably 95% of the purpose of our existence outside of artistry (note very few people become professional creative artists). So in the absence of this validating factor what point is there in further existing? Could this be the reason why so many middle-aged and older people seem cynical and miserable? Have they, in effect, out lived their usefulness? And is this cynicism and misery healthy for society as a whole? Does it bring us down? Destroy the fabric of our existence as a society? Let's discuss this because I feel it is a very important psychological issue we all need to face, young, old, middle aged, whatever. And be brutally honest, don't hold anything back. Show your compassion and your anger in the same breath if you must.


There's a lot of unattractive young people too you know, I'd say a majority actually.

It's just a genetic lotteries witch few win.

So you could have posted :

"How valid are human beings when they are unattractive ?"





Someone else suggested this as well. Read the other posts for my response.

#20 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,096 posts
  • 229

Posted 18 February 2010 - 09:25 PM

Except that apes in the wild do not play golf or measure one another's index fingers. They simply express their sexual/physical energy with no delay in their pursuits


your point? However even the above isn't based on anything other than your feelings. No delay in their pursuits? Apes think you know, even if most of them aren't quite as good at it as the particular kind of ape we are.

If objective reality is based on biological efficacy[...



what? rephrase in a way that makes sense. Though i believe the answer is the two are not related. I think you are having trouble with definitions.

it could be noted that a healthy, young person is always more efficacious than an older, less energized, more worn down person. At least in terms of how Libido relates to biology


A healthy young person would be more efficacious at what? Having sex with a teenage girl without being arrested or ending up on some reality show?

Now you're saying all 16 year old girls are insecure? That is just as bad as saying that to judge all elderly people is a generality.


that is not what I said. Please read it again.


Interesting emotional reactions. You are making this a personal issue. I think everyone here has some degree of anger toward the elderly population. The point of this post was to get to the nucleus of this anger. I too harbour some of this anger which is why I am not hiding it throughout this post for the sake of facilitating the unveiling of truth. You might try putting away the holier than thou attitude and showing some of your own genuine frustrations too. Everyone has it, now rear it!

#21 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 19 February 2010 - 12:58 AM

Interesting emotional reactions


please point out said emotional reaction. Most of my last post was asking for clarification of some of the things you said which did not make sense. Stop deflecting.

I think everyone here has some degree of anger toward the elderly population.


nonsense. Toward the aging process itself perhaps(though not really, thats more like the weather, causes problems to be dealt with, but whats the point in being mad at a hurricane?). Toward older people? Never.



You might try putting away the holier than thou attitude and showing some of your own genuine frustrations too. Everyone has it, now rear it!


I admit to being occasionally frustrated with you for the completely illogical nature of most of your posts. Also your endless inability to see the glaring holes in your arguments on just about everything, and how you build all of it on nonsense suppositions. That's my problem. Happy?

Edited by eternaltraveler, 19 February 2010 - 01:26 AM.


#22 eason

  • Guest
  • 126 posts
  • 0

Posted 19 February 2010 - 06:45 AM

Hmm... at first I thought this thread was a joke. LOL. You're nuts. (And I'm not old either)

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#23 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,096 posts
  • 229

Posted 19 February 2010 - 11:20 AM

You're nuts.


Please explain.

#24 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,096 posts
  • 229

Posted 19 February 2010 - 11:26 AM

Interesting emotional reactions


please point out said emotional reaction. Most of my last post was asking for clarification of some of the things you said which did not make sense. Stop deflecting.

I think everyone here has some degree of anger toward the elderly population.


nonsense. Toward the aging process itself perhaps(though not really, thats more like the weather, causes problems to be dealt with, but whats the point in being mad at a hurricane?). Toward older people? Never.



You might try putting away the holier than thou attitude and showing some of your own genuine frustrations too. Everyone has it, now rear it!


I admit to being occasionally frustrated with you for the completely illogical nature of most of your posts. Also your endless inability to see the glaring holes in your arguments on just about everything, and how you build all of it on nonsense suppositions. That's my problem. Happy?


Try to follow me. I hear the argument alot that we need to 'make granny feel useful' for example. But what I am wondering is whether or not this approach is not condescending and outright insulting to the elderly population! Don't you think some of these elderly people are intelligent enough to see through peoples condescending attitudes thus slipping into an even deeper depression as a result? Of course I am sure there are some who use advanced age to manipulate people but my whole point is that even openly stating that someone needs to be made to feel useful is more insulting than treating them like everyone else! How much blame do we, as a society, have to take credit for the cynicical and depressive attitude of the elederly population!

#25 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,096 posts
  • 229

Posted 19 February 2010 - 11:30 AM

Older people are usually nicer, not more cynical O_o


Ever heard the expression 'grumpy old man'? It comes from somewhere you know!

By the way, I never once said we should lack compassion for older people, but I question the merit of our approach to this compassion. I find it very condescending and insulting to these people. Perhaps a recent internship I did at a nursing home facilitated this perspective a bit. I found some of the residents quite lucid but because they were candid and/or of a certain age they were relegated to these homes. Yes seeing it depressed me.

Edited by TheFountain, 19 February 2010 - 11:38 AM.


#26 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 19 February 2010 - 11:48 AM

Older people are usually nicer, not more cynical O_o


Ever heard the expression 'grumpy old man'? It comes from somewhere you know!

By the way, I never once said we should lack compassion for older people, but I question the merit of our approach to this compassion. I find it very condescending and insulting to these people. Perhaps a recent internship I did at a nursing home facilitated this perspective a bit. I found some of the residents quite lucid but because they were candid and/or of a certain age they were relegated to these homes. Yes seeing it depressed me.



Your social experience is lacking and that's not the only thing. You are so biased. O_o Maybe you are a grumpy young man who calls others what he feels.

O_o

Stop being rude to old people, you'll see they are very nice.

#27 ben951

  • Guest
  • 111 posts
  • 15
  • Location:France

Posted 19 February 2010 - 11:59 AM

Try to follow me. I hear the argument alot that we need to 'make granny feel useful' for example. But what I am wondering is whether or not this approach is not condescending and outright insulting to the elderly population! Don't you think some of these elderly people are intelligent enough to see through peoples condescending attitudes thus slipping into an even deeper depression as a result? Of course I am sure there are some who use advanced age to manipulate people but my whole point is that even openly stating that someone needs to be made to feel useful is more insulting than treating them like everyone else! How much blame do we, as a society, have to take credit for the cynicical and depressive attitude of the elederly population!

There is a lot of very interesting old people who are not depressed and don't care for anybody approval at all, they don't care if some people think they are not useful, like for physical appearance they are a lot of young people who are not useful too, by the way you can earn a lot of money and not be useful to society at all and not make any money and be very useful.

Maybe you never known an interesting old person, it's really too bad, me I had the privilege to meet several, some of them are dead and it's often after they died that you fully realise how "useful" they were.

Thinking that everyone here has some degree of anger toward the elderly population seems really really weird to me.

#28 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,096 posts
  • 229

Posted 19 February 2010 - 12:03 PM

Older people are usually nicer, not more cynical O_o


Ever heard the expression 'grumpy old man'? It comes from somewhere you know!

By the way, I never once said we should lack compassion for older people, but I question the merit of our approach to this compassion. I find it very condescending and insulting to these people. Perhaps a recent internship I did at a nursing home facilitated this perspective a bit. I found some of the residents quite lucid but because they were candid and/or of a certain age they were relegated to these homes. Yes seeing it depressed me.



Your social experience is lacking and that's not the only thing. You are so biased. O_o Maybe you are a grumpy young man who calls others what he feels.

O_o

Stop being rude to old people, you'll see they are very nice.


You're being presumptuous miss! The reason I created this thread was so that we can collectively slough off our polite facades and get to the heart of how we really feel about this issue. Not to throw metaphorical daggers at an entire group of people. If you think I lack compassion you obviously have not been reading all my posts on this thread!

#29 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 19 February 2010 - 12:09 PM

I think you're simply getting wrong impressions from old people and the attitude toward them.
Go show some more kindness to you grandparents, offer your grandma to make a cake together and listen to her life stories.

In my University campus there are plenty of old people working as assistants, security guards. They are smiling, they are having fun. And I can't see why not, I might have enjoyed a lot of the things there if I didn't have different goals.
I got fun chats with people there who simply saw me hanging around with a cat there which they all love and treat daily.

Sexuality has nothing to do with happiness. Well it can help it, but it's not the main thing for it.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#30 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,096 posts
  • 229

Posted 19 February 2010 - 12:11 PM

Try to follow me. I hear the argument alot that we need to 'make granny feel useful' for example. But what I am wondering is whether or not this approach is not condescending and outright insulting to the elderly population! Don't you think some of these elderly people are intelligent enough to see through peoples condescending attitudes thus slipping into an even deeper depression as a result? Of course I am sure there are some who use advanced age to manipulate people but my whole point is that even openly stating that someone needs to be made to feel useful is more insulting than treating them like everyone else! How much blame do we, as a society, have to take credit for the cynicical and depressive attitude of the elederly population!

There is a lot of very interesting old people who are not depressed and don't care for anybody approval at all, they don't care if some people think they are not useful, like for physical appearance they are a lot of young people who are not useful too, by the way you can earn a lot of money and not be useful to society at all and not make any money and be very useful.

Maybe you never known an interesting old person, it's really too bad, me I had the privilege to meet several, some of them are dead and it's often after they died that you fully realise how "useful" they were.

Thinking that everyone here has some degree of anger toward the elderly population seems really really weird to me.




You imply disparity where none exists. An elderly person can be interesting and yet we as people can still see them as elderly people. For example when I was going to school in a college town my landlord was an 87 year old refugee of nazi germany. He use to randomly speak to me about his escape from the regime and how hitler 'wasn't as bad' as people made him out to be and 'certainly no worse than George Bush' which I have to say was a damned fine point! But his bodily reflexes were slower than a snail and his overall mental condition was very senile. I always felt that if the minds of people like him could just be transported to more youthful bodies we would be doing society a big service as they are essentially like walking history books. Unfortunately not many are with us any longer and not who knows if any are signed up for cryonics. What a loss.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users