What the...
*shrug* Different culture. While ten is... excessive, by how I consider it, I have no right to push my culture on someone else.
She is a CHILD.
Having a CHILD.
Fathered by another CHILD.
And you don't see something wrong here?
And then it gets excused away as "oh, it's another culture".
So what if it is another culture?... it is still wrong.
I know this is going to come as a shock to some people, but not all "cultures" are equal. Indeed, some are clearly and demonstrably better than others.
Iran stones women to death over infidelity, so I guess you are ok with that as well since "it is their culture"?
I weep for the future...
Iran stones women to death over infidelity, so I guess you are ok with that
Well, I'm okay with that on general principle...
She is a CHILD.
Having a CHILD.
Fathered by another CHILD.
And you don't see something wrong here?
And then it gets excused away as "oh, it's another culture".
So what if it is another culture?... it is still wrong.
I know this is going to come as a shock to some people, but not all "cultures" are equal. Indeed, some are clearly and demonstrably better than others.
Iran stones women to death over infidelity, so I guess you are ok with that as well since "it is their culture"?
I weep for the future...
I'm sure there are people in other countries saying the same thing about how American women go around unmasked and sometimes in revealing clothing.
(Deleted my last post... was completely uncalled for)
I'm sure there are people in other countries saying the same thing about how American women go around unmasked and sometimes in revealing clothing.
(Deleted my last post... was completely uncalled for)
Your retort shows that you wholly failed to grasp R_H's position. In order for your response to have any bite, R_H would need to feel that other views are also correct, and what you are trying to counter is his assertion that they are not. Saying that something he probably does not feel strongly opposed to is opposed by others simply reinforces his notion that they are wrong. Your line of argument is futile.
It is like me telling you that other people believe you to have the head of a goat. The likely response is not "Hmm, mabey I do have a goat head and am just unable to realise it" but is instead more along the lines of "They are wrong".
*shrug* Different culture. While ten is... excessive, by how I consider it, I have no right to push my culture on someone else.
That attitude is why the planet if full of guys that think that they can do anything they damn well want to women.
Guess what happens if a Muslim male (or any male for that matter) hits a woman in my presence?
I kick his ass.
And when he claims it is his right under say in the case of Sharia, I merely laugh at his primitive beliefs and kick his ass.
Women are equal full stop. There is no such thing as a cultural justification worth defending.
The parents of those kids clearly need some serious attention.
Mind you, it was less than 300 years ago that children in western nations were getting married and bearing children at the age of 14 or 15. But 10? I mean, obviously the girl was biologically capable, but... 10?
I don't give a crap about the "it's their culture" arguement when a girl is giving birth at such a young age that it is physically dangerous and liable to have weird psychological and emotional effects on both mother and child.
I seem to remember a topic about baby-shaking by a woman that was deemed old enough to have one by most people
Guess what happens if a Muslim male (or any male for that matter) hits a woman in my presence?
I kick his ass.
This /\
Conradicts this \/
Women are equal full stop.
When demonizing sexism could you atleast pretend to be less sexist? Kay thanks.
What was she supposed to do? Perhaps it actually was an arranged marriage, but considering that the father is in a different country now, it seems more like a short liaison resulting in an unplanned pregnancy. When such things happen, the family can choose to suggest abortion, which will make them hated by the church and many religious people, admit what a shame it is, which is hurtful and humiliating, or state that everything is well and attempt to move on. The situation is regrettable, but I'm not sure the way of handing it is more of a catastrophe than most other options.
When demonizing sexism could you atleast pretend to be less sexist? Kay thanks.
What's sexist about this? Is someone is assaulting another, based on their belief that they have the right to do it, what's wrong with beating them back? Would have said the same if the example was a Muslim beating a Jew because of religious intolerance (or any other combination), or someone beating a homeless person for fun because s/he "is not really a person"?
You seemed to be one of those people who relished in those stories where a girl slaps a guy on the cheek, and the guy reacts by punching her hard in the face, so what's changed this time?
*shrug* Different culture. While ten is... excessive, by how I consider it, I have no right to push my culture on someone else.
She is a CHILD.
Having a CHILD.
Fathered by another CHILD.
And you don't see something wrong here?
And then it gets excused away as "oh, it's another culture".
So what if it is another culture?... it is still wrong.
I know this is going to come as a shock to some people, but not all "cultures" are equal. Indeed, some are clearly and demonstrably better than others.
Iran stones women to death over infidelity, so I guess you are ok with that as well since "it is their culture"?
Violence against innocent people is wrong, regardless of the culture. **** is wrong, regardless of the culture.
If consensual sex was clearly wrong unless the partners in it were adults... then why do we allow animals to breed?
More to the point, what about the mentally retarded? These days, we no longer carefully institutionalize them, separating them by sex, but instead allow them to marry when they're of age - even though, at the same age as a normal human, clearly they don't have the same intelligence and judgement as a normal human.
So, if it's absolutely wrong for a non-adult to engage in sex, hasn't our culture, in the name of not discriminating against the disabled, done wrong?
That's why there is a difference between this and your examples. Hurting others, violating their rights, is wrong. But sexual activity is a natural and normal biological function. It produces children, yes, and these children need proper care. Thus, sexual relations between immature individials are potentially problematic.
In this culture, though, there is an extended family structure that is ensuring the infant is taken care of. That addresses the issue that is connected with the absolute morality of respecting human rights, rather than cultural or religious taboos around sexuality.
I'm thinking the assumption is that, if woman are truly equal to men, why does he only stand up for / so specifically mentions that he will hurt a man beating a woman? Why does he not kick the ass of a man hitting another man?
Because the example happened to be a Muslim culture, and treating women like livestock is one of the most prominent parts of radical, conservative Islam. There are no cultures I know of where more than half of the adult population is considered the property of others, where they need permission from their 'owners' for simple things like opening a bank account or go outside, and where the non-livestock part of the population is allowed to casually commit violence against the other part as it suits them.
Tyrannical regimes treating the people like ****? Sure. But a culturally accepted practice among the common population? That's a lot rarer. So it's the most obvious example of something you should not accept blindly merely because it's another culture. Why should we have to use less obvious and more obscure examples, just because TA thinks it's sexist to attack a slavemaster who beats his slave, simply because the slave is female and the owner is male?
*shrug* Different culture. While ten is... excessive, by how I consider it, I have no right to push my culture on someone else.
That attitude is why the planet if full of guys that think that they can do anything they damn well want to women.
Guess what happens if a Muslim male (or any male for that matter) hits a woman in my presence?
I kick his ass.
And when he claims it is his right under say in the case of Sharia, I merely laugh at his primitive beliefs and kick his ass.
Women are equal full stop. There is no such thing as a cultural justification worth defending.
The parents of those kids clearly need some serious attention.
you are sexist. I pity you.
I'm thinking the assumption is that, if woman are truly equal to men, why does he only stand up for / so specifically mentions that he will hurt a man beating a woman? Why does he not kick the ass of a man hitting another man?
Because the example happened to be a Muslim culture, and treating women like livestock is one of the most prominent parts of radical, conservative Islam. There are no cultures I know of where more than half of the adult population is considered the property of others, where they need permission from their 'owners' for simple things like opening a bank account or go outside, and where the non-livestock part of the population is allowed to casually commit violence against the other part as it suits them.Tyrannical regimes treating the people like ****? Sure. But a culturally accepted practice among the common population? That's a lot rarer. So it's the most obvious example of something you should not accept blindly merely because it's another culture. Why should we have to use less obvious and more obscure examples, just because TA thinks it's sexist to attack a slavemaster who beats his slave, simply because the slave is female and the owner is male?
Bolded for emphasis. I've heard these stories from fundamentalist Christians, Atheïsts, against homoesexuals and lesbians, against black people, against the mentally handicapped, and many others.
Just because the media hype focusses on fundamentalist Islam (and that's honestly not a very big group, as most muslims aren't like that, just as you're going to refute me mentioning fundamentalists Christians with "only bad Christians", it's exaclty like that for Muslims as well) doesn't mean it's the only group treating some other group of people like less then people.
Bringing out this example shows bias. There's so many groups that could use people like Tsukino to stand up for them that always falling back on the same example gets kinda overdone. Why not just stand up for people being bullied, opressed, or hurt in general? Why only for muslim women? Why only for women in general?
When you stop thinking about what you're doing and start calling things "tradition", you start deteriorating and going backwards. Tradition is perhaps the greatest enemy of improvement.
right but tradition (even though I didn't use that word) is also essential. I'll tell you right now that if jesus said beat your wife for infidelity, christians would be beating their wives. I don't approve but thats how things work
Treating your wife as less then a male was very common in civilised christian areas until maybe 50 years ago? Maybe a bit longer. I don't know. Thing is that role models have been around one way or another for a long, long time, and that tradition is only now being torn down.
What makes you think tradition is essential?
Bolded for emphasis. I've heard these stories from fundamentalist Christians, Atheïsts, against homoesexuals and lesbians, against black people, against the mentally handicapped, and many others.
Who are not the majority of the population. Besides, persecution of other religions is more about a lack of tolerance for other cultures, and much of what happens to handicapped people is politics, not religion. Sorry to Godwin this thread, but the Nazis killed disabled people, and yet, this is not a cultural tradition in Germany, even the Nazis themselves never claimed it was. You're right about homosexuals though.
Just because the media hype focusses on fundamentalist Islam (and that's honestly not a very big group, as most muslims aren't like that, just as you're going to refute me mentioning fundamentalists Christians with "only bad Christians", it's exaclty like that for Muslims as well) doesn't mean it's the only group treating some other group of people like less then people.
I didn't mention Muslim culture specifically, I mentioned radical, conservative Islam, and said the example was obvious because it's the biggest group to have made that culture into the law in several countries.
islam's culture was in place before nearly all of ours. it's logical to them and when on their land practicing their culture they can do whatever their law allows.
No it wasn't. If you want to judge it that way, Christianity is older than Islam, and Judaism even older, and all cultures have changed over time. While it has become popular to call radical conservative Islam 'medieval', the truth is that a lot of what they claim to be culture has changed considerably since the middles ages, and many of the practices weren't even present (or at least not common) just 30 years ago.
Bolded for emphasis. I've heard these stories from fundamentalist Christians, Atheïsts, against homoesexuals and lesbians, against black people, against the mentally handicapped, and many others.
Who are not the majority of the population. Besides, persecution of other religions is more about a lack of tolerance for other cultures, and much of what happens to handicapped people is politics, not religion. Sorry to Godwin this thread, but the Nazis killed disabled people, and yet, this is not a cultural tradition in Germany, even the Nazis themselves never claimed it was. You're right about homosexuals though.
Just because the media hype focusses on fundamentalist Islam (and that's honestly not a very big group, as most muslims aren't like that, just as you're going to refute me mentioning fundamentalists Christians with "only bad Christians", it's exaclty like that for Muslims as well) doesn't mean it's the only group treating some other group of people like less then people.
I didn't mention Muslim culture specifically, I mentioned radical, conservative Islam, and said the example was obvious because it's the biggest group to have made that culture into the law in some countries.
islam's culture was in place before nearly all of ours. it's logical to them and when on their land practicing their culture they can do whatever their law allows.
No it wasn't. If you want to judge it that way, Christianity is older than Islam, and Judaism even older, and all cultures have changed over time. While it has become popular to call radical conservative Islam 'medieval', the truth is that a lot of what they claim to be culture has changed considerably since the middles ages, and many of the practices weren't even present (or at least not common) just 30 years ago.
nooo i'm sorry but Judaism and Islam run parallel while christianity isn't as old
nooo i'm sorry but Judaism and Islam run parallel while christianity isn't as old
Islam is characterised by following the prophet Muhammad, who wasn't born until some 500 years A.D., so it can't be older than Christianity.
nooo i'm sorry but Judaism and Islam run parallel while christianity isn't as old
Islam is characterised by following the prophet Muhammad, who wasn't born until some 500 years A.D., so it can't be older than Christianity.
islam isnt about muhammed its about allah. the koran is about muhammed just like how the new testament is about jesus
Women are equal full stop.
If women are equal why do you respond to violence against them differently than you do violence against a man?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam
That makes it younger the Christianity (which began in 1AD, obviously)
islam isnt about muhammed its about allah. the koran is about muhammed just like how the new testament is about jesus
That's like saying Christianity isn't about Jesus but about God. It doesn't change that there wasn't any Christianity before Jesus, and no Islam before Muhammed. Both religions are off-shots of Judaism with some inspiration from local religions thrown in, and Christianity is the older of the two. That's one of the reasons many Muslims consider both Judaism and Christianity to be earlier, less perfect (but still better than heathen) versions of Islam.
If women are equal why do you respond to violence against them differently than you do violence against a man?
Did she(?) ever say that? To me, it sounded like she would kick the ass of a man who assaulted a woman because he believed it was his cultural right. She didn't say that she wouldn't also kick the ass of a man who beat a another man because he believe him to be gay. She just chose the most obvious example, I think you should give her the benefit of the doubt as to whether she would be more accepting of forms of violence that weren't included in that single example.
If women are equal why do you respond to violence against them differently than you do violence against a man?
Did she(?) ever say that? To me, it sounded like she would kick the ass of a man who assaulted a woman because he believed it was his cultural right. She didn't say that she wouldn't also kick the ass of a man who beat a another man because he believe him to be gay. She just chose the most obvious example, I think you should give her the benefit of the doubt as to whether she would be more accepting of forms of violence that weren't included in that single example.
she didn't give enough detail but RAW she meant any man
Many religions blended together or split from each other over the ages, you can't really put a clear-cut distinction on many of them.
thats when islam was discovered
Religions aren't discovered, they are created.
thats when islam was discovered plu there wasn't history of when they started worshipping allah so i'll give you that. we can't disprove so we can't prove either. and erato thats why I'm jewish. christianity should be the worship of god. not his son. Islam is about the worship of god. not just his prophet.
Sorry, but that's just not true. Islam is obviously inspired by the existing religions in the area, as well as Judaism and Christianity, but that doesn't make it older. I have never met, or heard of, a Muslim who believes Islam is older than Muhammed. They believe God is older, but Islam is characterised by following his (according to them) last and most important prophet, which is what separates it from Judaism and Christianity. Without that, it's not the same religion.
Before that day they probably worshipped the same god as the christians (Which many muslims say they still do. When I went to Egypt, my guide mentioned quite specifically that he and many other people he knew considered "allah" and "god" to be the same being) and so weren't really muslims yet.
Many religions blended together or split from each other over the ages, you can't really put a clear-cut distinction on many of them.
I'll agree with this.
thats when islam was discovered
Religions aren't discovered, they are created.
originally from there they can be discovered. we discovered jainists, we discovered taoists, we dicovered many religions.
originally from there they can be discovered. we discovered jainists, we discovered taoists, we dicovered many religions.
Who is this "we" you speak of?
thats when islam was discovered plu there wasn't history of when they started worshipping allah so i'll give you that. we can't disprove so we can't prove either. and erato thats why I'm jewish. christianity should be the worship of god. not his son. Islam is about the worship of god. not just his prophet.
Sorry, but that's just not true. Islam is obviously inspired by the existing religions in the area, as well as Judaism and Christianity, but that doesn't make it older. I have never met, or heard of, a Muslim who believes Islam is older than Muhammed. They believe God is older, but Islam is characterised by following his (according to them) last and most important prophet, which is what separates it from Judaism and Christianity. Without that, it's not the same religion.
I'm sorry but you are sickeningly wrong to say that Islam is inspired by other religions in the area. because persia was secluded and had no outside contact, they weren't believed to be in that area till they came out of it and started conquering.
That's like saying you can "discover" your new friends or something. Just because you didn't know about them, or even your whole culture didn't know about them, doesn't mean that the thing in question hasn't been existing for a long time and/or created by other people.
originally from there they can be discovered. we discovered jainists, we discovered taoists, we dicovered many religions.
Who is this "we" you speak of?
humans
originally from there they can be discovered. we discovered jainists, we discovered taoists, we dicovered many religions.
Who is this "we" you speak of?
humans
This makes we wonder how you classify early taoïsts...
Uhm... that's different. Those religions were still created. It's just that it took some time for other people to come into contact with them.
That's like saying you can "discover" your new friends or something. Just because you didn't know about them, or even your whole culture didn't know about them, doesn't mean that the thing in question hasn't been existing for a long time and/or created by other people.
im not saying they weren't created but religions CAN be discovered by non practitioners AFTER their creation
originally from there they can be discovered. we discovered jainists, we discovered taoists, we dicovered many religions.
Who is this "we" you speak of?
humans
So you are saying Taoists and Jainists and practioners of "amny religions" are not human?
originally from there they can be discovered. we discovered jainists, we discovered taoists, we dicovered many religions.
Who is this "we" you speak of?
humans
This makes we wonder how you classify early taoïsts...
I don't understand...I regard them as people ???
originally from there they can be discovered. we discovered jainists, we discovered taoists, we dicovered many religions.
Who is this "we" you speak of?
humans
So you are saying Taoists and Jainists and practioners of "amny religions" are not human?
Im saying they were discovered by others that werent practioners. please dont misconstrue
im having trouble keeping up as it isI don't understand...I regard them as people ???
Well, you said "humans" "discovered" them, meaning they are not "human" according to you.
I don't understand...I regard them as people ???
Well, you said "humans" "discovered" them, meaning they are not "human" according to you.
human cultures and religions are often discovered (after their creation) by humans rather than any other species.
I don't understand...I regard them as people ???
Well, you said "humans" "discovered" them, meaning they are not "human" according to you.
human cultures and religions are often discovered (after their creation) by humans rather than any other species.
By refering to "humans" as "we", you are stating that "they" are not "human".
Jesse, these religions were not "discovered", they were "created". The only "discovery" here was that other people which you apparently identify more with then the creators of these religions have, at some point in the past, come into contact with them.
ur half right.
I don't understand...I regard them as people ???
Well, you said "humans" "discovered" them, meaning they are not "human" according to you.
human cultures and religions are often discovered (after their creation) by humans rather than any other species.
By refering to "humans" as "we", you are stating that "they" are not "human".
I kinda figured that while typing it. thats not what I meant. sorry.
Jesse, these religions were not "discovered", they were "created". The only "discovery" here was that other people which you apparently identify more with then the creators of these religions have, at some point in the past, come into contact with them.
ur half right.
No, he's entirely right.
Religions are created. The only thing "discovered" is people coming into contact with the religion. You cannot "discover" a new Religion, only come into contact with one you didn't know about. But that doesn't mean that it wasn't, at some point, created like all of the others.
The only thing "discovered" is people coming into contact with the religion. You cannot "discover" a new Religion, only come into contact with one you didn't know about. But that doesn't mean that it wasn't, at some point, created like all of the others.
thats what i'm saying
I'm sorry but you are sickeningly wrong to say that Islam is inspired by other religions in the area. because persia was secluded and had no outside contact, they weren't believed to be in that area till they came out of it and started conquering.
This thread is comedy gold!
Considering how far the Roman Empire stretched, I'd be very surprised if they weren't in contact with the people who would eventually become Muslim. And to get back to the subject, as I said earlier, many cultural practices, even those we think are ancient, are fairly new, or they had been abandoned for decades (or centuries in some cases) until someone decided to pick them up.
be surprised lol
islam's culture was in place before nearly all of ours. it's logical to them and when on their land practicing their culture they can do whatever their law allows.
I do hope you keep this in your head if you ever find said head being lopped off because you're found to be Zionist scum*. ;) Simply put, tradition can be ok. Tradition that hurts others is never ok.
*Obviously this only applies to a certain sub-sect of Islam and their preferred 'culture'. I am in no way implying that all practitioners of Islam find it culturally appropriate to behead non-believers.
islam's culture was in place before nearly all of ours. it's logical to them and when on their land practicing their culture they can do whatever their law allows.
I do hope you keep this in your head if you ever find said head being lopped off because you're found to be Zionist scum*. ;) Simply put, tradition can be ok. Tradition that hurts others is never ok.
*Obviously this only applies to a certain sub-sect of Islam and their preferred 'culture'. I am in no way implying that all practitioners of Islam find it culturally appropriate to behead non-believers.
zionists aren't scum
The only thing "discovered" is people coming into contact with the religion. You cannot "discover" a new Religion, only come into contact with one you didn't know about. But that doesn't mean that it wasn't, at some point, created like all of the others.
thats what i'm saying
Good to hear we mean the same thing :P We can get back to the other discussion that has nothing to do with the original topic of this thread then.
The only thing "discovered" is people coming into contact with the religion. You cannot "discover" a new Religion, only come into contact with one you didn't know about. But that doesn't mean that it wasn't, at some point, created like all of the others.
thats what i'm saying
Good to hear we mean the same thing :P We can get back to the other discussion that has nothing to do with the original topic of this thread then.
oh my god thank you lol
zionists aren't scum
I never said they were. A certain subset of Islam, though, has it in their culture that they are. As you're defending them doing what their culture allows, you should then feel fulfilled if you ever find yourself being decapitated for your beliefs - beliefs that their 'culture' thinks should be eradicated. In other words, I don't think you thought that thought out all the way before you spat it out. ;)
zionists aren't scum
I never said they were. A certain subset of Islam, though, has it in their culture that they are. As you're defending them doing what their culture allows, you should then feel fulfilled if you ever find yourself being decapitated for your beliefs - beliefs that their 'culture' thinks should be eradicated. In other words, I don't think you thought that thought out all the way before you spat it out. ;)
you sir, are correct and I apologize
zionists aren't scum
Really, man, you really need to read up on irony.
you sir, are correct and I apologize
No worries. Stick around another five minutes and I'll likely spit out some half-baked idea myself. ;) we all do it, you know. It's how we react to being told we did and what we do with that knowledge that matters.
I'm sorry but you are sickeningly wrong to say that Islam is inspired by other religions in the area. because persia was secluded and had no outside contact, they weren't believed to be in that area till they came out of it and started conquering.
I'm sorry, but you are sickeningly uneducated.
Islam was inspired by the religions in the area... Muslims even believe Jesus was a prophet of Mohammad.
you sir, are correct and I apologize
No worries. Stick around another five minutes and I'll likely spit out some half-baked idea myself. ;) we all do it, you know. It's how we react to being told we did and what we do with that knowledge that matters.
thanks
I'm sorry but you are sickeningly wrong to say that Islam is inspired by other religions in the area. because persia was secluded and had no outside contact, they weren't believed to be in that area till they came out of it and started conquering.
I'm sorry, but you are sickeningly uneducated.
Islam was inspired by the religions in the area... Muslims even believe Jesus was a prophet of Mohammad.
wtf? /facepalm
not only was the discussion over but wtf?
I'm sorry but you are sickeningly wrong to say that Islam is inspired by other religions in the area. because persia was secluded and had no outside contact, they weren't believed to be in that area till they came out of it and started conquering.
I'm sorry, but you are sickeningly uneducated.
Islam was inspired by the religions in the area... Muslims even believe Jesus was a prophet of Mohammad.
Don't you mean a prophet of Allah?
(which would be true, like I said, muslims believe that the christian god and the muslim allah are one and the same)
I don't think a lot of people knew that Muslims consider Jesus to be a prophet of Allah, because they believe that God and Allah are the same thing.
I'm sorry but you are sickeningly wrong to say that Islam is inspired by other religions in the area. because persia was secluded and had no outside contact, they weren't believed to be in that area till they came out of it and started conquering.
I'm sorry, but you are sickeningly uneducated.
Islam was inspired by the religions in the area... Muslims even believe Jesus was a prophet of Mohammad.
Don't you mean a prophet of Allah?
Ahhh!
Yes, that's what I meant.
Thanks for the correction and clarification.
not only was the discussion over
not only was the discussion over
not only was the discussion over
not only was the discussion over
Who said?
EDIT: STOOPID FORUMS!
Most people on these forums know that Jesus is considered a prophet of god by christians (that's what you mean I think?)
No, Christians believe that Jesus was God made flesh, not simply a prophet.
Oh, and Christianity , as such, did not start in the first century C.E. Those who initially claimed to follow Jesus's teachings still self identified as Jews, and largely worshipped in the manner of Jews, for at least a couple centuries after Jesus's passing.
Most people on these forums know that Jesus is considered a prophet of god by christians (that's what you mean I think?)
No, Christians believe that Jesus was God made flesh, not simply a prophet.
Oh, and Christianity , as such, did not start in the first century C.E. Those who initially claimed to follow Jesus's teachings still self identified as Jews, and largely worshipped in the manner of Jews, for at least a couple centuries after Jesus's passing.
Are you sure it was "centuries" and not "generations"?
But yeah, you are correct.
If I'm reading it right... it's pretty complicated.
Either I was told wrong by the pastor at young age or I just remembered wrong, I always thought he was distinct from God himself.
Thanks for the extra information
Hm. Reading up on it on wikipedia it seems that Jesus was considered Son of God, but that God was a trinity of three beings that are one, and that thus as Son of God, he was God but he is not the Father God?
The way it was explained to me was, think of fingers on a hand. Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are fingers, separate but still connected.
Does that help?
Still that's not how it was explained to me when I was young and it was thought/assumed of me that I was going to be a christian, which is interesting. Or my memory is even worse then I've always thought...
father, son, and holy ghost
Not to mention that that whole silk road thing never really stopped, no matter where borders moved...
I'm confused... Persia was secluded? Um... Xerxes, back around 480 BCE, kinda invaded Greece. This was way before Christianity or Islam. How can anyone argue that at the time of Mohammed that Persia was still secluded? They'd been around for quite a few centuries by that point.
Not to mention that that whole silk road thing never really stopped, no matter where borders moved...
hmmm ya got me there.
...oh, my, god. Jesse, you really need to learn a little about history before you start trying to educate others about it. I don't think I have read a single accurate post by you in this thread. Not one.
I already apologized Dave
There's also the fact Mohammed birthed Islam in Arabia, not Persia.
I'm not trying to start another arguement but didn't they change persia's name to arabia?
I'm not trying to start another arguement but didn't they change persia's name to arabia?
No, you're thinking about Iran. Also, posting without thinking here is OK, but in the real world, it's a good idea to never call a Persian an Arab, it's considered highly insulting.
I'm not trying to start another arguement but didn't they change persia's name to arabia?
No, you're thinking about Iran. Also, posting without thinking here is OK, but in the real world, it's a good idea to never call a Persian an Arab, it's considered highly insulting.
kay kay I'll keep that in mind lol sorry for arguing wiff yew
kay kay I'll keep that in mind lol sorry for arguing wiff yew
No problem
kay kay I'll keep that in mind lol sorry for arguing wiff yew
No problem
(>")>o
thats me giving you a cookie lol
There's also the fact Mohammed birthed Islam in Arabia, not Persia.
I'm not trying to start another arguement but didn't they change persia's name to arabia?
Persia was/is Iran. Arabia became Saudi Arabia when the Saud family took it over. Pretty ballsy move, when you think of it, taking over a country and then naming it after your family.
islam isnt about muhammed its about allah. the koran is about muhammed just like how the new testament is about jesus
Islam, as such, began with Muhammad, the same as the Jehovah's Witnesses began with Charles Taze Russell, even if in their literature they claim they come from a long line of "true Christians" that predated him.
Now, there may have been true followers of Allah who didn't fall into the same mistakes as Muslims feel that most Jews and Christians did before Muhammad came along. But they would have still been called "Christians" or "Jews". Maybe heretical Christians and Jews - Waldensians or Karaites, for example - but Christians and Jews. Not Muslims.
What's sexist about this? Is someone is assaulting another, based on their belief that they have the right to do it, what's wrong with beating them back?
Aside from the obvious hypocrisy of the question? [Hey! Someone thinking they have a right to hit someone! That gives me the right to hit them!]
His words clearly show that (in his mind) hitting people in some cases is acceptable behavior. It also shows that hitting women in any circumstance is unacceptable. I did not object to the outcome, him defending a person in need. I objected to the thought proceess that brought him to that decision. He declares that men and women are equal (full stop) immediatly after detailing a way in which he thinks they should be treated unequally. That is funny.
Edit: To express it another way, in Math form!
Hitting x (People) = Sometimes Okay
Hitting x (Women) != Sometimes Okay
Thus > (Women) != (People)
It Would have said the same if the example was a Muslim beating a Jew because of religious intolerance (or any other combination), or someone beating a homeless person for fun because s/he "is not really a person"?
He did not say 'an Islamic Extreemist hitting a woman because he thinks she is not a person', he said any man hitting a woman. Bit diffrent. He removed any criteria from the situation aside from the gender of the participants.
You seemed to be one of those people who relished in those stories where a girl slaps a guy on the cheek, and the guy reacts by punching her hard in the face, so what's changed this time?
Nothing. I would still laugh at the story, as I would laugh at a guy slapping a guy and getting punched, or a guy slapping a girl and getting punched. The prompt deflation of pompous arrogance is what makes the story amusing, not the gender of thoes involved.
But for the original topic, I'm of the "other cultures" thing, which I'm surprised is so under represented. But I'm always suprised by the amount of moral absolutism.
And eh. The way I look at is this: if you're unwilling to educate kids at puberty about safe sex and make things like birth control and condoms available, then you'll get pregnant kids. That this happened so young is just a result of girls hitting puberty sooner and sooner1, along with people being unwilling to deal with the fact that a girl hitting puberty before she's a teen probably means that you need to get her on the pill because she's not yet mature enough to be relied on to make the right choice.
I'm not saying no one is to blame, just that, quite honestly, the same thing could happen just about anywhere. People don't like having the sex talk with kids, especially when they're that young. People don't like making birth control easily available, because they think it encourages kids to have sex. And that's not even going into detail on people's moral and religious hang-ups about birth control.
________
1While I'm not entirely sure on the process, I've been led to believe by people who are much more informed on the subject then myself, that part of the cause of girls hitting puberty younger and younger is nutritional. Namely, that when they're fed well enough their bodies are more likely to say "hey, all systems are healthy. Hit it, hormones!"
You only have ten posts per page? How strange.
Its the default and I don't see a reason to change it. Ten posts isn't so little that I feel that I constantly have to load a new page, especially since some posts can get pretty long.
1While I'm not entirely sure on the process, I've been led to believe by people who are much more informed on the subject then myself, that part of the cause of girls hitting puberty younger and younger is nutritional. Namely, that when they're fed well enough their bodies are more likely to say "hey, all systems are healthy. Hit it, hormones!"
It's the bovine growth hormone (and others like it), man. Girls today at 15 do not look like girls at 15 did when I was 15. Hell, earlier this year I was at Middle School orientation for my fiancee's son. There were 12 year old girls there that looked like short, fully developed women. Boobs, hips and ass. Something is definitely different from when I was growin' up. Hell, boys are gettin' taller and more filled out faster, too. So yeah, I think nutrition does have something to do with it. Specifically, what we feed the food (or how we engineer it) we feed our kids.
EDIT: But I can certainly envision an increase in the behaviors you linked to as a result of older appearing kids. Plus gettin' more knowledge out there is always a ... plus, I guess.
Thing is, accelerated physical maturation is not necessarily accompanied by accelerated mental maturation. Kid love is still kid love if the brain is still a kid's no matter what the outside shell has to say about it.
EDIT: But I can certainly envision an increase in the behaviors you linked to as a result of older appearing kids. Plus gettin' more knowledge out there is always a ... plus, I guess.
Still. ****ing a 12 year old and a 3 year old are both scummy, but man, they are a world of scummy apart.
True, at the same time I know smart kids... And really dumb kids.
Yep. Thing is, law cannot account for individual variances.
Still. ****ing a 12 year old and a 3 year old are both scummy, but man, they are a world of scummy apart.
This is quite true.
Thing is, accelerated physical maturation is not necessarily accompanied by accelerated mental maturation. Kid love is still kid love if the brain is still a kid's no matter what the outside shell has to say about it.
So what, the mentally handicapped are never allowed to have sex?
So what, the mentally handicapped are never allowed to have sex?
Adults have rights children do not. The mentally challenged weren't even on my radar when I made that comment and, had they been, I'd likely have phrased it differently.
Pretty much my point, actually. Ain't life annoying? Fringe cases make hard-and-fast rules... hard.
Hehe, hard... fast..
Thing is, accelerated physical maturation is not necessarily accompanied by accelerated mental maturation. Kid love is still kid love if the brain is still a kid's no matter what the outside shell has to say about it.
EDIT: But I can certainly envision an increase in the behaviors you linked to as a result of older appearing kids. Plus gettin' more knowledge out there is always a ... plus, I guess.
Wow do I not agree with that. I mean, an adault having sex with a kid is terrible. I am not trying to defend that. But to claim that accelerated physical maturation doesn't result in accelerated mental maturation? Unless the kid lives in a bubble, its mental maturation will be a result of its life experience, and accelerated physical maturation tends to result in life experiences that in turn maturate one's mental capabilities. This divide between one's physical and metal faculties is a long standing western tradition, and it is one that is fraught with fraud. Our mental and physical realities are not divorced from each other.
hmmm...well I'm 18 and I think its fair to say that I have a fairly low level of maturity
Do you need to be mature? Do you have responsabilities?
not really. I mean all I really have to do is go to school. and write .xex patches
Or maybe it's just a difference in meaning between the Dutch usage of the word and the English
But damnit I'm not going to stop watching disney movies and enjoying games and other childish things just because I'm 24 and have my own home and job.
It sometimes doesn't even include taking care of your children, judging from the children of people who call themselves "mature".
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
Growing up late isn't a modern phenomenon. It ancient Greece and Rome, it wasn't unusual to first be considered fit to hold public office after 30, sometimes 40 or 50. The freedom and responsibility of today's youth is not the (historical) human standard.
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->Growing up late isn't a modern phenomenon. It ancient Greece and Rome, it wasn't unusual to first be considered fit to hold public office after 30, sometimes 40 or 30. The freedom and responsibility of today's youth is not the (historical) human standard.
so im following tradition by being immature? thanks for the excuse Erato!
It's the bovine growth hormone (and others like it), man. Girls today at 15 do not look like girls at 15 did when I was 15.
And this brings up another thing. While I felt that some cultural relativism is appropriate in looking at this particular situation, there is still at least one thing going on here that is not relative.
Even if a girl hits puberty at 10, she still isn't tall enough, big enough, to safely bring a pregnancy to term in most cases. When I was young, the average age of puberty was around 12 or so; historically, it was 14: better nutrition also played a role. So traditional cultural practices which may have been adaptive in the natural context do create problems when they collide with the changed world our technology made.
Sort of how we like sweets and meat so much because once they were harder foods to get; now, this tendency just makes us fat.
It's the bovine growth hormone (and others like it), man. Girls today at 15 do not look like girls at 15 did when I was 15.
And this brings up another thing. While I felt that some cultural relativism is appropriate in looking at this particular situation, there is still at least one thing going on here that is not relative.
Even if a girl hits puberty at 10, she still isn't tall enough, big enough, to safely bring a pregnancy to term in most cases. When I was young, the average age of puberty was around 12 or so; historically, it was 14: better nutrition also played a role. So traditional cultural practices which may have been adaptive in the natural context do create problems when they collide with the changed world our technology made.
Sort of how we like sweets and meat so much because once they were harder foods to get; now, this tendency just makes us fat.
I suppose you are right but it might not have anything to do with nutrition and might just be a random phenomenon
It's the bovine growth hormone (and others like it), man. Girls today at 15 do not look like girls at 15 did when I was 15.
And this brings up another thing. While I felt that some cultural relativism is appropriate in looking at this particular situation, there is still at least one thing going on here that is not relative.
Even if a girl hits puberty at 10, she still isn't tall enough, big enough, to safely bring a pregnancy to term in most cases. When I was young, the average age of puberty was around 12 or so; historically, it was 14: better nutrition also played a role. So traditional cultural practices which may have been adaptive in the natural context do create problems when they collide with the changed world our technology made.
Sort of how we like sweets and meat so much because once they were harder foods to get; now, this tendency just makes us fat.
I suppose you are right but it might not have anything to do with nutrition and might just be a random phenomenon
It might not be linked to nutrition, but the phenomenon is a constant one that can be obseved by simply mesuring human bodies throught out history. The tendacy is that we are getting taller. It is more then random.
right, but, I'm talking about puberty and maturity :p
It's the bovine growth hormone (and others like it), man.
This is a myth.
/facepalm
hey don't facepalm at me lol you're talking about height and I'm talking about wayyyy more complicated genetics
It's the bovine growth hormone (and others like it), man.
This is a myth.
thats similar to what I was attempting to convey
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->Growing up late isn't a modern phenomenon. It ancient Greece and Rome, it wasn't unusual to first be considered fit to hold public office after 30, sometimes 40 or 30. The freedom and responsibility of today's youth is not the (historical) human standard.
Seeing as in the US you can't hold a seat in the House of Representatives until you're 25, can't be a Senator until 30, and can't be a President or Vice President until 35, and that people actually getting those offices at that age is very rare (never, in the case of the President/Vice President, not sure about Senators, and the youngest I can recall off the top of my head for House of Representatives is 28...), I'm not so sure we have different standards.
To clarify, this is just a statement of fact, not a defense of the topic-starting event, which I view as freakish and deplorable in any culture.
Are you suggesting we coat the genitals of girls who sexually mature too early in liquid metal? I suppose that would start weeding out the problem over a couple of generations but is honestly not likely to find widespread support.
Second... TA, that wasn't a very funny play on Goldo's spelling mistake.
Anyways, as it stands, what happened happened. There's no changing that. What can be done though, is putting more effort into educating groups like the Gypsies on such matters.
Edit: 666th post. I thought was feeling evil today...
First... this thread...
Second... TA, that wasn't a very funny play on Goldo's spelling mistake.
Anyways, as it stands, what happened happened. There's no changing that. What can be done though, is putting more effort into educating groups like the Gypsies on such matters.
Edit: 666th post. I thought was feeling evil today...
ohhh now i get it!! lol parents have control of it.
Wow do I not agree with that. I mean, an adault having sex with a kid is terrible. I am not trying to defend that. But to claim that accelerated physical maturation doesn't result in accelerated mental maturation? Unless the kid lives in a bubble, its mental maturation will be a result of its life experience, and accelerated physical maturation tends to result in life experiences that in turn maturate one's mental capabilities. This divide between one's physical and metal faculties is a long standing western tradition, and it is one that is fraught with fraud. Our mental and physical realities are not divorced from each other.
A 15 year old girl that outwardly appears closer to 21 does not have 21 years of experience. There is something to be said for time, here, as it applies to experience. More time, in most cases, means greater life experience. When we're talking about the young, this is even more important as things like legal age restrictions mean that it is incredibly difficult for someone 15 years old to do what someone 16, 18 and 21 can. While the body's development can certainly be accelerated, time can not. This isn't to say that an early developed youngster wouldn't have different experiences from others in his/her age group, but it is to say that they simply cannot have 21 years of experience. Cuz, you know, they've only been alive 15. More mature? Certainly possible. As mature as they appear? Incredibly doubtful.
Wow do I not agree with that. I mean, an adault having sex with a kid is terrible. I am not trying to defend that. But to claim that accelerated physical maturation doesn't result in accelerated mental maturation? Unless the kid lives in a bubble, its mental maturation will be a result of its life experience, and accelerated physical maturation tends to result in life experiences that in turn maturate one's mental capabilities. This divide between one's physical and metal faculties is a long standing western tradition, and it is one that is fraught with fraud. Our mental and physical realities are not divorced from each other.
A 15 year old girl that outwardly appears closer to 21 does not have 21 years of experience. There is something to be said for time, here, as it applies to experience. More time, in most cases, means greater life experience. When we're talking about the young, this is even more important as things like legal age restrictions mean that it is incredibly difficult for someone 15 years old to do what someone 16, 18 and 21 can. While the body's development can certainly be accelerated, time can not. This isn't to say that an early developed youngster wouldn't have different experiences from others in his/her age group, but it is to say that they simply cannot have 21 years of experience. Cuz, you know, they've only been alive 15. More mature? Certainly possible. As mature as they appear? Incredibly doubtful.
you can't drill 21 years of experience into something thats younger than twenty one. you can't put 15 gallons into a ten gallon tank lol
"...drill 21 years of experience..."
"But you can try, amiright!"
"No, no you can't try. Thats illegal."
"Ahwell, can't blame a guy for trying!"
"Yes we can."
Wow do I not agree with that. I mean, an adault having sex with a kid is terrible. I am not trying to defend that. But to claim that accelerated physical maturation doesn't result in accelerated mental maturation? Unless the kid lives in a bubble, its mental maturation will be a result of its life experience, and accelerated physical maturation tends to result in life experiences that in turn maturate one's mental capabilities. This divide between one's physical and metal faculties is a long standing western tradition, and it is one that is fraught with fraud. Our mental and physical realities are not divorced from each other.
A 15 year old girl that outwardly appears closer to 21 does not have 21 years of experience. There is something to be said for time, here, as it applies to experience. More time, in most cases, means greater life experience. When we're talking about the young, this is even more important as things like legal age restrictions mean that it is incredibly difficult for someone 15 years old to do what someone 16, 18 and 21 can. While the body's development can certainly be accelerated, time can not. This isn't to say that an early developed youngster wouldn't have different experiences from others in his/her age group, but it is to say that they simply cannot have 21 years of experience. Cuz, you know, they've only been alive 15. More mature? Certainly possible. As mature as they appear? Incredibly doubtful.
If the 15 year-old lost her virginity at 12, became regularly sexually active, and moved out of her home at 14, then she can certainly be more mature than a 21 year old who stayed home, got herself a promise ring at 15, and is still a virgin at 21. 21 years of life experience doesn't equate to 21 years of the type of life experience that results in maturation. On the other hand, having a mature looking body directly contributes to being placed in those types of experiences. Which isn't to say that I think that all 15 year-olds who look mature will be as mature as they appear. It really depends on the sort of life experiences they end up having. But the divorce between the mind and body is a fraudulent one. A mature body will result in a more mature mind. Exact quantification, of course, will still vary based on personal experiences.
Obviously, this cannot be quantified by me, as it's not a universal statistic and I'm not Stephen Levitt, but my point stands.
There's also the difference between positive and negative experience, and its influence on the body, mind, and future decision-making. A girl (or boy, for that matter) who became sexually active at a young age will almost assuredly develop blatant or subtle mental health issues due to the conflict of hormones and biological development. This generally leads to the self-fulfilling prophecy of believing oneself to be unworthy of love, finding a source of affection (most often the abusive kind), latching onto said source, and then being further damaged and led to believe, once again, that one is unworthy of love.
Obviously, this cannot be quantified by me, as it's not a universal statistic and I'm not Stephen Levitt, but my point stands.
Yea, I am sorry, I am going to call bologna on that. It is certainly true that positive and negative experience does make a difference in the psyche produced (though I think both contribute to maturation), but the claim that sexual activity at a young age is "almost assuredly" negative is a load of conservative fiction. The positive or negative quality of the sexual interaction will depend on a matrix of factors that is a lot more complicated than age. Quite frankly, a lot of people start being sexually active at a young age, develop quite happily, and go on to have happy/fulfilling sexual lives. A lot of people also don't have sex until a much later date in life, and end up dealing with quite a few sexually related psychological/social issues.
Not sure about any predictive power someone's teenage sexual activity has on their "adult" mental health. Not sure if it's cultural or not, though I imagine it's a large part (especially when it comes to why someone becomes sexually active. That is, girls are more likely to be pressured into it before they want to or are ready, while boys are more likely to be eager and doing the pressuring. I imagine that trend has as much, if not more, to do with this mental health correlation then anything else).
IIRC, high school boys that were sexually active tended to have higher sense of self esteem and be more "mentally healthy" then their virgin peers. Girls were reversed, where the sexually active high school girls tended towards being worse off on the mental health scale then their virgin peers.
Not sure about any predictive power someone's teenage sexual activity has on their "adult" mental health. Not sure if it's cultural or not, though I imagine it's a large part (especially when it comes to why someone becomes sexually active. That is, girls are more likely to be pressured into it before they want to or are ready, while boys are more likely to be eager and doing the pressuring. I imagine that trend has as much, if not more, to do with this mental health correlation then anything else).
It kills my mind when I try to imagine how it might be beneficial to lose my virginity before marriage >_<
It kills my mind when I try to imagine how it might be beneficial to lose my virginity before marriage >_<
In what way would you imagine waiting for marrigae before having sex would be beneficial?
It kills my mind when I try to imagine how it might be beneficial to lose my virginity before marriage >_<
In what way would you imagine waiting for marrigae before having sex would be beneficial?
uhhh how about my sanity? lol
uhhh how about my sanity? lol
You've got it the wrong way around. Denying your body sex when the hormones are raging through and demanding it is what drives you insane.
uhhh how about my sanity? lol
You've got it the wrong way around. Denying your body sex when the hormones are raging through and demanding it is what drives you insane.
the extra stress it would create in my life isn't worth it. And its for religious reasons as well.
You're on the WotC forums, it's not going to be an issue anyway.
theres a ton of things I could say to you. but alot of them involve a judgemental person that uses the moniker of a treasonous **** -_-
uhhh how about my sanity? lol
You've got it the wrong way around. Denying your body sex when the hormones are raging through and demanding it is what drives you insane.
the extra stress it would create in my life isn't worth it. And its for religious reasons as well.
It's supposed to be a stress-reliever... if it gives you more stress you are doing it with the wrong person.
I mean it's all fair and your choice and everything (I assumed it wass for religious reasons, that's the case in 99% of all situations) but do try to get the reasons right
You're on the WotC forums, it's not going to be an issue anyway.
theres a ton of things I could say to you. but alot of them involve a judgemental person that uses the moniker of a treasonous **** -_-
Heh, that tells me basically all I need to know about you anyway.
I am not sure I get the comment. Is Peaches the treasonous ****? And if so, what did she betray?
Edit: I get it. It is bec ause of the Mata-Hari name.
peaches? :o
I am not sure I get the comment. Is Peaches the treasonous ****? And if so, what did she betray?
Edit: I get it. It is bec ause of the Mata-Hari name.
That is, more or less, what 'moniker' means goldy. Name.
Heh, that tells me basically all I need to know about you anyway.
And you, yourself, tell us all we need to know about you...
And it is not flattering...
Not in the least...
Saddly, no one I know is willing to travel 8 hours to go see her in Boston this decembre.
I wouldn't travel 8 inches to see her...
I mean, I only have the one album (The Teaches of Peaches), and I probably wouldn't pay to go see her, but ...
*shrug*
Man, how OTT is that? LOL.
the extra stress it would create in my life isn't worth it.
Then you would be doing it wrong.
If you want to get political, however, drop me a PM and I'll give you a few reasons to have sex before marriage.
I am a Wiccan. And as such, we acknowledge both the Male and Female aspects of life in every way--including work, sex, sexuality, and even deity. Wicca believes solely on the balance of Masculinism and Feminism. We have no preference for, nor do we have any hatred for, another sex, race, or culture. Wicca believes that we are NOT the only way to deity, and acknowledges that there may be other gods out there. But, we also acknowledge that the actions a person chooses, so must he gain. There is a particular part at the very end of the Wiccan Rede that states: "And these eight words fulfill: An' harm ye none, do what ye will!" It states quite simply that we are not allowed to harm any, unless they call for it (in some other part of the Rede).
Wicca is a very sexually based religion; with the Male and Female aspects of life intertwined in almost EVERY religious practice and poem, or written book concieved in the brains of those so very blessed priests/priestesses. Some people go so far as to incorporate sex into their magical practices... Which leads me to another thing.
I AM A WITCH!!! I know firsthand how much stereotypes suck based on religion and culture. And that's just it: They F**king suck!!! And therefore, I find absolutely nothing wrong with this. Albeit, 10 years-old is a bit (and when I say that I mean ALOT) to young for me to support my furture children, I am not going to say that they are right and wrong in this matter, as it is not my duty to decide who is what (that is the Lord and Lady's desicion). All I will say is that if my 10 year-old son gets a 10 year-old girl pregnant, I will personally see to it that he never sees the light of day again. But, as I have said, I cannot judge, because it is not my place.
Also, as a teenager, yes, hormones flow freely and it sucks. And sex is, quite possibly, one of the most liberating stress relievers to ever have. It makes you be able to think clearly. When you "make up" with a lover, it is generally after sex that you both realize the error of your ways. So as I teen, I will say that pre-meridal sex is, quite possibly, one of the best medicines for you. And yes, precautions should be made. I have never gone once without, and do not plan to until I want my own little Joseph Cogswell Jr. running around the house chasing my cat.
Having said all of this...
I live in the redneck part of Florida, where intolerance is at its highest. And I find myself either in the middle of, or on one side of a heated religious or cultural debate. And it is because of this I learned this one sacred rule that I have lived by for some time now: "TO EACH HIS OWN!!!" I mean who gives a damn if one religion is right? I mean yeah, "Hooray for you guys! You guessed right!" But there is an even chance for every religion to be right. And there is even a chance that NO religion is right, that we all hear the one REAL religion in different ways. But as I have said, who is to know. Unless a god (Jehovah, Jesus, Allah, Buddah, Lolth, or even Hera) walks up to every person in the world and says, "Look, mine is correct! Get it into your f**king heads!" But, unfortunately, I don't see that happening in the near future! So, alas, uncertainty and undecision will be one of our species most common desease, second only tro prejudice and heresy. And in the case of the latter, we ALL commit so sort of heresy in our life at one poiunt or another...
I live in the redneck part of Florida, where intolerance is at its highest.
Shush! Quiet you! You are sabotaging my attempts at recruting Escher to be my neighbor!
uhhh how about my sanity? lol
You've got it the wrong way around. Denying your body sex when the hormones are raging through and demanding it is what drives you insane.
the extra stress it would create in my life isn't worth it. And its for religious reasons as well.
1) Depriving your body of sex when its hormones crave it no more "protect your sanity" than starving yourself.
2) Sex doesn't produce stress. Relationships can. But that is no more, or less, true of monogamous married relationships than pre-marital relationships (monogamous or otherwise). Indeed, as it is far easier to break off pre-marital relationships, they arguably cause less stress. In fact, testing out your sexual compatibility can result in a good deal less stress once you are married, and can save you the stress caused by a divorce (by giving you more of a chance to ensure that you and your partner will make a good couple, at least in the bedroom). That, by the way, is just one of many reasons why sex before marriage can be a good thing.
3) Don't get religion confused with "good reasons" or "ethics." It has nothing to do with either.
3) Don't get religion confused with "good reasons" or "ethics." It has nothing to do with either.
I disagree...
Religion can be "ethical" and provide "good reasons" to not exhibit certain behaviors.
Perhaps not 100% of the time in 100% of situations...
I live in the redneck part of Florida
There's a non-redneck part of Florida?
So much hate directed toward electronica and questionning gender identity.
It's not so much the style of the music as the 'message' examples given. Even then, it's the extreme nature of the 'message' that's the real issue. Plus I listen to music to be entertained, relaxed or pumped up - not enraged. Therefore, to me, there's no real place for political statement in the music I prefer. In short, Peaches just ain't for me and that would hold true even if she were a metal group that fully supported Bush Jr. Just not my style.
3) Don't get religion confused with "good reasons" or "ethics." It has nothing to do with either.
I disagree...
Religion can be "ethical" and provide "good reasons" to not exhibit certain behaviors.
Perhaps not 100% of the time in 100% of situations...
You can disagree all you like. You would be wrong. All religions I know anything about (which does not equate to all religions) have some ethical tenets to them. For example, the Judeo-Christian tenet that "thou shalt not murder;" that is a good example of an ethical tenet. A few of the more philosophical religions might be said, subjectively speaking, to give some "good reasons" for their beliefs; at the very least, they philosophically explain why someone should practice said religions.
But there is not a single religion that I know of which can be described, in and off itself, as "ethical," nor is there a single religion I know of whose "good reasons" can be described as objective. For example, despite the Judeo-Christian's ethical tenet in regards to murder, there is nothing ethical about the Judeo-Christian religions'--and I intentionally use the plural possessive form here, as I refer to all three of the Judeo-Christian religions--homophobia, or the way those religions differentiate between murder and the execution of said homosexuals. The fact that most modern iterations of those religions don't actively practice the aspect of the tenet that commands the execution of said homosexuals is irrelevant. The holy texts still have those commands within them, and the homophobia those lines of text foster is still prevalent in those religions' devout.
What is more, for all the philosophy such religions might espouse, their "good reasons" are far from from objective. The most obvious example, if you don't believe in an omnipotent and eternal entity then the reasons that the Judeo-Christian religions' give to follow their tenets (ethical or otherwise) are fairly hollow. I much prefer existentialist spawned philosophies that defend ethics on the grounds of logic instead of blind faith. Logic can be defended (or attacked) via the faculties of reason. The circular argument of blind faith, on the other hand, can be used to defend atrocity (and has been, repeatedly).
What is more, these are only the most obvious examples (due to a brevity of space). The truth is, the language and text of the holy books of such religions underpin a very troubling lack of ethics from the foundation up. Christopher Hitchens makes some fairly potent arguments about how the language of the tenth commandment, while it might seem ethical on its surface, is actually quite troubling. It is one thing to command someone not to steal their neighbors land. But not to "covet" it, as in not even to think about how nice it would be to have it? Honestly? Not only does that make nearly every single person a sinner (how many of us don't dream about how nice it would be to have money?), but it is a commandment that seems to be grounded more in the attempt to maintain the status quo (by commanding commoners never to imagine what it might be like to rise above their current station in life) than ethics. And really, what sort of "ethical" institution attempts to reinforce belief via a moral story about how the right thing to do when god commands you to kill your son is to kill your son, and only to stop if god gives you a last minute reprieve from the action, because blind obedience is a more important quality in the devout than common sense (or, as it turns out, a logically born adherence to ethics).
I am not saying there are not some very good people who are members of a faiths' devout. There are. Good and bad people can be found in all institutions, and among all denominations, be they faithful, agnostic, atheistic, or antitheistic. And I understand the argument that faith can be used as a tool to spread ethical practice by ethically inclined members of the devout. However, the spread of ethical practice can be rooted in the individuals who attempt to spread it and not the faith they believe in. Moreover, when you teach people to be ethical only because they are sheep with blind faith, it is very easy for someone, somewhere down the line, to convince those same sheep to perform an action that is the antithesis to ethical practice. And before someone takes issue with me calling those who adhere to the faith of a religion sheep, please remember, it is the Judeo-Christian texts and their religiously devout interpreters themselves who have called the faithful sheep, and the "lord" their shepherd.
3) Don't get religion confused with "good reasons" or "ethics." It has nothing to do with either.
I disagree...
Religion can be "ethical" and provide "good reasons" to not exhibit certain behaviors.
Perhaps not 100% of the time in 100% of situations...
You can disagree all you like. You would be wrong.
No.
I'm not.
I said religions CAN be "ethical" and provide "good reasons" to not exhibit certain behaviors, not that they definitively ARE, all the time, in every circumstance.
Although some do have some ethical parts to it. (and many smart people, even non-religious ones have stolen said ethical parts and given actual good reasons for them)
No.
I'm not.
I said religions CAN be "ethical" and provide "good reasons" to not exhibit certain behaviors, not that they definitively ARE, all the time, in every circumstance.
Yes.
You are.
The statement that a religion CAN be "ethical" or provide "good reasons" is true of a theoretically existing religion. Theoretically, the realm of possibility is fairly broad. It is, however, not true of any religion in existence--at least that I know of--to date. It is certainly not true of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Wicca, or the like. None of those religions can be said to be "ethical," or provide "good reasons" to not exhibit certain behaviors. The text of their own holy books (or the equivalent) proves them to either propagate certain antithetical tenets to ethical behavior (in the case of the Judeo-Christian religions), or at the very least to push behavior that is fairly removed from the realm of ethics (because lets face it, achieving nirvana doesn't make you an ethical person), and use "reasons" that are far from objectively "good" (due to their reliance on circular logic in order to defend themselves). Thus, the claim that religions CAN be "ethical" or provide "good reasons," used to suggest that some religions ARE (and considering your politics I am assuming you mean the Judeo-Christian religions), is disingenuous.
Religious people can be ethical, and can provide good reasons to exhibit certain behaviors. The religions that those religious people are devoted to, however, are not and do not.
No.
I'm not.
I said religions CAN be "ethical" and provide "good reasons" to not exhibit certain behaviors, not that they definitively ARE, all the time, in every circumstance.
It is, however, not true of any religion in existence--at least that I know of--to date. It is certainly not true of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Wicca, or the like. None of those religions can be said to be "ethical," or provide "good reasons" to not exhibit certain behaviors.
Are you high?
No.
I'm not.
I said religions CAN be "ethical" and provide "good reasons" to not exhibit certain behaviors, not that they definitively ARE, all the time, in every circumstance.
It is, however, not true of any religion in existence--at least that I know of--to date. It is certainly not true of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Wicca, or the like. None of those religions can be said to be "ethical," or provide "good reasons" to not exhibit certain behaviors.
Are you high?
No. Why, are you?
No.
I'm not.
I said religions CAN be "ethical" and provide "good reasons" to not exhibit certain behaviors, not that they definitively ARE, all the time, in every circumstance.
It is, however, not true of any religion in existence--at least that I know of--to date. It is certainly not true of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Wicca, or the like. None of those religions can be said to be "ethical," or provide "good reasons" to not exhibit certain behaviors.
Are you high?
No. Why, are you?
Not yet...
I'm still at work.
Are you high?
No. Why, are you?
Not yet...
I'm still at work.
I live in the redneck part of Florida
There's a non-redneck part of Florida?
The cuban parts (Ybor, Miami) The touristy parts (Over near Davenport, and many resort areas) The Old Folk Teritories, the Rich areas (Celebration, upscale golf communities, like the one where Tiger Woods lives)
So... yes.
Celebration:
