Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8852 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-15-2018 2:48 AM
182 online now:
GDR, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (3 members, 179 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 836,903 Year: 11,726/29,783 Month: 748/1,642 Week: 162/460 Day: 1/62 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
89101112
13
Author Topic:   A personal question
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 183 of 193 (20850)
10-25-2002 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by gene90
10-25-2002 8:37 PM


Originally posted by gene90:


Your message implied it only told the bride how to avoid having sex if she did not want to have sex.

You did not say it discouraged sex.

It is basically the same thing in this context and I have a feeling that you knew that and like John you are becoming contrary.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by gene90, posted 10-25-2002 8:37 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by gene90, posted 10-25-2002 9:06 PM nos482 has responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1680 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 184 of 193 (20851)
10-25-2002 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by nos482
10-25-2002 8:58 PM


[QUOTE][B]It is basically the same thing in this context[/QUOTE]

[/B]

I think there is a significant difference in teaching a woman ways to avoid being raped and trying to convince her that sex is bad.

If it is the same in that context then you have failed to convey it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by nos482, posted 10-25-2002 8:58 PM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by nos482, posted 10-25-2002 9:11 PM gene90 has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 193 (20852)
10-25-2002 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by gene90
10-25-2002 8:41 PM


Originally posted by gene90:

I didn't say that inbreeding does not have negative consequences, I said that people have a right to marry whoever they want.

No, they don't have the right to marry whomever they want. It is a privilege that is why you have to get a licence to make it legal. You can't legally marry your pet, your close blood relations, etc...

I personally don't have an opinion on that so this comment has fallen upon deaf ears.

So, you approve of beating children as a form of "discipline"? Just recently an elderly woman, from a local Christian cult, was convicted of using excessive force on 5 children in their group when she beat them with the "rod" (Wooden paddle).

That's legal in Canada?

Of course not, that is why they are arrested for this crime against their children. You would have the government (law) mind its own business in this sort of situation.

Here in the US I believe that would fall under our child neglect laws.

What and let the evil government interfer in how they want to raise their own children? Those evil interfering laws should be repealed at once. (Note: Sarcasm)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by gene90, posted 10-25-2002 8:41 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by gene90, posted 10-25-2002 9:27 PM nos482 has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 186 of 193 (20853)
10-25-2002 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by gene90
10-25-2002 9:06 PM


Originally posted by gene90:

I think there is a significant difference in teaching a woman ways to avoid being raped and trying to convince her that sex is bad.

If it is the same in that context then you have failed to convey it.

No, you are obviously being contrary. It was perfectly clear from the context that it was to avoid having sex for pleasure. I would have said to avoid having sex forced on her. This discussion is over.

[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-25-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by gene90, posted 10-25-2002 9:06 PM gene90 has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1680 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 187 of 193 (20854)
10-25-2002 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by nos482
10-25-2002 9:10 PM


[QUOTE][B]No, they don't have the right to marry whomever they want. It is a privilege that is why you have to get a licence to make it legal.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

I'm sorry, WHAT did you just say?

[QUOTE][B]You can't legally marry your pet, your close blood relations, etc...[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Persons of the same sex?

[QUOTE][B]You would have the government (law) mind its own business in this sort of situation.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

But not to that extent. I believe in anti-abuse laws and you're putting words in my mouth.

But you think marriage is not a right? And you also believe government can say WHO you can marry? And you have been arguing with me over homosexuality? You're more conservative than I am!

[QUOTE][B]So, you approve of beating children as a form of "discipline"? Just recently an elderly woman, from a local Christian cult, was convicted of using excessive force on 5 children in their group when she beat them with the "rod" (Wooden paddle).[/QUOTE]

[/B]

How excessive? Did she hit them once and not leave a mark, or did she put them in the hospital? There's a moral difference there.

[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-25-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by nos482, posted 10-25-2002 9:10 PM nos482 has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 188 of 193 (20876)
10-26-2002 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by gene90
10-25-2002 8:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
Actually I believe I have highly subjective evidence that there is a God, but you would just say that I've found a way to release endorphins on demand.

Without having heard what you have to say on the topic, I'd probably respond that other people in other religions have found similar evidence -- or say they have, being subjective I cannot verify it-- and not all of you can be right.

quote:
In any other arena is a bit loaded.

Is it? I don't think so. Dividing the world into multiple metaphysical arenas and using different rules in each just seems like cheating.

quote:
In religion? If I were not a theist I would still have to accept the possibility rather than just to decide one day there is no God.

Anything is possible. Lack of disproof isn't proof.

quote:
By the way I'm not sure there's no *historical* evidence for God either but I'm not going to mess with that yet.

hmmm.... this could be interesting....

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by gene90, posted 10-25-2002 8:32 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by gene90, posted 10-26-2002 1:00 PM John has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1680 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 189 of 193 (20882)
10-26-2002 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by John
10-26-2002 10:07 AM


[QUOTE][B]I'd probably respond that other people in other religions have found similar evidence -- or say they have, being subjective I cannot verify it-- and not all of you can be right.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

That's certainly true, many religions (including mine) are exclusive...though it is doctrine (as I understand it) that most forms of religion have at least *some* truth in them.

[QUOTE][B]Dividing the world into multiple metaphysical arenas and using different rules in each just seems like cheating.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

I'm sympathetic to that opinion, but there might actually be "multiple metaphysical arenas" that will always be out of the reach of science. I don't think religion, in some form or another, will ever go away, even if we didn't have any psychological need for it and even if they're all baloney.

[QUOTE][B]hmmm.... this could be interesting....[/QUOTE]

[/B]

But it's all very circumstantial, of course....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by John, posted 10-26-2002 10:07 AM John has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by nator, posted 10-29-2002 10:02 AM gene90 has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 27 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 190 of 193 (21003)
10-29-2002 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by gene90
10-25-2002 8:35 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][B]The fact that I consider force-feeding a child religion damaging and abusive[/QUOTE]

[/B]

I don't see any evidence of that. And ultimately the child grows up and makes his own decisions. In fact a lot of our resident atheists started out like that.


...and a lot of suicide bombers, USA-grown terrorists, child molestors, and domestic abusers started out like that...

I am not saying that all very religious paople are like that, or that all criminals of this sort are very religious, but a correlation between all of these behaviors and strict religious training has been observed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by gene90, posted 10-25-2002 8:35 PM gene90 has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 27 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 191 of 193 (21004)
10-29-2002 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by gene90
10-25-2002 8:42 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
Sorry then.

Thanks.

It's not a big deal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by gene90, posted 10-25-2002 8:42 PM gene90 has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 27 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 192 of 193 (21006)
10-29-2002 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by gene90
10-26-2002 1:00 PM


quote:
I don't think religion, in some form or another, will ever go away, even if we didn't have any psychological need for it and even if they're all baloney.

Ah, but I think it would go away if there wasn't the psychological need for it.

I mean, it went away for lots of Agnostics and atheists, didn't it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by gene90, posted 10-26-2002 1:00 PM gene90 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by John, posted 10-29-2002 10:34 AM nator has not yet responded

    
John
Inactive Member


Message 193 of 193 (21014)
10-29-2002 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by nator
10-29-2002 10:02 AM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
quote:
I don't think religion, in some form or another, will ever go away, even if we didn't have any psychological need for it and even if they're all baloney.

Ah, but I think it would go away if there wasn't the psychological need for it.

I mean, it went away for lots of Agnostics and atheists, didn't it?


That is a good point, Gene. If the psycho-need (for short ) for it went away and religions are all baloney, why would it stay around?

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by nator, posted 10-29-2002 10:02 AM nator has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
89101112
13
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018