Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8904 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-18-2019 4:17 PM
28 online now:
JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx, xongsmith (5 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,783 Year: 4,820/19,786 Month: 942/873 Week: 298/376 Day: 91/57 Hour: 0/13


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
14Next
Author Topic:   Are sexual prohibitions mixing religion and the law?
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 23 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 121 of 206 (264555)
11-30-2005 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Mammuthus
11-24-2005 9:30 AM


Re: enter holmes...

quote:Can we just establish that science is in fact blame free, per say?

Then I don't understand the point you are arguing. If science is blame free (which I think it is) and you agree with that then we don't have a debate. But I don't think you mean this since you say the opposite below.

Then that is the problem, if you think science is blame free. You are treating science as though it was a noun.


quote:No its not, its reality. Just read some of the responses to my post. again, its not an absolute, but a contributing factor. To completely disconnect the 2 would be wrong, and mis-leading.

It is illegal to buy alcohol when you are under 21 in the US. Does that law make drinking immoral? If a 20 year old drinks a beer is he immoral and the 21 year old not? The law prescribes certain behaviors that will be punished (if caught)..not directly morality..or do you think zoning laws are a moral issue rather than a legal one? Which moral stance do zoning laws determine for you?

Absolutly. Morals is all about what is considered right and wrong. It's not just about personal morals.

From more than one source we can determine that drinking while under the age of 21 is not a good idea. If you do it, or encourage to do it, you are going against morals. Social morals. But its not always black and white, there are gray areas.

Being a hypocrite has nothing to do with all of this.


About the only scientific information I could imagine that would pertain to religion would be some of the studies that examine brain activity during religious experience..the same way they measure brain activity for other experiences. Or the fitness advantages religion may have conferred on groups by providing group identity historically. Otherwise, religion is irrelevant to science...certainly the OT.

Thats just your opinion.


It does not tell you what is right or wrong

Right and wrong is a part of morally acceptable. Go look up the word moral.


Science won't tell you what you should or should not do.

How many times are you going to repeat that, and ignore my point, even though I print it clear enough.

Example. You are holding a glass of brake fluid. You are contimplating taking a sip. Then someone presents a scientific study that reveals you will be dead in 20 minutes if you take that sip.

I am sure that science would then AFFECT your decsion. Where as before, without that knowledge, you would have made a mistake.

It's that simple, and to deny that it happens, is, well, living in denial.


People get STD's because they engage in risky behaviors and ignore the scientific studies that demonstrate the biological consequences. They have made their choice to ignore it. Before the biological basis of STD's were known, you know what? People still got STD's. Is that sciences fault to? Science did not tell them that having sex or getting STDs was right or wrong. Science established what STDs are, how you get them..and in some cases, has provided treatments against them. Religion has done none of this. People will ignore scientific data...heck, the general American public ignores science completely. The fact that religious people get STDs indicate that they ignore their religious rules of right and wrong to.

Yes, and getting, and spreading STD's is IMO morally wrong. It affects us as a society.


The facts are that science can inform you, can establish cause and effect, may even provide a means to preventing harmful effects..but it does not tell you what is right or wrong.

For the last time, I never said it tells you what is right or wrong. I said it influences you, sometimes very heavily, and sometimes incorrectly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Mammuthus, posted 11-24-2005 9:30 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Mammuthus, posted 12-01-2005 4:57 AM riVeRraT has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 23 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 122 of 206 (264556)
11-30-2005 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Silent H
11-24-2005 9:57 AM


Re: enter holmes...

Yes it does. Sometimes they even hire scientists to find out what the law should be, based on their findings.

Again, look at what you just said, this does not show science telling us there should be a law. In the example you provided the people would have hired the scientists to investigate appropriate criteria within a law, not decide that one should be made.

Boy you are stubborn, and maybe a little to defensive of science. The example I provided, could also determine if there needs to be a law at all. So science can determine our laws, accept it.


How many times do I have to say that I agree that science can effect laws? There is a difference between that and saying they make the law, or suggest (that is tell people) that a law should be made.

It is impossible for science to tell anybody to do anything. Science is a verb. But it is that action, and the result of that action, made by individuals that just might.

Science is only as good as the people doing it.


Oh, I'm not a perfect speller. Its just that that was so far off it suggested a nonfamiliarity with its use, which would seem strange from someone involved with hospital work. Now that I understand it was sheet metal work in a hospital, things are much clearer.

It is at this point in time, that I would like to compare myself with a doctor. His spelling vs. mine. I really would, but I can never understand a word the doctor writes, so I can't.


We should have used a quarantine system of some kind. It is just like any other communicable illness which is deadly.

This just goes to show that while science can find something it can't tell us what to do about it. It can only suggest a variety of options, based on what we want from the phenomena being investigated.

Doesn't this process help us determine our social morals, and our personal morals.

It seems you want to disconnect morals from knowledge completely. But our morals are based on our knowledge. If our knowledge is wroing, then our morals can be wrong. Just look at history. I wish I could see into the future, and see how much we are wrong right now.


Just to let you know it has been found that sex is a great way to retain physical health. It not only makes people happier through internal processes, it chemically can improve people's lives (girls that get cum within them react to it physically). Men stay healthier and live longer through masturbation. And for girls, pregnancy at early ages can help against breast cancer.

I am not denying how great sex is. Neither would the bible, just read Song of Songs.

quote:

Song of Solomon 1

1 Solomon's Song of Songs.

Beloved
2 Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth—
for your love is more delightful than wine.

3 Pleasing is the fragrance of your perfumes;
your name is like perfume poured out.
No wonder the maidens love you!

4 Take me away with you—let us hurry!
Let the king bring me into his chambers.


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=26&chapter=1&version=31


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2005 9:57 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Silent H, posted 12-03-2005 10:46 AM riVeRraT has responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 123 of 206 (264659)
12-01-2005 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by riVeRraT
11-30-2005 6:43 PM


Re: enter holmes...
quote:
Then that is the problem, if you think science is blame free. You are treating science as though it was a noun.


No, the problem is you are treating science as if it is the law or the determiner of the law.

quote:
Absolutly. Morals is all about what is considered right and wrong. It's not just about personal morals.

From more than one source we can determine that drinking while under the age of 21 is not a good idea. If you do it, or encourage to do it, you are going against morals. Social morals. But its not always black and white, there are gray areas.

Being a hypocrite has nothing to do with all of this.



So you equate morals with the law? Intersting. Drinking under 21 in Germany is legal but in America it is not...which is moral? Owning slaves was legal in the US...was it moral then? Is sharia law then moral because it is law in some countries?

quote:
Thats just your opinion.

Then show me wrong. Religion has nothing to teach science..it is a major impediment to scientific progress in America in particular...please show me how religion will help me figure out the effects of epigenetics on the expression of HERVs in macaque brains?

quote:
Right and wrong is a part of morally acceptable. Go look up the word moral

And what does this have to do with science? If you find stem cell research morally unacceptable, does this change the properties of stem cells?

quote:
Example. You are holding a glass of brake fluid. You are contimplating taking a sip. Then someone presents a scientific study that reveals you will be dead in 20 minutes if you take that sip.

I am sure that science would then AFFECT your decsion. Where as before, without that knowledge, you would have made a mistake.


How do you know what the consequences would have been without the scientific study? What if you knew the result of the study but decided not to tell the person? Did science tell you to do that, to withhold the information? The scientific study provided facts, the person made his own choice...he could have still consumed the poison. How is this in anyway similar to a statement or "law" like "thou shalt not kill"?

quote:
Yes, and getting, and spreading STD's is IMO morally wrong. It affects us as a society.


The difference is it is you opinion that it is morally wrong. Science does not tell you that it is morally right or wrong..only that STD's can affect your health which is a morally neutral statement like the sky is blue.

quote:
For the last time, I never said it tells you what is right or wrong. I said it influences you, sometimes very heavily, and sometimes incorrectly.

Being blind influences blind people. Being deaf to...does being blind determine your morality? You have failed to show that science determines morals or even how it directly affects morality.

How about this, it is known that condem use reduces the risk of both unwanted pregnancy and transmission of STDs. But many so called moral Xian groups spend huge amounts of money and time to make sure that millions of people either remain uninformed of this fact or have access to this protection. They claim they are moral. Science did not influence this morality...in fact the "moral" is in direct opposition to what is the healthiest behavior. Morality and right and wrong are coming from elsewhere...not from science.

quote:
How many times are you going to repeat that, and ignore my point, even though I print it clear enough.



Your point is clear enough and I have not ignored it. The problem is your point is wrong.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by riVeRraT, posted 11-30-2005 6:43 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by riVeRraT, posted 12-01-2005 11:06 PM Mammuthus has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 23 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 124 of 206 (264928)
12-01-2005 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Mammuthus
12-01-2005 4:57 AM


Re: enter holmes...

No, the problem is you are treating science as if it is the law or the determiner of the law.

Then you need to go back and read through all my posts. I never claimed that it determines the law.


So you equate morals with the law? Intersting. Drinking under 21 in Germany is legal but in America it is not...which is moral? Owning slaves was legal in the US...was it moral then? Is sharia law then moral because it is law in some countries?

Look up the definition of moral, I believe you will find the dictionary will agree with me.

And yes morals are relative to the times, and knowledge.


Then show me wrong. Religion has nothing to teach science..it is a major impediment to scientific progress in America in particular...please show me how religion will help me figure out the effects of epigenetics on the expression of HERVs in macaque brains?

You just assumed that I meant religion has something to teach science, I never said that either.


And what does this have to do with science? If you find stem cell research morally unacceptable, does this change the properties of stem cells?

The properties (actual) of stem cells is no more science than religion is. Science is the study of both. It is then what we do with the results, and how we factor it into our lives that make up morals. If one or the other is wrong, then your moral base is faulty.

quote:

How do you know what the consequences would have been without the scientific study?

Exactly Watson.

quote:

What if you knew the result of the study but decided not to tell the person?

That is not part of the story, and irrelevant.

quote:

Did science tell you to do that, to withhold the information?

We are not talking about withholding information here, do not change the topic.

quote:
The scientific study provided facts, the person made his own choice...

Based on the.......facts. You've almost got it.

quote:

he could have still consumed the poison.

What kind of moral choice would that have been based on the known facts?

quote:
How is this in anyway similar to a statement or "law" like "thou shalt not kill"?

Thou shall not kill is a law based on facts. Even if the facts were from God himself, after all he knows. The law is the end result, of the accumulation of facts, and knowledge, and what is morally acceptable.

Your problem is that you keep trying to separte them all. They are not the same exact things, but they all work together to provide us with morals, and laws.

Would you agree that ones morals could be wrong, even by their own judgement, if they did not know all the facts?
Or do you believe that morals are never wrong?

Can science and religion say the same thing, or is that just an impossibility with you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Mammuthus, posted 12-01-2005 4:57 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Mammuthus, posted 12-02-2005 4:50 AM riVeRraT has responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 125 of 206 (264959)
12-02-2005 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by riVeRraT
12-01-2005 11:06 PM


Re: enter holmes...
quote:
Look up the definition of moral, I believe you will find the dictionary will agree with me.

And yes morals are relative to the times, and knowledge.


Now this is interesting...I thought you fundamentalist types claimed morals are absolute? Now they change with the times?

Anyway, how does knowledge affect morals? I gave you an example where "morality", at least right wing Xian, goes against knowledge or denies the knowledge exists.

quote:
The properties (actual) of stem cells is no more science than religion is. Science is the study of both. It is then what we do with the results, and how we factor it into our lives that make up morals. If one or the other is wrong, then your moral base is faulty.

Um..science is not the study of religion. And studying the properties of stem cells is only done using science. The properties themselves are facts.

It may not be an intended consequence of your arguement but you are implying that the more knowledge a person has the more moral they are. I might be willing to concede that willful ignorance is immoral :)

quote:
Exactly Watson.

?

quote:
We are not talking about withholding information here, do not change the topic

Sure we are. You are claiming that science is responsible or as much of an influence on morality as religion because it gives us knowledge. Now you imply here that the knowledge is not relevant. Science is the gathering of knowledge.

Make up your mind..either knowledge is responsible for morality and thus science is or it is not..you cannot argue both ways.

quote:
Based on the.......facts. You've almost got it.

No, not the way you mean it. In some cases you make decisions based on facts..in some cases you make them flying blind. Where is the morality stemming from if I am making decisions in either case or does morality have anything to do with it at all?

quote:
What kind of moral choice would that have been based on the known facts?

It would have been a stupid choice..not a moral choice. Maybe he has a distrust of facts or authority..or is just dense.

quote:
Thou shall not kill is a law based on facts

Oh really? What facts are those? The US just executed its 1000th inmate. People kill people all the time for economic benefit or emotional reasons. What facts are these laws based on? Certainly not the bible...your god was a mass murderer in the old testament.

quote:
Your problem is that you keep trying to separte them all. They are not the same exact things, but they all work together to provide us with morals, and laws.

And you conflate completely unrelated things.

quote:
Would you agree that ones morals could be wrong, even by their own judgement, if they did not know all the facts?
Or do you believe that morals are never wrong?

No, I don't think morals are never wrong. I think radical right wing Xians are completely immoral. They think that I am. Who is right. Facts seem to have no impact on their reasoning.

quote:
Can science and religion say the same thing, or is that just an impossibility with you?

Can you give me an example of science and religion actually addressing the same thing?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by riVeRraT, posted 12-01-2005 11:06 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by riVeRraT, posted 12-03-2005 10:23 PM Mammuthus has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3923 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 126 of 206 (265220)
12-03-2005 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by riVeRraT
11-30-2005 6:56 PM


Re: enter holmes...
maybe a little to defensive of science.

How is pointing out that science cannot tell us whether to make a law or not being defensive? It doesn't seem to me that science is harmed or benefitted one way or the other. I am simply trying to point out the fact that it doesn't.

The example I provided, could also determine if there needs to be a law at all. So science can determine our laws, accept it.

You just reasserted the point being challenged and then state I should accept it. Why? You are wrong. The example you provided could not determine if there NEEDS to be a law. That would all depend on some subjective desire of the lawmakers.

Science is only as good as the people doing it.

How many times are you going to repeat this before it sticks that I agree?

It is at this point in time, that I would like to compare myself with a doctor. His spelling vs. mine. I really would, but I can never understand a word the doctor writes, so I can't.

So you are saying you do not know the difference between illegible and illiterate?

It seems you want to disconnect morals from knowledge completely. But our morals are based on our knowledge. If our knowledge is wroing, then our morals can be wrong.

Well you'd be wrong yet again. I did not argue that morals are completely separate from knowledge. I am arguing that knowledge is insufficient for morals.

I am not denying how great sex is. Neither would the bible, just read Song of Songs.

You know somewhere else at EvC I just recently argued with a Xian who was trying to suggest Song of Solomon wasn't sex positive. You guys are crazy!


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by riVeRraT, posted 11-30-2005 6:56 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by riVeRraT, posted 12-03-2005 10:47 PM Silent H has responded

    
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 23 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 127 of 206 (265353)
12-03-2005 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Mammuthus
12-02-2005 4:50 AM


Re: enter holmes...

Now this is interesting...I thought you fundamentalist types claimed morals are absolute? Now they change with the times?

Biblical morals, so far as I have tested, are absolute.
Whether you choose to take on these morals as your own, is up to you.

I do want to start a thread on biblical morals, but I don't think I am qualified enough yet.


Anyway, how does knowledge affect morals? I gave you an example where "morality", at least right wing Xian, goes against knowledge or denies the knowledge exists.

Well for unbelievers, it is obvious how knowledge affects morals, to me anyway.

For believers, it affects how we translate the morals of the bible. Just look at how many religions there are, and how the morals can vary slightly for religion to religion.


And studying the properties of stem cells is only done using science. The properties themselves are facts.

Right, thats what I just said. You were the implying that stem cells themselves are science.

quote:

And what does this have to do with science? If you find stem cell research morally unacceptable, does this change the properties of stem cells?


To me, in that statement you are implying that moral unacceptable ideas can change stem cell properties, But the morally unacceptable idea was the study of stem cells, not the cells themselves.

Your combining what is, with the study of what is, and that is the mistake I seem to discovering about most of the people here in this forum.

You see, I don't have a problem with what is, but I do have a problem with the study of what is. Just like I have a problem with religion.
I do not think the world should be without either.


Um..science is not the study of religion.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

I never said it was the study of religion. But the study of religion and the things accociated with it, can be part of science. How many scientifical studies are there out there regarding prayer? You need to retract that statement.


Sure we are. You are claiming that science is responsible or as much of an influence on morality as religion because it gives us knowledge. Now you imply here that the knowledge is not relevant. Science is the gathering of knowledge.

Make up your mind..either knowledge is responsible for morality and thus science is or it is not..you cannot argue both ways.

I will try to clear up this mis-inderstanding.

Lets pretend science is a bar graph. Each bar on the graph represents all the different kinds of science there is. It also represents how this science is applied. There is many bars on the graph. The height of the bar represents how much we know relative to how much there is to be known. (of course we can't know where the top of the bar will end)

A good part of these bars are harmless science studys, like oceaneography, or astronomy.

But some are more directly affecting us, like medicine, nuclear bombs, microwaves, etc.

As you can already probably imagine. The bars on the graph are not going to be at equal heights.

Each science can be slightly dependant on the other sciences. So our focus on things can be biased, because money makes the world go round.

Withholding information has nothing to do with it. That is a completely different subject.

But you could see how doing such a thing can affect someones idea of what is right and wrong.

i.e. Take a scientist from 300 years ago, and bring him into the present. He would have to change his morals mighty fast, based on what he would learn. So we will have to change our morals in the future, as well learn more about ourselves, and the earth. It just keeps changing, so when is it ever right?

Religious morals do not change, and they hold up.

I try to learn from both.


quote:What kind of moral choice would that have been based on the known facts?

It would have been a stupid choice..not a moral choice. Maybe he has a distrust of facts or authority..or is just dense.

No, your wrong, it would have been a moral choice, because he has to decide if he is going to live or die. That is a moral decsion.

What do you think morals are?


Oh really? What facts are those? The US just executed its 1000th inmate. People kill people all the time for economic benefit or emotional reasons. What facts are these laws based on? Certainly not the bible...your god was a mass murderer in the old testament.

Its amazing how much damage you can do in a few sentences. They say it takes 7 truths to unfold 1 lie, and I see why now.

I don't agree with capitol punishment. I do blame each and everyone of us for people being the way they are. Maybe if we all loved each other the way Jesus told us to love, then there would be no need for any of this.

I am not going to stick up for God, but he can do what he wants with his creation. Nobody tells me how to hop my my 68 camaro, or send it to the crusher if I want.


No, not the way you mean it. In some cases you make decisions based on facts..in some cases you make them flying blind. Where is the morality stemming from if I am making decisions in either case or does morality have anything to do with it at all?

Where do you get your morals from?


And you conflate completely unrelated things.

So do you, if would care to answer the last question.


No, I don't think morals are never wrong. I think radical right wing Xians are completely immoral. They think that I am. Who is right. Facts seem to have no impact on their reasoning.

What does Jesus think of you?


Can you give me an example of science and religion actually addressing the same thing?

Of course your going to say its not exactly the same, that is because science tries to break down what actually works in religion, and give it another name, so as not to glorify God, because after all, God doesn't exist, or does any proof of God.

But if you walk through a hospital ward, and pray for people to be healed, it is a good thing according to biblical morals.

Science studys would agree that showing love to sick people can help them heal.
:cool:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Mammuthus, posted 12-02-2005 4:50 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Mammuthus, posted 12-05-2005 6:41 AM riVeRraT has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 23 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 128 of 206 (265360)
12-03-2005 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Silent H
12-03-2005 10:46 AM


Re: enter holmes...

You just reasserted the point being challenged and then state I should accept it. Why? You are wrong. The example you provided could not determine if there NEEDS to be a law. That would all depend on some subjective desire of the lawmakers.

It could go both ways.

Why can't you at least be honest with yourself, never mind me.

If the law sees a need for a law, then asks for scientific research to define a law, then sciences is involved and an accessory to the "crime" (lol) What if the science was wrong? Well we will just have to change that law to adjust.

But, lets say someone invents microwaves......Then science finds out that microwaves can be harmful to flesh. So then the FCC says we need to make a laws regarding this for our own safty. Without that knowledge, there would have been no law, and people would get hurt.


So you are saying you do not know the difference between illegible and illiterate?

No, I am saying how do you know if someone is illiterate, if their writing is illegable.

But now that I think about it, isn't having illegable writing, a step in the direction of being illiterate?


I am arguing that knowledge is insufficient for morals.

Then we are arguing the same thing. Even though I expressed several times that knowledge does not define our morals, but it helps define our morals. We agree, how about that.


You know somewhere else at EvC I just recently argued with a Xian who was trying to suggest Song of Solomon wasn't sex positive. You guys are crazy!

You see, I don't think that is fair, calling me "you guys". Thats like a prejudice statement.

I don't go around thinking every atheist is going to hell, so I don't expect for you to call every rat who believes in God a Xian fundie gay basher.

Don't let that guy try to tell you there is no positive aspects of sex in the bible.

quote:

Proverbs 5:19
A loving doe, a graceful deer— may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love.

Song of Solomon 1:13
My lover is to me a sachet of myrrh resting between my breasts.

Song of Solomon 4:5
Your two breasts are like two fawns, like twin fawns of a gazelle that browse

Ezekiel 16:7
I made you grow like a plant of the field. You grew up and developed and became the most beautiful of jewels. Your breasts were formed and your hair grew, you who were naked and bare.

And just so we know one of the roles of the breast in the bible:

Ezekiel 23:3
They became prostitutes in Egypt, engaging in prostitution from their youth. In that land their breasts were fondled and their virgin bosoms caressed.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Silent H, posted 12-03-2005 10:46 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Silent H, posted 12-04-2005 6:20 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 129 of 206 (265410)
12-04-2005 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by riVeRraT
11-23-2005 9:25 PM


riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:
quote:
Do we really need to go through the rigamorale of pointing out that AIDS is a heterosexual disease?

When did I say it wasn't?

Can't remember your own words, eh? Did you or did you not say the following:

Sticking you dinky in someones ass isn't exactly a clean thing to do

Now, don't be disingenuous and claim that because the words "AIDS" or "HIV" did not appear in your post that it somehow means you weren't referring to them. And don't compound the problem by trying to claim that you weren't referring to male-male anal sex.

quote:
And explain just how it is a heterosexual desease?

Are you incapable of reading? Three-quarters of all cases of HIV transmission happened through heterosexual sex. Thus, by definition, AIDS is a heterosexual disease. Heterosexuals are the ones most likely to be infected by it and they got infected by having heterosexual sex.

quote:
Where did it come from?

Not from gay people. Not from anal sex. Why did you feel the need to bring them up? Remember, claims that you didn't are transparently false.

quote:
If it is, it really doesn't matter.

Then why did you bring up male-male anal sex?

quote:
quote:
Why are you so obsessed with what other men do with their penises? Are you trying to tell us something?

It's truely amazing, but your the one who went right to the gay thing,


Nice try, but you were the one who brought it up: "Sticking you [sic] dinky in someones [sic] ass." It is of no use to try to claim that you weren't talking about male-male anal sex.

quote:
I wasn't even thinking about gay people when I wrote that.

Right. Pull the other. It has bells on.

quote:
I was only pointing out that crap on your dicky is unhealthy.

Uh-huh...and why would you bring that up? After all, AIDS is a heterosexual disease transmitted primarily through heterosexual sex. Penis-vagina sex. Where does "crap" come into it? Are you of the opinion that the vagina is the orifice for defecation?

You will note that I am not saying that heterosexuals do not engage in anal sex. I am pointing out that penis-vagina sex is the most common transmission vector for heterosexuals acquiring HIV.

quote:
My point was, which you always seem to miss, is that science helps us determine what is good and bad for us,

Indeed. And what it tells us is that if you want to stop HIV transmission, stop having sex with people of the opposite sex. That's the most common way the virus is transmitted.

It tells us that we should all become lesbians since they have the lowest risk of sexually transmitted HIV.

quote:
It would seem that some people would make anything legal, or morally acceptable just as long as the partys involved will consent to it.

Huh? We're back to the gay men, aren't we? Those icky, icky ho-mo-SECK-shuls are doing something that I don't like, therefore it is morally unacceptable and should be made illegal.

quote:
That is the excuse I keep hearing over and over.

Well, I can't control the voices in your head. Perhaps if you were to stop listening to them and do some actual research into the subject, you'd stop hearing them...or at least stop listening to them. They are leading you astray.

quote:
They want to live in a moral free society, where everything is ok if it really doesn't involve you. But that thought in itself is a moral.

And thus, you have just proven that you don't understand what they're saying at all if you think they are advocating a "moral free society."

You seem to be of the opinion that if someone doesn't share your morals, they don't have any morals at all. This seems to be related to the nihilism thread where many people seem to think that because someone recognizes that good and bad are socially constructed, that must mean that said someone has no sense of morality or ethics and would sooner kill you as say hello.

We're back to my Monopoly example. The rules of Monopoly are completely arbitrary and man made. They even vary from house to house. And yet, they clearly exist and get enforced. Cheat, and you get punished.

quote:
I also believe that everything we do, affects the next person, because I believe we are a human race, and it is my desire for us to live like one, in peace.

Then why do you keep making other people's lives difficult? If you truly believed this, why do you feel that your phobias and neuroses must be inflicted upon others?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by riVeRraT, posted 11-23-2005 9:25 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by riVeRraT, posted 12-05-2005 8:42 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3923 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 130 of 206 (265412)
12-04-2005 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by riVeRraT
12-03-2005 10:47 PM


Re: enter holmes...
Note: Sorry I answered your post a line at a time, and so some of what I deal with in the beginning is made moot by what is said later.

Why can't you at least be honest with yourself, never mind me.

You keep acting like I'm trying to hide something. Science is not undercut if it could do what you said so its not important to me whether it does or not. It simply doesn't and so I am pointing out that it doesn't.

If the law sees a need for a law, then asks for scientific research to define a law, then sciences is involved and an accessory to the "crime" (lol) What if the science was wrong? Well we will just have to change that law to adjust.

I have already said science CAN be used to help define a law in the way described in the quote above. I stated this a long time ago.

It simply cannot tell anyone that a law is needed. The criteria of whether one is needed or not is set by nonscientists, though science may be used to check what in the world fits that criteria.

Let's put it this way as soon as you can show me that:

1+1=we need a law

Then you will have made your point.

If you point was that the law sometimes uses science to investigate what fits criteria, or could be used as secondary criteria for law, then I agreed to that a long time ago. And yes scientists can be wrong. Sometimes legal regulations have been too tight and sometimes they have been too wide for what the goals of the regulations were meant to deal with.

isn't having illegable writing, a step in the direction of being illiterate?

No.

Then we are arguing the same thing. Even though I expressed several times that knowledge does not define our morals, but it helps define our morals. We agree, how about that.

I said this a long time ago. It was your arguing against what I said which drove me to believe you were arguing for something more.

You see, I don't think that is fair, calling me "you guys". Thats like a prejudice statement.

Heheheh, I was just joking. I'm glad you agree that lumping a group together is a prejudiced statement of sorts.

Don't let that guy try to tell you there is no positive aspects of sex in the bible.

I won't, and from now on I'll quote you to him.

This message has been edited by holmes, 12-04-2005 06:22 AM


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by riVeRraT, posted 12-03-2005 10:47 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

    
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 206 (265522)
12-04-2005 6:06 PM


To All

Back in the 1980s, the progenitor of AIDS was found to be a homesexual flight attendant. This person was referred to as a sexual athlete as he wanted and often engaged in sex many times a day. While I agree with the statement that AIDS is not a homosexual disease, it gained its foothold in that community. This person engaged in very frequent indiscrimate sex. His list of partners was legion. His "advantage" as a flight attendant was no small matter in the initial spread of the disease.

The problem is that the lower colon was not designed for sex and is subject to micro-tears that increase the probability to transmission of the virus. The virus is not hearty in that it cannot remain viable outside the blood stream. In my estimation, when one has sex with so many so often, it will tend to be, shall we say, more enthusiastic with stronger motions and tend to cause more microtears than sex with fewer and maybe a single partner.

This person was told he had this disease and was causing people to die of the virus. He seems to have been rather resistant to the virus and was a carrier. He was asked to refrain from so much indiscrimiate sex. Obviously he refused.

The virus gained a foothold in the homosexual community and mutated in multiple directions. It became more communicable and is now a world wide problem. No one can pretend it is limited to any single community.

The core problem now with HIV is indescrimate sex. It is not a religious issue, it is sex with multiple partners in an age in which that spreads a deadly disease. I suppose this can be said to be a moral issue. After all, when one deliberately exposes others to a disease then that person has a lacking in morals. I suspects atheists and believers can agree on this point.

If there had been laws where people who have a sexually spread disease and do not limit their sexual activity, this guy and others like him could have been locked up and isolated. AIDS would not have spread nearly as rapidly as it did. But we did not. And in all honesty, it probably would have eventually become the same problem it is now. Here is a law that could have saved many millions of lives.

However, back to the thread topic.

Do you think sexual prohibitions are mixing religion and the law?

I hold there is no single answer. Mostly yes. Most of our sexual laws are based on religion and are imposing religion beliefs and restrictions on the public. I think that is wrong.

I hold there nothing morally wrong with prostitution. I never visited a prostitute and in this day and age of AIDS would never have sex with a prostitute. Indeed, while not on the market now, if I am, I will not have sex with anyone until we both have a test for sexually transmited diseases, in particular the viral diseases such as HIV and herpes.

On the other hand, laws controlling the activities of people spreading sexualy distributed diseases are indeed needed. The dividing line is difficult to draw. Because of sexually transmitted diseases, prostutution (for example) must have some significant controls.

My final answer to the OP, Yes.


Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by nwr, posted 12-04-2005 6:13 PM bkelly has not yet responded
 Message 133 by Silent H, posted 12-04-2005 6:55 PM bkelly has responded
 Message 135 by Rrhain, posted 12-05-2005 1:33 AM bkelly has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 132 of 206 (265527)
12-04-2005 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by bkelly
12-04-2005 6:06 PM


If there had been laws where people who have a sexually spread disease and do not limit their sexual activity, this guy and others like him could have been locked up and isolated.

I doubt that. AIDS was already well established before it was recognized that it was a sexually transmitted disease.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by bkelly, posted 12-04-2005 6:06 PM bkelly has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3923 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 133 of 206 (265532)
12-04-2005 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by bkelly
12-04-2005 6:06 PM


Way off.

You have simply started with recognition of HIV where it hit the US population hardest initially. Patient 0 (the flight attendant) was not the cause of the disease and if he had not existed we still would have been hit, only in a different way first.

Its beginnings have been reasonably tracked back to Africa where it began outside of sexual transmission altogether, as a likely mutated simian virus contracted by people butchering monkeys for meat. From there the most likely transmission routes were blood (including shared needles) and hetero sex. That is still its major routes within that region.

Eventually someone coming out of africa with the disease got to a gay/bisexual vector which hit a totally unprepared, ostracized, and unprotected community. It could have hit blood banks first and been a slower spreading yet even slower to discover problem.

I'm getting pretty sick and tired of people trying to connect sexual morality to health problems like HIV.

The virus gained a foothold in the homosexual community and mutated in multiple directions. It became more communicable and is now a world wide problem. No one can pretend it is limited to any single community.

It entered the gay community from the hetero. It was communicable from the get go otherwise it would not have spread and it was worldwide before we found out what it was.

The core problem now with HIV is indescrimate sex. It is not a religious issue, it is sex with multiple partners in an age in which that spreads a deadly disease.

Horseshit. You can have as much sex as you want with as many partners as you want.

The CORE PROBLEM is not identifying health status of individuals during a global pandemic and introducing some form of quarantine system which would be done if this had been anything OTHER than a sexual disease.

The TERTIARY PROBLEM is people engaging in risk activities with those of unknown health status. Sex is not the only risk activity, and some sexual activity comes with 0 risks.

The CONTINUING PROBLEM is people making these rather ignorant and outlandish claims about the nature of a contagion which is ravaging world populations.

I agree that people who continue to engage in sex despite knowing they have a major STD are a health hazard and cross most moral, and should cross legal, boundaries.

The dividing line is difficult to draw. Because of sexually transmitted diseases, prostutution (for example) must have some significant controls.

The line is not hard at all. If this wasn't sex we'd already have the answers in hand. Take this example...

A new virulent flu strain has begun popping up all over the world. It is highly contagious. Who do YOU blame:

1) People that breathe, for breathing, especially when they don't need to.

2) People that breathe in large groups rather than confining their activity to the vicinity of only one partner.

3) People that in their occupation breathe amongst all sorts of new people, called clients, which by their nature will breathe amongst others all over the world.

Or does that sound like a bunch of dumbassery? Its a contagion. You don't blame anyone except those that know they are sick and yet act in ways to spread that contagion. You don't regulate the activity which acts as the vector, nor the occupations which include the vector.

What one does is find the contagion within the population and isolate (quarantine) those with the contagion in some manner. Anything else is taking advantage of a medical emergency to push through moral controls.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by bkelly, posted 12-04-2005 6:06 PM bkelly has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by bkelly, posted 12-04-2005 7:35 PM Silent H has responded

    
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 206 (265537)
12-04-2005 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Silent H
12-04-2005 6:55 PM


Hello Holmes,
We agree in several places and disagree in others.

RE: I'm getting pretty sick and tired of people trying to connect sexual morality to health problems like HIV.

Did you get the impression that I link sexual morality to HIV? I link it not specifically to sexual morals, but in morality in general. Because this a sexualy transmitted disease, we (the world) is not treating it as we would (and should) other problems. I think we agree on that.

RE: Horseshit. You can have as much sex as you want with as many partners as you want.

I assume you mean with no medical test before sexual contact. If not, then this paragraph is not directed at you. If so:

That attitude is common and shows a complete lack of understand of medicine and maybe even morals. If you have sex with as many partners as you can, without haveing yourself and your partners checked, then you are the problem. You are deliberately and knowingly exposing yourself to HIV and deliberately and knowlingly exposing others to it. HIV is a medical problem. But when people engage in that kind of activity, it becomes a moral problem. Indiscrimate sexual activity is the primary cause of the spread of HIV.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Silent H, posted 12-04-2005 6:55 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Rrhain, posted 12-05-2005 1:37 AM bkelly has not yet responded
 Message 137 by Silent H, posted 12-05-2005 5:53 AM bkelly has responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 135 of 206 (265638)
12-05-2005 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by bkelly
12-04-2005 6:06 PM


bkelly writes:

quote:
Back in the 1980s, the progenitor of AIDS was found to be a homesexual flight attendant.

Incorrect. You are referring to Gaetan Dugas. Dr. William Darrow of the CDC had done a population study to find out how HIV had entered the country (and remember, this is before we could detect the virus...he was working solely on people who had gotten sick with opportunistic infections, not by any test to show that they had HIV since, at the time, we didn't even know what was causing AIDS) and traced the sexual history of the men back to Dugas.

Randy Shilts wrote of this in his article-turned-book, And the Band Played On, and it is played out in the movie adaptation that HBO did.

Four years after Shilts published, however, Darrow retracted his claim, insisting that the methodology was flawed and that Shilts misinterpreted the results. In the movie, the character of Dugas points out something quite true: "Somebody gave it to me."

As an example of the flawed methodology, it was assumed at the time that the incubation period from infection to becoming AIDS was approximately one year. The sexual history trail looked for people who had had sex with Dugas and come down with AIDS within a year of having had sex with him (on average for the men being traced, 11 months).

As we now know, progression from HIV to full-blown AIDS takes much longer than that, most often. In fact, given what we know about the development of HIV disease from infection to AIDS, it is likely that Dugas didn't infect any of the men in the study.

They were already HIV+.

quote:
The problem is that the lower colon was not designed for sex

Obviously incorrect or you wouldn't be able to have anal sex. Since people have anal sex all the time (in fact, there is more heterosexual anal sex than homosexual anal sex), it is clear by simple inspection that the claim of "the lower colon was not designed for sex" is false.

quote:
In my estimation, when one has sex with so many so often, it will tend to be, shall we say, more enthusiastic with stronger motions and tend to cause more microtears than sex with fewer and maybe a single partner.

BWAHAHAHAHA!

Studs fuck harder? THAT is your argument? And you provide no supporting evidence for this?

quote:
This person was told he had this disease and was causing people to die of the virus.

Incorrect. Dugas didn't know he was involved until the CDC tracked him down. And remember, there was still no test for HIV since it still hadn't been discovered. He had had no opportunistic infection. While he did, eventually, die from AIDS, there was no way to show that he was infected at the time he was first contacted.

[Wait...I'm having a creationist hypocrisy moment here: If we can conclude through indirect investigation that a person is likely to have been the agent in infecting a large group of men even though we cannot directly test for his infection, doesn't that mean that it's all just a sham and fraud and "bad science" to insist that he is? This is much like the claim of creationists that evolution is "stretching things" when it concludes that the fossil record shows clear transitional changes in morphology. After all, we weren't there to see it and thus, no "direct" evidence. Why is it that when a scientific process supports a creationist's political agenda, it's the best science in the world but when the exact same process contradicts the creationist, it's suddenly the hallucinations of atheists? But I digress.]

quote:
The virus gained a foothold in the homosexual community and mutated in multiple directions.

Indeed, but not before it was already well-established in the heterosexual community. Remember, three-quarters of all cases of HIV transmission worldwide were through heterosexual sex.

To paraphrase from the movie, "Somebody gave it to gay men."

quote:
The core problem now with HIV is indescrimate sex.

"Now"? What do you mean "now"? It has always been that way. Every sexually transmitted disease has been that way. Sex does not generate disease.

quote:
It is not a religious issue, it is sex with multiple partners in an age in which that spreads a deadly disease.

Incorrect.

The issue is not the number of partners but rather the actions taken with those partners. I could have sex with every single person in the world and not risk even catching a cold let alone HIV if I do it right.

100% guaranteed. I don't even need a condom to do it, either.

quote:
If there had been laws where people who have a sexually spread disease and do not limit their sexual activity, this guy and others like him could have been locked up and isolated.

Then you'd have to lock up the heterosexuals because they are the ones most likely to be infected. The US is one of the last places in the world where HIV is transmitted primarily by men who have sex with men. Europe flipped to primarily heterosexual sex back in 1999.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by bkelly, posted 12-04-2005 6:06 PM bkelly has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by bkelly, posted 12-05-2005 5:54 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
14Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019