|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Any comment on this? (The evil of television?) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
crashfrog responds to me:
quote:quote: Only because you're going there. I had thought about putting in a caveat about consent, but I didn't think I would need to since if there is no consent, it's rape, not sex, and that would seem to be obvious. And since I didn't want to have a digression into things like rape, I decided to simply trust the integrity of the board to know that we weren't going there. Was that trust misplaced?
quote: Only if you equivocate on the word "available." There is a difference between socially available and physically available. That was my entire point: Social and physical signals are different. Society puts different amounts of emphasis on physical signals and even creates some of their own. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
And since I didn't want to have a digression into things like rape, I decided to simply trust the integrity of the board to know that we weren't going there. Was that trust misplaced? You might have been a little more specific, then. Consent seems like such an obvious component of sexual avaliability that I was surprised you left it out.
Only if you equivocate on the word "available." Oh? To my mind, "availiable" means accessable, as in when somebody says "I'm avaliable for a meeting" or something, they're expressing an ability or even a desire to have a meeting. Now, if you meant something else - some kind of "availiability" where the female is not actually availiable to a particular male - then you should have been a little more specific. Honestly I'm sure you're not a rapist, but it would have behooved you to be a little clearer, I think.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: I will concede "dogmatic", "motivated" and "enthused", but not religious - for none of my claims are based on supernatural revelation or divine insight.
quote: Obviously, an opinion of what consititutes abuse does not imply universal recognition of that opinion. But given that opinion, it would be odd if I did not act on it or express it.
quote: Yes, that is correct. Becuase you are feeding them a set of claims you nkow you cannot demonstrate, and which they are not equipped to criticise. It is indeed exactly abuse. And incidentally, a scenario in which the abused collude with their abuses is well established in studies of abusive relationships.
quote: Arrogance I can deal with. Supernatural claims, however, are a different matter. Everyone eblievees theior ownb opinion to be valid and acts accprding;y - indeed, having an opinion would be pointless if it did not serve as a spur to action. And having witnessed the damage and depravity that theists inflict on their defenceless children, I feel it immoral to stand idly by and simply excuse this evil by acknowledging that people believe this things. I donl;t deny the honesty of your faith - nor do I deny that you are doing what you think to be best. That just is not good enough.
quote: Immaterial.
quote: I once had a teacher who remarked that he saw his new-born son (1 day) with his fist around his penis. The biological architecture of sexuality is there froi both, although not all of it is active. Nevertheless, you are still presenting to them an idea that sexuality is perverse must be hidden and suppressed, it seems to me, which cannot be a healthy thing at all.
quote: Granted. But you are not validating their own sexuality, it seems to me, only describing it in the abstract. As long as sexuality is bound up in a mythology of sin and morality, it cannot be free and honest. Why cripple your kids like that?
quote: By no means - but why then are you so horrified by rock and roll and similar entirely normal expressions of teenage reflexes?
quote: Which only indicates the extent to which they are internalising your prejudices, rather than developing tastes of their own. Either way, if you are confident in their taste, then there would surely be no need for you to exercise parental constraining and can freely leave them to their own devices. You are perfectly entitle to feel, priovately, that Ozzy doesn;t make music. But if a large number of Ozzy fans feel offended, as self-described music-lovers, that is your problem not theirs.
quote: But as you have already mentioned, you live in an isolated community composed apparently of people who share you dame dogma, so it is not too surprising that they approve of the damage your have perpetrated ion your children - presumably they are doing the same to theirs.
quote: You'll excuse me if I have a dim view of the morality of American police. The blurring of church and state is far too developed to safely consider that a police officer does not themselves use their position to further their religious prejudices.
quote: I cannot se ehow suppoert fropm other theists defends against my accusation; of course they synpathise, if they too feel that a childs place is to worship god and their parents. If, however, they felt a childs place was to be an independant person, I fear the reponse might be rather different.
quote: The same phenomenon you see as happy and adjusted I may well see as evidence of damage and severe and sustained abuse. Certainly, in my experience of children raised by fervent theists, that is indeed the case - the things which they value in their children make me recoil with horror and disgust.
quote: No, I don't at all. After all I know from the outset that you consider these to be good things. I know that theists train their chirldren to blindly worship a non-existant god becuase the parents also blindly worship a non-existant god and consider doing so something akin to a civic virtue. It makes them feel like good people, and the responsible thing to do would be to raise their children as good people too. But you are going further than that - living in an isolated community so that yo0ur children won;t be "contaminated" by the real world, restricting their social behaviours so that they will not come into contact with other forms of expression of which you disaprove. So I cannot under any circumstances take your word for the fact thet they are well adjusted - I'm sure you THINK that, but I don't.
quote: Thats is why it is so terribly abusive. The road to hell, as they say, is paved with good intentions. I am quite sure you mean well - you are just doing bad. Meaning well is not enough. {Fixed some quote boxes - Adminnemooseus} [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-27-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4087 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
Becuase you are feeding them a set of claims you nkow you cannot demonstrate, and which they are not equipped to criticise. It is indeed exactly abuse. Since you are suggesting nothing but the same, a set of claims you know you cannot demonstrate, you would be in the same category raising those same set of kids. You would have very little support saying that science can prove the supernatural doesn't exist or that God doesn't exist. It's simply outside the realm of science. And I am quite convinced the benefit of our lives and lifestyle is obvious. Children grow up and are able to make choices about continuing their parents' lifestyle, values, and religious beliefs all the time, especially in America, where public communication is so strong.
By no means - but why then are you so horrified by rock and roll and similar entirely normal expressions of teenage reflexes? This is bizarre. Rock and roll is a normal expression of teen reflexes??? It is a very new cultural phenomena now closely related to the drug culture.
As long as sexuality is bound up in a mythology of sin and morality, it cannot be free and honest. With statements like this, you validate even incest with young children. There are lines, and they must be drawn for society to exist. All I see, and saw before you ever wrote any posts to me, is a fanatically religious atheist, not one whit different from Jerry Falwell. I hope you'll excuse me if from now on my reaction to you is the same as to him, which is to just turn you off. Fortunately, there's really very little likelihood that ideas like yours will gain even as much following as his moral majority. Good-bye.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4087 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
Obviously, an opinion of what consititutes abuse does not imply universal recognition of that opinion. But given that opinion, it would be odd if I did not act on it or express it. Expressing it is one thing. Most people, though, are humble enough to think that charges of abuse must only be leveled on the strongest evidence, and that their opinion of how others ought to live and believe is pretty pitiful evidence for suggesting abuse. That seems to have escaped you.
Arrogance I can deal with. Sure, you can, and as long as religious people have ruled, they have been well able to deal with their own arrogance. However, their arrogance was real difficult for other people to handle, because all their freedom was taken away. That's why I equate you with religious people. Almost no one has a problem with someone else believing in God. They have a problem with theists enforcing their god's morals on unbelievers. Everything you have said is a defense for pushing YOUR morals on other people. What you wrote is a defense for you as a god, so it's quite religious, in my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: In the language of primatology and anthropology, Rhhain's use of 'available' is pretty common. Interesting, Crash, if I said that a mandrill's colorful swollen butt-cheeks indicate that she is available for sex would there be a problem? Ah... but poeple are special. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Interesting, Crash, if I said that a mandrill's colorful swollen butt-cheeks indicate that she is available for sex would there be a problem? Ah... but poeple are special. Actually I'd have a problem with that, too. I don't see that physical avaliablilty has anything to do with behaviors that suggest a willingness for copulation with a particular male, which is what comes to my mind when the words "avaliable for sex" are used. Now, if Rrhain's usage is the common usage in sociobiology, well, news to me - my ignorance, clearly. But as a lay person I was confused by the usage. I don't find it reasonable to suggest that further clarification may have been in order. On the other hand, rape, in terms of violent, forced intercourse, is not uncommon in the animal kingdom, especially in the primates, as I understand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Physical and behavioral are pretty damned close in the animal kindom, of which we are a part. You are right though, physical ability does not signal readiness to mate with a particular male. I'm not sure why you have this association. Walruses chest thumb because the available females will be willing to mate with the winner. Birds sing to attract available mates. You may yourself even be tempted to ask of the friend of a pretty girl, "Is she available?" ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
crashfrog responds to me:
quote: How often does the question of "Is this guy a rapist" come up with you? I seriously did not think I had to be wary of being considered a rapist or that my statements could be taken as advocating rape. And now, we've done exactly what I didn't want to have happen: Digressed to something completely inappropriate and irrelevant to the question at hand. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
crashfrog responds to John:
quote: You're jumping ahead way too far. When people put out sexual signals, unless the person is in some committed relationship or is looking for a specific subject, then the display is there for everyone. It is designed to attract potential partners which will then be selected among. It is absolutely true that a person who wears provocative clothing is not asking to have sex with every person who might happen to respond, but it is indicative that the person is considering having sex with somebody or at the very least is interested in arousing the interest of other people. When you say hello to people, you should expect to have them respond. That doesn't mean you are obligated to have a deep conversation with them, but some sort of response is not unexpected.
quote: Indeed, it is. It is one of the many indicators showing that humans are just another kind of animal. There isn't anything that humans do that some other animal doesn't also do. We may be better at it, but that's a difference of quantity, not quality. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I'm not sure why you have this association. Because when women come to me and say "Hey, I'm avaliable for sex", they usually mean they want to have sex with me. Ergo I interpreted Rrhain's statement that physical sexual maturity is a sign of avalibility for sex to mean that he felt that sexually mature people were ready to have sex at any time, which is what "avaliable for sex" means to me, which I objected to, hence my post. Like I said, we're probably not on the same page in terms of what "avaliable for sex" means. In fact you and Rrhain may be on a more accurate page than I.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Reading this thread puts me in mind of a poem by Philip Larkin
Larkin writes: They fuck you up, your mum and dad.They may not mean to, but they do. They fill you with all the faults they had And add some extra, just for you. But they were fucked up in their turnBy fools in old-style hats and coats, Who half the time were soppy-stern And half at one another’s throats. Man hands on misery to man.It deepens like a coastal shelf. Go out as early as you can, And don’t have any kids yourself. I am sure this applies to parents of all kinds, regardless of religion, philosophy or musical tastes. Cultural traits are where Lamarckian inheritance really belongs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: But the EFFECTS of God are NOT outside the realm os science, otherwise we would not be able to be aware of god. And after countelss claims, notthing can be demonstrated. So as I have pointed out before, it is the presence or absence of god that we have tro explain - but the presence of BELIEF in god, which most certainly CAN be explained by science.
quote: I'm sure you are. Thats what they all say.
quote: Public communication is so strong? If you mean, the voluntary subordination of private media to the State, yes its very strong. And yet this argument undermines your claim to be doing good - if tyou expect your indoctrination of your kids will have no impact on their adult lives, then why do it? Just foe self-satisfaction? If you think it dopes not frame their thinking, then just let them do what they want.
quote: No, it is not - in reality, it has much more to do woith the development of electrical instruments. Now its fair to say that a lot of rock is indeed drug-fueled: but that is IMO a good argument about how absurdly paranoid we are over psychoactives, themsleves a well established authentic human behaviour. Even elephants go out of their way to get drunk, so do babboons, and cats go all squiffy if allowed near a catnip bush, which they undertake voluntarily. All this is, is an attempt to control your childrens behaviour for selfish reasons and based on a moralistic denial of our bilogical nature.
quote: I do not. There are good biological reasons for an incest taboo - but that said, not all societies have used it IIRC (only most). Indeed, some human societies cleraly had no mechanism for identifying who was whose father, some some percentage of incest must have occurred. Once again, you have the arrogance to imply that your strange little moral programme inhereited from a bunch of ignorant goat-herders is should be held universally and unchallenged. Let your children develop their OWN morality.
quote: With one major difference - I don't make a living spouting my beliefs, and I don't make threats about hellfire and damnation. Btu most importantly, people follow ideas vehemently: that is not an excuse or justification for those ideas being based on fairy tales.
quote: Huh, well, thus we see the cowardice of the "truthlover"... a lover of truth so long as they validates what is already believed. Fortunately, howevber, the demise of religious institutions is well on track and I am quite confident that my morality is substantially more likely to pass to the future than this ignorant hog-swill.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I'm sure you are. Thats what they all say. Maybe some data might be in order? There's all kinds of metrics you could use to assess their way of life. That would be the scientific thing, of course. I fear your opposition to Truthlover's village borders on the religious, yourself. A little perspective might behoove you here.
If you mean, the voluntary subordination of private media to the State, yes its very strong. You need to listen to NPR a little more, or something. Surprisingly, independant media is out there to be read and watched. Now, it's not as likely to shove itself in your face as "We distort, you comply" Fox News. But then, being an educated citizen is supposed to require a little effort.
All this is, is an attempt to control your childrens behaviour for selfish reasons and based on a moralistic denial of our bilogical nature. Do you seriously think sex and drugs are good for kids? Don't you think there's a maturity level involved in those activites? And children, being who they are, don't you think that they're likely to attempt those activites far sooner than they have the requisite maturity? If not, you're potentially deluded or naive, and certainly have not had kids. Not that I have either, but even as a childless atheist I have much more sympathy for TL's position than yours.
Huh, well, thus we see the cowardice of the "truthlover"... a lover of truth so long as they validates what is already believed. Fortunately, howevber, the demise of religious institutions is well on track and I am quite confident that my morality is substantially more likely to pass to the future than this ignorant hog-swill. This is just inflammatory and outrageous. Chill out, dude. One family, or even an entire village, raising their children they way they see fit (a right traditionally supported by the constitution, to my knowledge), does not create an institutionalized religion. I mean, it's one thing to combat religious ignorance. It's quite another to launch a campaign of total anti-religious intolerance. It's totally one thing to be against an institutionalized religious power structure. But never to my knowledge has TL claimed to be part of such a thing. He's even railed against them himself. All you're doing is attacking another person's individual spirituality, and that's just ridiculously intolerant. [This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-30-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Oh come on now... How many times has this happened, really? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024