|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
posted July 10, 2009 10:16 PM |
|
|
Judgmental and pointless as I am, I really don't see how anyone sane could ever compare drugs to sex... But hey, that's our Deathy 
Me, if I had to choose between forbidding the nation to have sex "except for procreational purposes" and something as immoral and soul-destroying as putting on a condom, I know what I'd choose. 
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 10, 2009 10:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Judgmental and pointless as I am, I really don't see how anyone sane could ever compare drugs to sex...
I'd like to know WHY you can't compare this, can't compare that, in any of my analogies. You always say this, but not ONCE have you shown exactly WHY it doesn't apply.
You know actually, I could reply in kind exactly, just so you can see how "pointless" your claims are because we wouldn't be getting anywhere. For instance:
I really don't see how anyone sane could not be able to compare drugs to sex... (or insert other analogies on other subjects)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 10, 2009 10:40 PM |
|
|
The difference between sex and drugs is this: pleasure-wise, sex is good, then neutral, whereas drugs are good, then bad.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 10, 2009 10:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The difference between sex and drugs is this: pleasure-wise, sex is good, then neutral, whereas drugs are good, then bad.
But that wasn't the context of the analogy I used.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 10, 2009 10:52 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 23:00, 10 Jul 2009.
|
Are you actually making me explain to you the fine differences between drugs and sex?
Okay.
For instance:
-Sex is a biological process in which two beings of (usually) the same specie and (less and less usually) of different genders copulate. Drugs are not.
-You can not protect yourself from negative effects of drugs by wearing a condom.
-Drugs are not known to make people pregnant.
-Sex is not illegal except with children and, in Nazi Germany, Jews.
The list goes on but these are some of the first things that appeared in my mind.
In fact, the only thing sex and drugs have in common is that old maxim "Sex, drugs and rock&roll".
Your analogy between sex and drugs, that drugs were abolished by people who have never tried them and that by that logic sex can be abolished by people who have never tried it, would perhaps make sense if sex was indeed something harmful, addictive, redundant or even in any way similar to drugs. The two, however, bear no resemblance whatsoever, until you prove otherwise. It, in fact, doesn't even matter whether people that abolish it have tried it or not - it matters whether there is a rational reason for it to be abolished by anyone. And by rational, I don't mean personal beliefs.
If there is another reason you compared drugs to sex, I'd be grateful to hear it because I appear to have overseen it the first time.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 10, 2009 11:00 PM |
|
|
Bak,
try here
Death explained his logic there.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 10, 2009 11:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Are you actually making me explain to you the fine differences between drugs and sex?
Out of context.
This is what you said:
Quote:
Not genius. Just either a eunuch or a man who doesn't have any chance to score in his lifetime.
This is my reply to it:Quote:
Yeah. And only people who would never be ABLE to take their dose abolish drugs right?
I don't see any "biological process" in the words above, or in the context. Do you?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 10, 2009 11:04 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 23:11, 10 Jul 2009.
|
@Doomforge
Ah, I see.
Thanks, I can't remember participating too much in that thread.
I admit that I am a bit too lazy to read through that discussion. Can someone point out whether there is something of interest to the subject of abolition of non-procreational sex there?
@Death
My bad.
Just to make things clear, then. If I ask you why you think that non-procreational sex should be abolished, will you say it's because it's just like drugs?
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 10, 2009 11:06 PM |
|
|
|
at the bottom of the first page, Death explains his POV - I guess that's what you were interested in
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 10, 2009 11:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If I ask you why you think that non-procreational sex should be abolished, will you say it's because it's just like drugs?
Well that is for the other thread Doomforge linked (and I did so, of course, with lengthy explanations & circling debate... nevermind I'm thinking of retiring from forum debates for a while ).
But in this thread I stated why it is an option for the Church and why you forgot it.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 10, 2009 11:30 PM |
|
|
I admit, I forgot it, yes, partially because the Catholic Church already has that attitude and I was talking about the change of it. I took two main cornerstones of supporting only procreational sex (abolition of condoms and abolition of abortion) and said that it would be lovely if the Church could let go of at least one of those. It let go of so many things as humanity evolved (the Inquisition for instance), it could let go of this too. It's the only rational solution, after all.
Especially while sheltering all those priests who touched little boys for not quite so procreational purposes.
As far as I know, neither the orthodox nor the protestant churches have such a problem with condoms. Abortions yes, but not condoms. Sometimes you sleep with a person you love but are just too young or can not afford a child. I don't think that's a sin. These churches understand that, just the western one refuses to and makes a fuss about it.
But that's all beside the point, my fault. Let's return this discussion to where it was before me and Sarcasm burst in.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 10, 2009 11:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You know what'd also be cool? If the rapist had AIDS. That way the only right thing to do is make a human being grow up in an orphanage, knowing that his father is a rapist and his mother died of AIDS.
But anything to make you feel morally superior, eh?
Perhaps you could learn to hold a discussion without insulting others? I said nothing about being superior to others. Please try to address the issues rather than throw out insults.
Growing up in an orphanage is infinitely better than being murdered.
Quote:
No, if there is murder involved in the process of post-rape abortion, the rapist is to blame. He is responsible for planting life forcefully and carelessly in a hostile environment in order to just please himself by raping an innocent woman. He is to take all the credit. If you throw your child off a cliff, it's your fault. Not gravity's.
No, the mother is shares in the blame for the abortion if she is the one making the choice. If someone ties her down and forcibly does an abortion on her then she is not to blame.
Quote:
I am myself neutral about the abortion issue in general. But this? Of course the woman will abort, you maniac. If abortion's murder, charge the rapist.
I am not a maniac. What is maniacal is to say a human life should be murdered because his father is a rapist.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 10, 2009 11:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Especially while sheltering all those priests who touched little boys for not quite so procreational purposes.
Well I don't think anyone says they are infallible, but I'm not sure if the Churches actually support that. Sure it happens, likewise people cheat, betray, lie, etc... doesn't mean the Church endorses it does it?Quote:
Sometimes you sleep with a person you love but are just too young or can not afford a child.
Sleeping isn't the sin, sex is.
The mere fact that is the first thing that comes to mind to you when you say you "sleep with another person", explains why this is a sin. Just think about it.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 10, 2009 11:56 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 00:06, 11 Jul 2009.
|
@Elodin
I do apologise if I have insulted you. As I am sure you apologise to all the raped women out there whom you call murderers.
How about if someone ties the woman down and forcibly injects sperm in her? As far as I see it, that person is quite clearly to blame for all that might happen to that afterwards. The woman has suffered quite enough by being raped and has full right to choose if her child will bear the genes of that man. Besides, she is not going to wait for months for that baby to get formed. If she aborts, it will be at once; before anything you could call human gets formed. So it's not yet a human; the only moral problem is that it would one day become one. But following that logic, we could charge everyone that masturbates for murder too.
All that aside, if you regard that as human, alright, charge the rapist for an additional murder. The woman is in no way to blame for not wanting to give birth to something forcefully injected into her. Ruining a raped woman's life additionally with an unwanted child which will be unhappy its entire life, or removing something which isn't even alive yet? I say let the woman choose at least.
@Death
The Vatican is currently giving shelter to about a dozen or so priests sought only in the United States for child molesting. There are also numerous cases, especially in South American countries, of it interfering in order to protect priests with pedophilic tendencies. Try documentaries such as this one, for example.
Why would sex be a sin? Orgies or similar, certainly. Cheating on your partner, yes. Lust toward strangers, sex with people you barely know, ok, I can understand that. But sex itself? With a loved one? Not for me, sorry. Call me a bad Christian.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 11, 2009 12:08 AM |
|
|
Quote:
But sex itself?
Well flesh lust and flesh pleasures are a sin. Sometimes it also not let you think straight.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 11, 2009 12:09 AM |
|
|
Now, hold on, Bak. I'm pro-choice, but I see Elodin's point. Say someone leaves a baby on your doorstep. No one will blame you if you give it up for adoption or take it to the police. But if you kill it, then you have indeed committed a crime, even though it's not your fault the baby is there.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 11, 2009 12:28 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 00:36, 11 Jul 2009.
|
@Death
Tesla would agree with you 
I'm not that kind of a person, though. Still, I think that's a matter of choice.
Also, not everything related to flesh is a sin. That is perhaps too much of a radical view to me. After all, that flesh is also a part of us and without it, we wouldn't be humans. Of course, excesses are wrong. But I don't think Jesus's point was so trivial as to forbid loving couples to sleep with each other.
Material pleasures are of course beneath spiritual ones, but I don't see why I couldn't pursue both. To an extent, at least.
@MVass
A baby on your doorstep is quite different. It is already formed and born, unlike a fetus somewhere in the early first trimester of pregnancy which is hardly even alive. And if we're such altruists to preserve all life, no matter how sentient it is, why are we cutting down forests and harming so many other living creatures? A fetus is, as far as I know, on a similar mental level as a plant.
I see what Elodin's point is, and I understand both pro and anti abortionists. But in this case, again, I believe that no one has the right to order that woman what to do with her embryo. Just like a surgeon isn't to blame for doing the abortion, that woman isn't to blame if she has no choice but to abort. The only one that had a choice was the rapist, and he made his choice.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 11, 2009 12:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Tesla would agree with you
I know, that's why I like him
As for your points with rape and the rapist having made his choice, I agree, the rapist is solely responsible for that (and the fetus' murder) since he was the one to actually make the choice to conceive him.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 11, 2009 01:34 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 01:36, 11 Jul 2009.
|
Quote:
@Elodin
I do apologise if I have insulted you. As I am sure you apologise to all the raped women out there whom you call murderers.
I do not apologize for saying abortion is murder. Abortion is killing a known innocent human life with premeditation.
Like I said the rapist is guilty of rape and to a lesser extent of murder if the woman chooses to have an abortion. If the woman chooses to abort the baby without her life being in danger she is guilty of murder.
Yes, the woman suffered from the rape. But the human life in her womb did not rape her and is not deserving of being killed.
You say the fetus is not alive. That is scientifically false. The cells are multiplying rapidly. The cells of dead things don't multiply.
You are wrong that the fetus can't be called human. The fetus has human DNA that is unique from that of the mother so the fetus is a separate human life from the mother. That is scientific fact. The fetus is just one stage of the human life cycle just like the toddler stage, puberty stage, ect is.
A woman's life is not ruined by giving birth to a baby. If she does not want the baby rather than murdering him she can give him up to someone who will love him.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 11, 2009 03:16 AM |
|
|
Bak:
She does have a choice. She can carry the foetus to term.
Also, if you're saying that it's okay to abort foetuses that are products of rape because they are barely formed - wouldn't it be okay to abort any foetus that is barely formed, not just ones that are products of rape?
Death:
Quote:
As for your points with rape and the rapist having made his choice, I agree, the rapist is solely responsible for that (and the fetus' murder) since he was the one to actually make the choice to conceive him.
To conceive, yes. But to murder, no. It's not like he held a gun to the girl's head and told her to get an abortion.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
