Nomrombom

What, the F-word?

At least we're debating something important and relevant, as opposed to having heated discussions about which flavor of pancake is best. And you don't have to read them :razz:

Duff, any response to my other post?

Could you clarify what you mean?

If you think the Church wants to oppress its people, force people to follow its rules, etc, then you're wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_Inquisition http://www.remnantofgod.org/nl0405.htm http://www.blaghag.com/2011/07/catholic-church-apologizes-for-150000.html http://radicalhub.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/forced-birth-crowd-led-by-catholic-church-dedicated-to-blocking-contraception-proposal/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition http://www.catholicsentinel.org/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=35&ArticleID=16245 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summis_desiderantes_affectibus

Why is that annoying?

No, it is completely irrelevant. It's an example of the fallacy ad hominem, which is using irrelevant information in an attempt to defame character in order to win an argument. The character of the church is relevant in the current string of discussions as to whether the church should try to force beliefs on people. If the church itself is of bad character, it has no place telling others how to live their lives, which is the side I am arguing from. I would like to bring in the Inquisitions and some other things as well, but we're already somewhat off topic, and I have a penchant for extending that... <_< >­­_>

It sure is. Edit: Well it's not entirely irrelevant. It's just another thing that reduces the amount of sense this "forcing of beliefs" (or whatever we want to call it) by the Church makes.

The best looking women is different to everyone. Don't imply that one group is completely and always better than another, because that is false and ignorant. And the pony [cabbage] is getting really [bleep]ing annoying now.

That's not exactly relevant. But tell me this - if you were to go around your school, or work, proclaiming that incest and bestiality are normal and one should be able to participate in them, how do you think you'd be treated? No, no, of course I get what you meant and I agree. I just wondered why you thought those two in particular were morally bad.

Exchanging a life of challenges for an eternity of happiness. Yes, I think that sounds like a good deal. In your eyes yes. Because you choose to believe in a fairy tale. In my eyes no. Because i choose to believe in science. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't label religious doctrine in such a condescending manner. It isn't very mature. Oh, in your eyes, is an eternity of happiness not worth a short life of challenges? Is that not a good deal? That was your question to me. Now I ask it of you. If your answer is that it does sound like a good deal (which it will be), then you'll understand why the Church is doing what it is doing. The problem is we have zero (read: 0, zero, cero, no, none) evidence that heaven exists. Or life after death. Or thought after death. So, while you *might* be right about the afterlife, you also might not. And while we are in this life, people would rather do stuff how they want than have a group of old guys (one in twenty of whom has been involved in child abuse cases, I might add) tell them what is right and wrong and how they have to live their lives.

Why do you find bestiality morally deplorable? Or incest? Wow, of all the things to respond to in that post, I picked those...

BURGLAR. FROM THINE TWITCHING. APPENDAGE HUMANS.

Yeah, but they're not our parents. Most people don't want the church telling them what's right and wrong, good and bad. So they should [bleep] off.

[honestquestion]Could you give us some examples (just so I know whether what I'm thinking is right)? [/honestquestion]

"About half of all sexual crimes go unpunished, according to the FBI Crime Report. Of those that are reported and prosecuted, 54 percent end in an acquittal or dismissal." Do you really think some stupid teenage boy is going to get anything for kissing some girl? Pertaining to above, the likelihood of anything at all happening is pretty slim. And unless there were witnesses, there's no evidence other than her word. In short, it is much more likely than not that nothing at all will happen to this guy legally. Is it a "good idea" to fight him? No, probably not. Could it then get Eggs into trouble? Maybe. Will it prevent that kind of thing from happening again? Quite possibly.

That's 80 F. That's too hot for you? :lol:

Why not? Because it won't actually solve the problem, it'll get the OP in further trouble, and they haven't even tried the correct way to solve the problem. Thinking violence is the immediate solution is a fifth grade mentality. You seem to be under the impression that we think it will solve the problem. We know it won't. It's not about that. I don't know about anyone else, but I recommended it because, as I said before, disrespect is not solved by the law. It's like someone spitting in your face. Go to the cops with that and they'll laugh in your face. Go to a school, they'll probably get your wrist slapped and a stern "bad boy". Give him a bloody nose and a bruised rib and it will never happen again. Are you implying that sexual assault and common disrespect are the same thing? No.

When they vote for abortion to be illegal, they're forcing their beliefs in people. When people vote for abortion to be legal, they're giving the option to those who want it. See the difference? QFT

Why not? Because it won't actually solve the problem, it'll get the OP in further trouble, and they haven't even tried the correct way to solve the problem. Thinking violence is the immediate solution is a fifth grade mentality. You seem to be under the impression that we think it will solve the problem. We know it won't. It's not about that. I don't know about anyone else, but I recommended it because, as I said before, disrespect is not solved by the law. It's like someone spitting in your face. Go to the cops with that and they'll laugh in your face. Go to a school, they'll probably get your wrist slapped and a stern "bad boy". Give him a bloody nose and a bruised rib and it will never happen again.

Why not?

You're a woman? Balls... I thought you were a guy. I don't even know why.

No, it's not fifth grade. It's my extreme cynicism in legal bodies not getting anything done in a remotely timely fashion, when it's already too late. Yes he could just beat the kid. Although more subtle methods are more satisfying. And some people just don't get it unless there's physical consequences to their actions, that's just how it is. From my experience authorities are useless and the only thing you can do is handle the issue yourself. I could easily list at least two posts' worth of examples of this regarding me alone. This. In my previous post, I was going to include much more about how disrespect is often solved only by physical confrontation, but this post sums it up.

Isn't that a violation of human rights?