Any comment on this? (The evil of television?)

I guess they're referring to men and women swimming together. I guess if you believe that no man should ever see a woman's figure or any hint of her body before he's married to one, that could be a bad thing.I guess if you want a society of bad lovers and women in burhkas, that makes sense. Me, bring on the bikinis! And premarital sex, too. You strict-types don't know what you're missing! Especially you unmarried ones.

If you're thinking what I think your thinking, then I'm thinking you haven't known too many nuns.

Actually, I went to one of those rallies a few years back, with my dad. I'm all up into gender equality and all, but it's been my experience that people who criticize PK haven't ever been to a rally.Honestly, my impression was that it was like going to church for three days in a row. They didn't have anything to say about men beyond "take responsibility for your actions, don't blame others" and some tips on communicating with women, which every guy could use. I really didn't find it sexist, just boring.At least in recent years, I'd say that open condemnations of PK as some kind of anti-women man-fest are just a little exaggerated. They're no more sexist than the churches they draw people from (Evangelical Lutherans, mostly, around here) - of course, that might be bad enough. But in three days of the rally, I think they talked about women like maybe twice.

Do you let them read the violent parts of the Old Testament?If so, then why do you believe that it is acceptable for a child to learn about how lives are taken (violence, etc), but not how lives are made?

Well, I won't deny that the PK leadership aren't the most pro-woman group out there - but I just don't think they're any more anti-feminist than most of the churches I'm familiar with.Not that that's a good thing, of course. I just don't see that the Promise Keepers are any particular thing to get upset about. They're just indicative of a Christian culture that feels that a man's proper place is as a leader.Tony Evans's comments are, however, totally outrageous. What a dork.

No offense, but the way you put this makes it sound like rapist's logic. No matter the size of her breasts, or what she's wearing, or whatever, she's not avaliable for sex unless she says she is.I'm hoping you meant something else by "avaliable for sex." The way I see it, there's a difference between being physically sexually mature and avaliable for sexual intercourse. I mean, surely it's possible to have a sexually mature body and yet not be avaliable for sex?

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. 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.

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.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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]

Ok, not as often as I would like. At any rate, if a woman did say that to me, I would infer that she meant to have sex with me. Would that be an erroneous assumption? (I'd hope she'd tell me if it was.)

Oh? You think that statement is posturing? So far, you've:1) presented general statements in an absence of supporting data;
2) assumed the worst in a group of humans, again without data;
3) twisted the words of your opponent/target to support your own worst impressions of him.Sounds just like religion to me. I'll cite specific exchanges, if you like. Sorry, that would be "National Public Radio". I'm afraid I assumed you were American; I wasn't sure how a non-American would have come to have such familiarity with American news media as to sweepingly damn the whole institution. I'm still not, actually. And that's absolutely fine. I have a sense that, when and if you do have kids, your opinion will change drastically. Of course, I predict mine will do the same.At any rate, doesn't that make you just a little less qualified to speculate how to raise children than a person who actually has some? It certainly makes you much, much less qualified to actually tell him how to raise his kids. It's that sentiment to which I object. Because it's their kids. And ultimately, everybody gets over the lies their parents told them. Honestly, my parents raised me in a way that I percieve as similar to TL; as a youngster, they insulated me from certain things. And it had no effect. I found out about that stuff eventually, but when I was older and mature enough that "forbidden knowledge" had lost much of it's cachet. Thus was I able to approach those areas with clear judgement instead of youthful rebellion. This isn't just the idea that "it takes a village to raise a child", this is all the way to "the village has the final say." With what authority do you judge parents? How do you know that your way is so much better? What data do you have? Because all I hear are empty assertion and blanket condemnation of people you don't even know. Oh? You don't think for a minute that TL could simply be trying to raise his kids in the best way he knows how? Out of a genuine concern for his own progeny?Sure, it's a pack of lies, to you. To TL it's very, very true. Who's to say who is right on this? I simply don't understand what authority you think you have that allows you to preempt TL's perogative in this. And as a result you sound just as dogmatic, intolerant, and judgemental as any religous bigot. If anything, I guess this demonstrates the diversity of opinion in the atheist "community" - some of us are just as intolerant as the religions we reject. Too bad, really.

Yeah, you're pretty much right on with this. It's like arguing with a creationist. I'm worried he's going to give scientific-minded atheism a bad name. Normally when creationists say "you're just trying to escape god" or something, it's laughable. In his case I wonder if it's the truth. He does seem evolutionist not because of the evidence but because it's not religion.

Sure thing. Comments like this:

quote:

---

I feel it immoral to stand idly by and simply excuse this evil by acknowledging that people believe this things.

---

The use of words like "immoral" and "evil" are common in religious fundamentalism. Dismissal of authority via claims of conspiracy or corruption are common defense mechanisms of fundamentalists. Flat-out rejection of oppositions claim without contrary data. Common tactic of fundamentalists.Basically your rhetoric has been inflammitory and fundamentalist, but rather data-light. If you think Truthlover's kids - or the kids of any theist - are somehow harmed by the experience, why not present some data in that regard?Of course, all we have so far is your own experience, which apparently we're supposed to take as gospel. What I really love is this: What, it would take supernatural insight to have better knowledge than you? Ah, the arrogance of the fundamentalist. Go ahead. Do some science. Prove, using nonannecdotal data that supports your theory, that TL's theism does harm to his children. And that raising them outside of a moral framework that includes abstinence from sex and drugs until an age of maturity is better. If you've got the data, as you continually imply, show it! Anything else is just your assertion that religion is harmful to children. That's fine for you to say, but if you want that theory lent credence, we need to see data. That's science.Honestly you're the kind of atheist that creationists accuse us of being.

Just callin' it like I see it. I'm opposed to accepting dogmatic assumption as proven fact, no matter who's doing it.If contracycle thinks TL's kids are being abused, let's see some data. Show me that kids raised religiously are worse off than kids raised in the accepting presence of drugs and sex.