Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-16-2019 2:06 PM
167 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, frako, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx, xongsmith (11 members, 156 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,580 Year: 2,617/19,786 Month: 699/1,918 Week: 287/266 Day: 24/35 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56Next
Author Topic:   Any comment on this? (The evil of television?)
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 46 of 82 (44411)
06-27-2003 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by crashfrog
06-27-2003 12:11 AM


crashfrog responds to me:

quote:
quote:
And thus is available for sex.

No offense, but the way you put this makes it sound like rapist's logic.


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:
I mean, surely it's possible to have a sexually mature body and yet not be avaliable for sex?

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!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2003 12:11 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2003 4:09 AM Rrhain has responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 82 (44422)
06-27-2003 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Rrhain
06-27-2003 1:35 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Rrhain, posted 06-27-2003 1:35 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by John, posted 06-28-2003 12:01 AM crashfrog has responded
 Message 54 by Rrhain, posted 06-28-2003 10:30 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 82 (44435)
06-27-2003 7:56 AM


quote:
As far as I can see, you may not like religion, and you may want to get rid of it, but, as far as I can see, your post is proof that the atheist can be just as religious as any theist.

I will concede "dogmatic", "motivated" and "enthused", but not religious - for none of my claims are based on supernatural revelation or divine insight.

quote:
So, your opinion of what is meaningless and pointless is so accurate and so reliable that anyone who doesn't agree with it is being abused?

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:
That's what you're saying. You're saying that if my children grow up with my religious convicitions and my choice of values, instead of yours, then thay are abused and shortchanged in their life.

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:
That, my friend, is exactly the arrogance that makes people not like religion. It is exactly the arrogance that makes me not like religion. It doesn't allow anyone to explore or experiment, but demands that they aquiesce just because you're so insightful and knowledgeable about human nature, life, and the spiritual realm.

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:
Sorry, I don't trust you that much.

Immaterial.

quote:
Three of my seven children are sexual, and one of those three is young enough that he won't admit it. The other four are not sexual, although I know they will be.

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:
The three that are sexual are able and have talked to us about sexual things. Life is not hidden from them. They have seen dogs and horses mating, and they know that human children are produced by mating as well.

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:
So basically, I don't know what you're talking about. Should I encourage my 13-year-old to go have sex now that he's got underarm hair and a rumble in his voice?

By no means - but why then are you so horrified by rock and roll and similar entirely normal expressions of teenage reflexes?

quote:
I don't think Ozzy Osbourne plays music. I think he plays loud noises to crowds that are mostly not sober.

Since my children are used to music, and they are used to dancing, I am not surprised when such loud noise is aggravating to them, not entertaining.


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:
From the perspective of those who have met our children, our children are the most joyous and outgoing they have ever met.

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:
Fourteen DCS agents from all over the state interviewed every last one of our children and some of the adults. Their final comment was, "Everyone ought to raise their children this way. We wish we could send some to you."

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:
The dad and mom finally came to visit. They were here all day, and when I came home from work, he met me on the porch, saying, in his Jewish accent, "You told me about your theology, but you should have just told me about the children. They're wonderful. As soon as I met the children, I knew, everything's okay."

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:
That's a typical reaction. I'll place our children next to any anywhere in the world, because they're the happiest, most well-adjusted children I've ever met, too

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:
At this point, you'd have to take my word for it.

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:
Come and see! We're very proud of our kids. We don't think it's exceptional parents, either, but an exceptional way of life, and, of course, an exceptional God :-).

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]


Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by truthlover, posted 06-27-2003 9:51 AM contracycle has not yet responded
 Message 50 by truthlover, posted 06-27-2003 10:20 AM contracycle has not yet responded

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 2102 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 49 of 82 (44448)
06-27-2003 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by contracycle
06-27-2003 7:56 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by contracycle, posted 06-27-2003 7:56 AM contracycle has not yet responded

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 2102 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 50 of 82 (44453)
06-27-2003 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by contracycle
06-27-2003 7:56 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by contracycle, posted 06-27-2003 7:56 AM contracycle has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 82 (44502)
06-28-2003 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by crashfrog
06-27-2003 4:09 AM


quote:
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.

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.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2003 4:09 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2003 2:39 AM John has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 82 (44509)
06-28-2003 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by John
06-28-2003 12:01 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by John, posted 06-28-2003 12:01 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by John, posted 06-28-2003 9:28 AM crashfrog has responded
 Message 55 by Rrhain, posted 06-28-2003 10:41 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 82 (44518)
06-28-2003 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by crashfrog
06-28-2003 2:39 AM


quote:
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.

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?"

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2003 2:39 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by crashfrog, posted 06-30-2003 12:38 AM John has responded

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


Message 54 of 82 (44522)
06-28-2003 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by crashfrog
06-27-2003 4:09 AM


crashfrog responds to me:

quote:
Honestly I'm sure you're not a rapist, but it would have behooved you to be a little clearer, I think.

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!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2003 4:09 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

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


Message 55 of 82 (44524)
06-28-2003 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by crashfrog
06-28-2003 2:39 AM


crashfrog responds to John:

quote:
I don't see that physical avaliablilty has anything to do with behaviors that suggest a willingness for copulation with a particular male

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:
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.

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!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2003 2:39 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by DBlevins, posted 07-01-2003 7:20 AM Rrhain has responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 82 (44637)
06-30-2003 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by John
06-28-2003 9:28 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by John, posted 06-28-2003 9:28 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by John, posted 06-30-2003 9:11 AM crashfrog has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2137 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 57 of 82 (44646)
06-30-2003 5:22 AM


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 turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one anotherís throats.

Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Go out as early as you can,
And donít 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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by doctrbill, posted 07-03-2003 1:22 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 82 (44648)
06-30-2003 5:57 AM


quote:
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.

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:

And I am quite convinced the benefit of our lives and lifestyle is obvious.

I'm sure you are. Thats what they all say.

quote:

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.

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:

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.

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:

With statements like this, you validate even incest with young children. There are lines, and they must be drawn for society to exist.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by crashfrog, posted 06-30-2003 6:13 AM contracycle has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 82 (44650)
06-30-2003 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by contracycle
06-30-2003 5:57 AM


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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by contracycle, posted 06-30-2003 5:57 AM contracycle has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 82 (44667)
06-30-2003 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by crashfrog
06-30-2003 12:38 AM


quote:
Because when women come to me and say "Hey, I'm avaliable for sex", they usually mean they want to have sex with me.

Oh come on now... How many times has this happened, really?

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by crashfrog, posted 06-30-2003 12:38 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 06-30-2003 2:28 PM John has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
56Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019