POLL: Would you rather be blind or able to see?

Question

At first I thought I would instantly want to be able to see, but I thought of something that changed that. If you were blind, lust would disappear from your mind. As we all know, lust is up there with the most influentual things on mankind. If you were blind, you would become more wise, make better choices, and be more just.

As of now, I'm 50-50. Both ways have their pros and cons.

Well lust wouldn't disappear, but the means to fulfill your lust would disappear, and you would never fall to temptation because you wouldn't be able to.

Answer 1

I want to be able to see. Even though many things seem to sway our judgment and train of thought, it is up to us to be strong enough or man up to not succumb to it.

If you want to be blind there are many things you will lose. From seeing a good deed in the background to reading great books. From watching [porn?] to watching the wonders and magic of the world take effect right before your eyes.

Becoming blind, one would know humility [b/c he/she is physically limited], experience daily zumes of darkness, and be free from his[or her] lustful wandering eyes. However, if one wants to completely alienate lust, then the fastest way to avoid lust and all that is to neuter or spay themselves.

Having the power to see gives us the power of responsibility. Don't get me wrong, blindness certainly has it's own incredible powers. They are both neither good nor bad, it's how one uses the sight [or lack thereof] themselves. Just like the internet and money, they've got its pro's and con's, but destroying them won't make human nature's desires go away. It'll take place in a different body.

luv,
x_musicbabe23

Answer 2

Okay, you lost me.

Let's disseminate this. Ray Charles--famous blind man. He fathered twelve children by seven different women. He was a drug addict and a womanizer. Where is the wise?

People are just people. Sight doesn't make a difference.

Also, lust is a biological imperative. The idea that it is something shameful or wrong is manufactured and categorically absurd. There are some immoral acts that could be partially caused by lust--rape, obviously-- but it is the act that is wrong, not the feeling.

Answer 3

I would rather see. I think it makes it easier. However, I think people who are blind see in other ways. Their other senses are more alert to things than people who see. And, I don't understand how lust would disappear if you were blind. I hadn't thought that lust was only based on what you could see.

Answer 4

Though I give no offense to any who are visually impaired (I say that for people who are partially blind), physically, I would rather see. I don't think those who are blind do not lust, they have equally haunting desires, maybe more so because, for me at least, my imagination comes best when I see nothing. The world is full of many things that can sway us from our morality, we just have a few "unconscious moments" where we simply think, blocking out the world from all our senses.

Answer 5

It wouldn't matter. As long as you were one way or the other since you were born, it makes no difference to you. It's like if someone told you that there was a new way to sense things. You would want access to it out of curiousity, but why is it necessary when you can already sense things perfectly the way you are now?

And lust isn't all about appearance, either.

Answer 6

I'd rather be able to see. Lust would not disappear because of blindness. That's a foolish thing to say.

Answer 7

Able to see. Lust, like anything else, can be controlled. Most people are weak and allow their minds to influence their decisions. These are nothing more than followers.

Answer 8

You think the Blind aren't capable of lust?

Answer 9

Why do you think that lust would disappear? Blind people have emotions and sexual desires just as sighted people.

Answer 10

I'm sure most people have the capacity to lust without sight. Simply close your eyes and turn on some porn. Just listen. I bet you want in.