|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,774
|
Quote:
|
Glory: Restating your claim that I have made ad hominem attacks other than the one I pointed out to you does not constitute providing an example of one. Please show me an example or shut up about it. Your disliking what I think about your dogma does not mean that that I have attacked you personally instead of your arguments.
|
dk: You can review your own posts. I haven’t argued from dogma but evidence. Since I haven’t made a single dogmatic statement attacking me on the basis of dogma is a Strawman. I don’t care what you think about dogma, please focus on the present arguments . - Glory: You suffer under the delusion that a statistic is an argument. It is not. dk: The statistics I posted supported my argument.
- Glory: Furthermore statistics can be used to "prove" just about anything. dk: An irrational statement.
- Glory: How's this for a meaningful statistic? What percentage of the entire number of people in the world who are sexually active does that 15,000,000 constitute? dk: Now you’ve stooped to answering your own questions, with a question?
- Glory: Assuming that your numbers are even close to accurate. dk: The numbers I quoted are published from the CDC, NIH and MMWR.
- Glory: You have not provided the source of these stats I have no reason to assume that you are not pulling these numbers out of thin air to bolsetr your position. dk: <a href="http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/stdstats.htm" target="_blank"> STD Statistics </a> , / ,<a href="http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/yi/y9608a.html" target="_blank"> Indicator 8. Births to Unmarried Women </a>
- Glory: Newsflash! You have said many times that sex is dangerous. I and alot of others have said, "yes it is. So what?" dk: Liar, I never said sex was dangerous. .
- Glory:: You just keep rattling off stats like a parrot asking for crackers and you keep implying that getting married will somehow fix the problems. You have made your point, such as it is. Move on. Sorry it didn't have the impact you were hoping for.
offends you but it’s just silly to demand I stop supporting my argument with evidence. dk: Some people live in denial. .
- Glory: The reference to "us" refers to those that had contributed to this thread before you graced us with your presence. You are correct that dissenting opinions do not constitute personal insults. What does constitute a personal insult is commenting that the ongoing conversation is trivial in nature and that you would like to "raise the level of it". If you consider this thread trivial than I suggest you go find somewhere else to pontificate. I can't help but notice that you have devoted quite a bit of time to these "trivialites".
dk: Glory asks “What’s your point?”, and dk responds,(paraphrase), “to elevate the discussion above the nontrivial.” Only a trivial person asks a question on page 5, doesn’t like the answer, and complain about the answer into Page 9. If you don’t want an answer, don’t ask the question.
Quote:
dk: The proposition, “birth control is very reliable except when it doesn’t work” is trivial. Supreme Court Justice O’Connor writes in Casey v. PA 505 U.S. 833, “people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail.” Whatever personal bias towards women you hold, abortion remains the only statistically reliable means of birth control, so the frequency of abortion comments directly upon the reliability of preventive birth control. Finally, your personal experience carries little weight, because you’re one in 300 mil.
Glory: Where are your impressive stats now? (snip)
|
dk: What? I was quoting Justice O’Connor of the Supreme Court as an authoritative source, not statistics. Writing for the Supreme Court Justice O’Connor states abortion necessary because birth control often fails.
Quote:
dk: If I’ve made an errant assumption then please substantiate the claim with the particulars. I’ve said and substantiated that people who elect to participate in premarital sex suffer disproportionately from STDs, unplanned pregnancy, and abortion. People that elect to live chaste lives practice self-discipline as a testimony of self worth, and don’t suffer STDs, unplanned pregnancy, or abortion.
Glory: Yes, those who do not engage in sex spare themselves the problems associated with sex. Those that do engage in sex do not necessarily lack self discipline nor are they guaranteed the negative consequences you describe.
|
dk: Good, that is correct. - Glory:: Most people feel that the benefits of sex outweigh the benefits, if any, of chastity. dk: Support your statement.
- Glory:: Chastity as a method of preventing std's, unplanned pregnancy, and abortion is akin to using cyanide to cure a headache. It has a lot of negative consequences, there are other less drastic options, and people just don't like it. You can attach as much moral significance to chastity as you like. Just stop expecting us to. We have heard your argument and rejected it. Move on.
dk: What are you talking about, you haven’t listed any benefit to premarital sex except self gratification. Nobody takes cyanide to cure a headache because it doesn’t cure a headache.
Quote:
dk: Hey, if for some complex reason you find it gratifying to treat your husband like a sex object, fine, . Still your husband isn’t an object or a mere thing, which begs the question.
1) dk: When did you start treating your husband as a sexual object?
2) Does your husband treat you like a sexual object?
3) Does the practice of premarital sex teach young people to be sex objects
Glory: If my husband has a problem with how I treat him, he'll let me know.
1) I don't know cause I don't really know what you mean by the term. In some ways it started from the first moment I decided I wanted to go to bed with him.
2) Sometimes.
3)That is utterly unanswerable. There are no absolutes when it comes to individuals. I wish you could get that through your head. Everyone is unique and learns different things from a given situtation. One person might learn to be a sex object. Another might learn that sex is different with each person you have it with. Still another might learn that they get off easier through masturbation than intercourse. Why do you think I have any insight into someone else's mind?
|
dk: I don’t. Objects don’t require love, care, respect, consideration, kindness, tenderness or trust, so why do you think a person is suited to be treated as an object in an intimate relationship?
Quote:
dk: I hope you now understand its abnormal for a woman to be traumatized by the loss of her virginity. My experience and dictionary describes traumas as: “a disordered psychic or behavioral state resulting from mental or emotional stress or physical injury.” In fairness I applied the word trauma, but what you described was abnormal, traumatic and certainly unnecessary. If all your female friends confirmed, as you testified, then it’s a tragedy.
Glory: I have no hope whatsoever that you will ever understand that the only person who can know weather or not I was traumatised, raped, sexually abused or in anyway the victim of an abnormal experience is me. You can speculate until the cows come home. This has really gotten ridiculous. As with so may other aspects of this thread, I am asking you to let this go. We are not getting anywhere.
|
dk: You brought it up, not me, but I’m happy to hear you admit being ignorant on the matter. - Glory: You have repeatedly illustrated that there is no room in your world view for shades of gray. Everything is good or bad, to you. You obtusely reiterate your meaningless questions which are so because you can't conceive of sometihing not fittng those extremes. Your notion that if a women experiences pain it must be traumatising and the result of violence is a perfect example of your thinking. dk: Another ad hominem attack, I never said life was white/black, or extreme.
- Glory: Back on topic, those marraige rights are al legalities. I also stated previously that without sex a marraige consitutes little more than a financial agreement. Thanks for making my point.
Being married to someone does not give you sexual rights to them. Only an individual can grant sexual rights to someone and wether or not they are married to that person has no bearing on wether or not they have or will. In short, a person can rape their spouse, contrary to the oppinion of some judges and prosecutors.
dk: We agree! When a person marries they assume all kinds of rights and obligation to their spouse, rights and obligations designed to protect the autonomy and integrity of the family. Absent these rights and obligations the progeny conceived in an act of premarital sex languishes uncovered.
- dk: Quite with the melodramatics, I haven’t called anyone a slut. The attempt to divert focus away from substanative issues does however bring into question your integrity. Clearly a chaste person practices self discipline as a testament of self worth. It’s just as clear that sexual promiscuity and drugs are an entailment of low self esteem associated with a lack of self discipline, positive motivation and meaningful goals.
- Glory: You have certainly implied it and continue to do so. dk: You are liar, quote me.
- Glory: A person's reasons for practicing chastity are their own. dk: There’s a revelation, all virtues are consonant and volitional.
- Glory: I don't pretend to have a clue what their reasons might be. dk: There’s a revelation.
- Glory: I can speculate about what leads people to drug abuse as well but it would be no more valid. dk: The <a href="http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofax/treatwomen.html" target="_blank"> NIH on drug abuse </a> says, “Often, women who use drugs have low self-esteem and little self-confidence and may feel powerless.”
- Glory:I can admit that there are things I don't know. Can you? dk: When I don’t know something I reference a reliable source.
- Glory: You continue to assume that everyone is like you. dk: No I don’t.
- Glory: I think that some people practice chastity because they are afraid of going to hell. dk: Have you ever met anyone that practiced Chastity to stay out of Hell?
- Glory: I also think that some people are chaste because they don't want to have sex. dk: I never met normal healthy adult that didn’t want sex, but many people believe in the sanctity of the Marital Act.
- Glory: I think some people are chaste because they are afraid of their parents and priests finding out they are not and punishing them. Not everyone in the world is like you! dk: Everyone is unique. I think most chaste people have faith in the future, and don’t want to jeopardize the future for a few moments of gratification.
- Glory: Where? How is there an attack on you? I think you have persecution complex.
dk: You’ve attacked me as unjust on the basis of lies you make up. I haven’t called you a slut, or made any other moral or ethical judgment about you personally. I do judge your arguments fallacious.
- dk: followed by an irrelevant appeal to some mythical ‘standard of beauty’, contradicted by an appeal to man’s eternal pursuit of beauty.
- Glory: Yes, anything that contradicts you is irrelevant.
dk: Fallacies are misleading, not irrelevant.
Quote:
dk: Men and women have always been attracted to beauty, self mutilation isn’t beautiful, but a warped shell of beauty.
Glory: And you are the authority on what constitutes self mutilation and beauty?
|
dk: The frequency with which modern women mutilate themselves through diets, eating disorders, cosmetic surgery and spiked heels reeks of low self esteem. - Glory: BTW, how successful has the Church been at fostering morality amongst its priests? dk: Dioceses that broke with Catholic Dogma and tradition became cesspools.
- Glory: Or anyone else for that matter? dk: As communities deviate from moral law they become increasingly corrupt until no good deed goes unpunished.
- Glory: Their seem to be alot of Christians in jail. Where is there any evidence that Christians are happy, healthy, and experiencing social and familial harmony? There are alot of exchristians on these forums who have testified about the destructive and unhealthy ideas the The Church fosters. What makes your testimony more valid than theirs? For that matter, the leadership of this culture that you condemn as being materialistic and over sexed is overwhelmingly christian. What am I to make of that? What am I to make of the massive amounts of money that these christian leaders draw from this "sick" culture? dk: Around 1950 the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the US Constitution as a purely secular document. Since then the constituents of the US have become increasingly corrupt, dependent on government and comfortably with a “Culture of Death”. In a Culture of Death problems are solved by killing people, providing free public entertainment and social welfare. Finally people become so corrupt they can’t stand their own children, or parents. In general a nation or civilization grows and prospers by solving problems, and when they encounter an insoluble problem dump more and more resources into the black hole until they’ve spent the last drop of good will. There are scores of ruined civilizations to vividly make the point. In a sense they all died of apathy and hate, absent good will. People that can’t stand their own spouses, parents and children not only form dysfunctional families, but because the family is the basic unit of society, they form dysfunctional societies lacking the good will and trust necessary to solve common everyday problems. Premaritial sex in particular leaves children uncovered, and therefore undermines the Marital Act, family and society.
Quote:
|
Glory: Divorce is not the disaster that so many people assume it is. A high divorce rate simply indicates that people are making different choices than they used to and that states have finally stopped cruel restrictions on the dissolution of marraige. New York used to have legislation which required that in order to obatin a divorce one had to have proof of infidelity. Proof of spousal abuse or abuse of children would not get you a divorce. A person had to go through the expense and humilliation of getting pictures of their spouse having sex with someone else. They had to stand in open court and air the details of their humiliation in order to have the judge decide wether or not to grant the divorce at which point he still did not have to grant it. He could say no and there was no recourse. Causation and correlation are not always partners. Do you have any evidence that these programs are the reason that the divorce rate has stabilized?
|
dk: Divorce is bad because it leaves children uncovered as a consequence of a broken promises. Divorce reform has been going on since Henry VIII executed Thomas More. I think the best proof exists in the Moynihan Report published back in 1965. President Llyndon Johnson said of the report, “Perhaps most important, its influence, radiating to every part of life, is the breakdown of the Negro family structure. And when the family collapses, it is the children that are usually damaged.” On the other hand sociologists and psychiatrists of the 1960-70s trashed the Moynihan Report as racist.
Quote:
dk: Ok, I have a cousin that got married in 16, raised a family of 6, and today runs a business worth a small fortune. My sister got pregnant (raped) in the Spring of her HS Graduation, gave the kid up for adoption, graduated college, got married, started medical school, had 2 kids, graduated medical school, had 2 more kids, completed her internship and today has practiced medicine for the last 8 years. But hey I have 6 brothers and sisters, and about 70 cousins, so I have a plethora of antidotal stories. Glory these kinds of personal antidotes don’t prove anything.
Glory: Ordinarilly I agree. However, they do, in fact, prove one thing. No one is right all the time about everyone. There are no absolutes. For every person you claim is better off for being christian I can name one who was hurt by it and vice versa. The difference between us is that I don't claim that christians are immoral for believing and living as they do. I don't assume that my way is best for everyone and I don't take credit for things to which I have no claim.
|
dk: That’s an ad hominem attack. First I haven’t argued from Christian Dogma. Second there are 30,000 Christians sects, not one monolithic group. Third: Christians are judged moral or immoral on the same laws as everyone else, Forth: the consequences of [im]moral actions ripple through society, not just the participants.
Quote:
dk: What Strawman? Your response reduces to an ad hominem attack, followed by hateful pointless rhetoric. In fact you’re the one hiding behind a fence painted white/black.
Glory: If the young pregnant woman has been promiscuous she will lie 99% of the time, and fix paternity on the most gullible of her suitors.
This is so offensive, misogynistic and stupid I don't even know where to start. You're prejudice judgementalism, self righteousness, sanctimony and hostility is so clear I really don't have to say anything.
|
dk: A mother has one of two choices if she doesn’t know the paternity of her child, 1) lie (forthright or by omission) or 2) tell the truth and leave her child uncovered. I don’t blame a women for tagging the most suitable man, and I quite frankly don’t understand why you find my statement offensive, misogynistic or stupid.
[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]
[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]
[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>
|
10-28-2002, 08:02 AM
snip)