Okay. I haven't been reading this thread, so this may be a long post as I catch up while reading through it. Or it may be short. It's hard to say.
But first, number one important thing TO BE READ BY FIDOOHKI IMMEDIATELY!
How to do quotes easily, even with no javascript!
1: Add the below line to your text.
(quote) (/quote)
2: Replace the parenthesis with square brackets.
3: Put whatever you want to quote in the middle.
Please. Future generations will thank you. Or at least, I will. ^_^;;;
Attributions are helpful, but not required. I usually just put something like "Rev Dark wrote:" before the quote, because I can't remember the markup to do it, and I usually have javascript turned off, so I can't use the little buttons to do it.
I don't recommend trying to put a quote inside a quote. It can be done, but it probably won't produce the results you expect it to. (Could be the reason why you said it didn't work very well before.) And if you aren't certain you've got something the way you want it, just click preview and hit "add reply", and it'll show you what it'll look like without actually posting. So if it turns out wrong, you can fiddle with it some more.
Okay, going way back to the beginning of this thread...
Rev Dark said... I believe all the things I'm going to be quoting for a while, though not in the same posts...
I'm not sure I see what the problem is. Really, I didn't think science was *supposed* to answer philosophical questions. It's supposed to answer physical ones.
(Mind you, as someone who doesn't feel evolution and creationism fundamentally contradict each other, I tend to be biased towards both sides...)
Next up, the respecting beliefs thing... I'm not really sure how to respond to this. I do believe that telling someone to believe something, or that they shouldn't believe something, is almost always an inherently scummy act.
On the general subject of abstinence only education in Africa and it's effects... What the hell? Have these people not heard of "defense in depth"? o.@;;;
Actually *practicing* abstinence is very effective for the individual in question. The problem isn't with abstinence itself, it's that trying to teach abstinence doesn't seem to have much success in getting people to practice it. Which has been covered pretty thoroughly in this thread from what I can see. But still, it's an important distinction.
Epsilon wrote:
rmthorn wrote:
Epsilon wrote this:
The point it sounded to me like he was trying to make was this:
1. If we are programmed to want to have sex regardless of conditions, it wouldn't be surprising that the condition of "partner wants to have sex too" was disregarded quite regularly.
2. Quite a lot of people, in fact, *don't* commit rape.
3. Therefore, humans must be better at controlling their biological urges than is being suggested here, and ought to be able to handle not having sex at all.
Of course, there's an alternate conclusion that can be reached....
3a: Therefore, consensuality must be at least one condition that most people in fact do take into account.
Epsilon also wrote this:
Moving on, even though I have a feeling I'm not done with that particular tangent yet, Fidoohki wrote:
Okay, back to the tangent. Kokuten wrote:
(The thing that really freaks me out is anything that suggests someone could actually *enjoy* being raped. Brrrr... That goes beyond needing to wash my brain out with Bleach, I need to wash my brain out with Pita-Ten...)
-Morgan, wants Rev Dark to create a flux-bypass-defenestrator, so I can buy one from him. '.'
Hey, my current signature fits in with this topic, so I should leave it in, shouldn't I?
"This continuity is now a Princess of Darkness crossover."
"... They're all going to die, aren't they?"
"Yep. Popcorn?"
But first, number one important thing TO BE READ BY FIDOOHKI IMMEDIATELY!
How to do quotes easily, even with no javascript!
1: Add the below line to your text.
(quote) (/quote)
2: Replace the parenthesis with square brackets.
3: Put whatever you want to quote in the middle.
Please. Future generations will thank you. Or at least, I will. ^_^;;;
Attributions are helpful, but not required. I usually just put something like "Rev Dark wrote:" before the quote, because I can't remember the markup to do it, and I usually have javascript turned off, so I can't use the little buttons to do it.
I don't recommend trying to put a quote inside a quote. It can be done, but it probably won't produce the results you expect it to. (Could be the reason why you said it didn't work very well before.) And if you aren't certain you've got something the way you want it, just click preview and hit "add reply", and it'll show you what it'll look like without actually posting. So if it turns out wrong, you can fiddle with it some more.
Okay, going way back to the beginning of this thread...
Rev Dark said... I believe all the things I'm going to be quoting for a while, though not in the same posts...
Quote:Now, if this is an accurate summarization...
His primary thrust is that evolution raises philosophical questions science alone cannot answer.
I'm not sure I see what the problem is. Really, I didn't think science was *supposed* to answer philosophical questions. It's supposed to answer physical ones.
(Mind you, as someone who doesn't feel evolution and creationism fundamentally contradict each other, I tend to be biased towards both sides...)
Next up, the respecting beliefs thing... I'm not really sure how to respond to this. I do believe that telling someone to believe something, or that they shouldn't believe something, is almost always an inherently scummy act.
Quote:... Doing this is a *good* thing, right? '.'
Interesting choice in belief in the bible written by man Eas you are essentially cherry picking the parts you like, and throwing away the bits you do not, or the ones that are no longer sanguine to the world you live in. A rational process dictating to an irrational belief.
On the general subject of abstinence only education in Africa and it's effects... What the hell? Have these people not heard of "defense in depth"? o.@;;;
Quote:Hmmm. I seem to remember once reading something that expressed a different point of view - that we *were* programmed to take conditions into account, because just reproducing wasn't enough, that our offspring had to survive too, and then conditions became important. Can't remember where I read it though.
I should note that it is a biological drive that has no sense of the future Ewe are programmed at a very low level to want to fuck Eregardless of social, economic and environmental conditions.
Quote:I'm not sure this part of the sentence means what you intended it to.
Abstinence is a terrible method, it just does not work in practice,
Actually *practicing* abstinence is very effective for the individual in question. The problem isn't with abstinence itself, it's that trying to teach abstinence doesn't seem to have much success in getting people to practice it. Which has been covered pretty thoroughly in this thread from what I can see. But still, it's an important distinction.
Epsilon wrote:
Quote:This gave me an interesting thought, but I don't have time to properly write it out tonight, so I'm putting this here to remind me of it tomorrow.
Granted, we haven't seen a society develop morals without a religon of some kind, but we also haven't seen any society develop from scracth without a religion. However, it should be noted that societies such as Native American, Oriental and others have all managed to have moral people in them without paying lipservice to the Abrahamic diety.
rmthorn wrote:
Quote:Going off on a tangent, this made me think of Jane Goodall's position on yeti...
I'm curious why someone would believe in something that can't be proved to exist.
Epsilon wrote this:
Quote:Okay, since this whole line doesn't seem to be going away...
The very fact, the very fact that you would equate rape. RAPE! That you would equate rape with sex with a condom is... its abhorrent. I have no idea what the hell kind of right wing brain worm argument you are making but stop it. Stop it now. You are...
The point it sounded to me like he was trying to make was this:
1. If we are programmed to want to have sex regardless of conditions, it wouldn't be surprising that the condition of "partner wants to have sex too" was disregarded quite regularly.
2. Quite a lot of people, in fact, *don't* commit rape.
3. Therefore, humans must be better at controlling their biological urges than is being suggested here, and ought to be able to handle not having sex at all.
Of course, there's an alternate conclusion that can be reached....
3a: Therefore, consensuality must be at least one condition that most people in fact do take into account.
Epsilon also wrote this:
Quote:I really don't see what your issue is here. He's saying that rape is bad and people who commit rape are bad! What's wrong with this? o.O
Choosing to have sex is nowhere near the same as choosing to rape someone. The very fact, the very idea, that you could in any way equate the two, on any level, is sickening.
Moving on, even though I have a feeling I'm not done with that particular tangent yet, Fidoohki wrote:
Quote:I quite honestly have no idea what that question is supposed to mean.
Sex is a right or Sex is a responsibility?
Okay, back to the tangent. Kokuten wrote:
Quote:It's really getting off the original topic, but I've heard this before, and thought it seemed somewhat dubious. I have no trouble believing that it's *usually* about power, but I've seen the fringes of enough really disturbing stuff to think that sometimes, maybe it actually is about sex. But how exactly do they find out?
First off, the only thing rape and sex have in common is a similarity of body parts involved. Rape is not about sex, rape is about power.
(The thing that really freaks me out is anything that suggests someone could actually *enjoy* being raped. Brrrr... That goes beyond needing to wash my brain out with Bleach, I need to wash my brain out with Pita-Ten...)
-Morgan, wants Rev Dark to create a flux-bypass-defenestrator, so I can buy one from him. '.'
Hey, my current signature fits in with this topic, so I should leave it in, shouldn't I?
"This continuity is now a Princess of Darkness crossover."
"... They're all going to die, aren't they?"
"Yep. Popcorn?"