Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Haggard thread #2
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 168 (362388)
11-07-2006 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
11-07-2006 3:27 AM


It seems that he is apologizing for hurting and embarassing the church he served and his friends and family. The letter seems pretty appropriate for me, leaving out the details (homosexual sex, drug use) that are really no one else's business or details (infidelity) that are a private family matter.
Is there something in particular you would like to see him say?

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 11-07-2006 3:27 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2006 9:43 AM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 7 by Taz, posted 11-07-2006 12:37 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 8 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-07-2006 12:38 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 168 (362442)
11-07-2006 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Taz
11-07-2006 12:53 PM


Oh, my. Well, you just gotta hear about it!

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Taz, posted 11-07-2006 12:53 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Taz, posted 11-07-2006 1:50 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 168 (362445)
11-07-2006 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Taz
11-07-2006 1:50 PM


Not that it matters what she looks like: Driscoll is an asshat.
Added by edit:
Hmm. Upon reading Driscoll's blog where he has made those, um, unfortunate comments, I am struck at how little anything he said has to do with the Haggard situation. It's almost as if he's preoccupied with something and needed an excuse to vent his anxieties.
Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Taz, posted 11-07-2006 1:50 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Taz, posted 11-07-2006 5:10 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 168 (362470)
11-07-2006 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Taz
11-07-2006 5:10 PM


Heh. Me too. As it turns out, I don't think Driscoll was even thinking of Haggard when he wrote his blog entry. Maybe he's thinking of his own wife? (Not that I mean to dis Mrs. Driscoll; just suggesting that she might want to think hard about with whom she really wants to spend the rest of her life.)

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Taz, posted 11-07-2006 5:10 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Taz, posted 11-07-2006 5:31 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 168 (362477)
11-07-2006 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Taz
11-07-2006 5:31 PM


Mark Driscoll writes:
Thankfully, I was married to a beautiful woman.
Notice the past tense?

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Taz, posted 11-07-2006 5:31 PM Taz has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 168 (362635)
11-08-2006 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Coragyps
11-08-2006 11:00 AM


Re: The Latest
Well, it is possible that the sex of the other party was not openly discussed during the meeting. I have a harder time believing, though, that the information did not have an affect on how the participants were thinking.

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Coragyps, posted 11-08-2006 11:00 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 168 (362915)
11-09-2006 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by crashfrog
11-07-2006 12:46 PM


From The Onion:
Maybe if his wife were a man who provided him with crystal meth, this poor guy wouldn't have had to go searching for other ways to satisfy his urges.

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2006 12:46 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 168 (364571)
11-18-2006 2:36 PM


I just hate to see a good thread die.
This is a bit late (and not one of Rubin Bolling's best), but here is the latest Tom the Dancing Bug.

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 168 (365163)
11-21-2006 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by nator
11-21-2006 6:44 AM


Re: maturity
quote:
A male figure is literally throwing away a female figure, head first, into a garbage can.
Oh, that's a female figure. At first I thought it was a child figure (it is small, after all) and so thought it was some sort of sick pedophile joke (and pretty funny, too).
Now I see what it's saying. The trash can is a visual pun, equating "dump" as in "dump trash" with "dump" as in "leave a relationship". So the T-shirt is saying that one should have sex with a woman and then leave her. And I agree that this isn't nearly as funny as what I originally thought it was saying.

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by nator, posted 11-21-2006 6:44 AM nator has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 168 (365596)
11-23-2006 12:16 PM


People talking past each other.
Nemesis feels that homosexuality is wrong, and he has compared it to having sex with children. Taking him at his word, then, he feels that homosexuality is wrong for the same reasons that he feels that sex with children is wrong.
People are trying to counter this by pointing out that homosexuality concerns relationships between consenting adults while sex with children involves persons who are not capable of granting consent.
However, nemesis doesn't buy into this argument; in fact, I don't believe that he was unaware of this line of reasoning before he became involved in this discussion. So, the fact that homosexuality involves two consenting adults while child sex involves a minor who is, by assumption, unable to grant consent is, to nemesis, irrelevent. Clearly, to nemesis, if we take him at his word, finds that there is an essential similarity between homosexuality and child sex, and it is this common characteristic that makes them both wrong.
Why doesn't someone ask nemesis to give a detailed explanation why he feels that child sex is wrong? Perhaps that would illuminate the reasons he finds homosexuality wrong. Perhaps it will show inconsistencies with his approach (and thus provide ammunition for the pro-gay rights side); at the very least people would better understand his position and whence he is coming.
I don't think people use the word "whence" often enough.

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Silent H, posted 11-23-2006 1:55 PM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 150 by crashfrog, posted 11-23-2006 2:23 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 168 (365618)
11-23-2006 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Silent H
11-23-2006 1:55 PM


Re: People talking past each other.
quote:
Actually that's not necessarily so....
You are correct, and that might be what is going on here. After things get repetitive I stop reading very carefully, and so I miss things even though I think that I know what is going on. My fault, really. I shouldn't chime in unless I've been reading carefully. But I am also kind of curious why people think child sex is wrong; I am kind of a dick and like to muck things up sometimes.

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Silent H, posted 11-23-2006 1:55 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Silent H, posted 11-23-2006 3:00 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 168 (365619)
11-23-2006 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by crashfrog
11-23-2006 2:23 PM


Re: People talking past each other.
quote:
No. I'd prefer that he substantiate his position that consent is meaningless and irrelevant.
I dunno. I figured that it's because he thinks its obvious why. Sort of why I think consent is meaningful and relevant -- if someone were to ask me why I think that, I'mnot sure what answered I'd give.

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by crashfrog, posted 11-23-2006 2:23 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by crashfrog, posted 11-23-2006 2:35 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 168 (365622)
11-23-2006 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by crashfrog
11-23-2006 2:35 PM


Re: People talking past each other.
Oh. Holmes is right, I am confused about this thread. I thought the topic was why people should be allowed to have consensual homosexual relationships.

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by crashfrog, posted 11-23-2006 2:35 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 168 (365623)
11-23-2006 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by crashfrog
11-23-2006 2:35 PM


But more about this "consent" thing....
Come to think of it, I'm required to do all sorts of things I don't want. Why should sex be any different?

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by crashfrog, posted 11-23-2006 2:35 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by crashfrog, posted 11-23-2006 3:10 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 168 (365627)
11-23-2006 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by crashfrog
11-23-2006 3:10 PM


Re: But more about this "consent" thing....
I dunno. You should ask those men if and when they show up on this thread. I just wanna know why some people are asked to justify every detail of their moral beliefs when the askers either don't feel they need to justify their beliefs, or when their justifications are based on ass-poor reasoning.
I, too, support the right of consenting adults to engage in sexual activity; I am in no hurry to repeal laws against child sex. I can even explain why I hold these positions, but I am almost afraid to; one thing I have learned here at EvC is that Americans are incapable of having a reasonable conversation about sex, and, being an American myself, I fear that I might not be an exception to that general rule.
On the other hand, stupid conversations can be fun, too, and as along as the conversation has degenerated into stupidity I can't be faulted for going along with everyone else.
-
Back to the general topic:
If nemesis does feel that there are more important considerations than "consent" in determining sexual morality and he does tell us what these are, I hope that we see his challengers willing to explain why they feel consent should outweigh his considerations if and when they demand he justify his considerations. That is all I have been trying to say.

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by crashfrog, posted 11-23-2006 3:10 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by crashfrog, posted 11-23-2006 6:51 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024