Answering old threads thread

[Rusha]

Gotta love precocious presumption and misrepresentation...

I said I didn't condone adultery but rather that it can be understandable in circumstances and wow, could it be understandable with the likes of husbands thinking they have the right to demand sex from their wives and their wives not being too happy about that and going elsewhere...

It certainly makes a good argument against marriage …

It costs far less financially to leave a rapist if you are not legally bound to them via marriage …

 

[Stripe]

It certainly makes a good argument against marriage …

It costs far less financially to leave a rapist if you are not legally bound to them via marriage …

Hey.

Retards.

Rapists should be executed, regardless of marital status.

 

[ok doser]

Hey.

Retards.

Rapists should be executed, regardless of marital status.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Wow. Brain has really lost it this time.

How so, by agreeing with Clete?

 

[Derf]

Oh, there's plenty if you scroll back but if you're mired in juvenile presumption then there's your stumbling block. Maybe you want to make some more asinine quips about me instead?

Apparently, you're doing quite a good job without my help.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Apparently, you're doing quite a good job without my help.

How so? Have I made some juvenile quips about you or personal jibes? If so, point them out and if founded then I'll apologize and retract them. Sound fair to you? Already got a ban for calling you a dingbat so can't retract that one.

 

[Arthur Brain]

No.

Well, your not "changing your mind" would come as a surprise to absolutely nobody I'm reckoning but some others actually did, Mr Deets for one.

 

[Derf]

How so? Have I made some juvenile quips about you or personal jibes? If so, point them out and if founded then I'll apologize and retract them. Sound fair to you? Already got a ban for calling you a dingbat so can't retract that one.

Is that an apology (sans retraction, understandably) for calling me dingbat? You're too kind.

 

[Stripe]

It's not okay to be gay...

 

[Idolater]

It's not okay to be gay...

If we weren't so woke we could just admit it's a disorder of the dopamine reward system; in other words 'it's not normal to be lgbtetc.' and it's not controversial either. You look at some other dude and you become aroused, nothing you can do about that, but if we weren't so woke we would just say it's a disorder of the dopamine reward system, and there's no judgment in it, it's just as if you have a permanently broken leg that will never heal, not your fault.

Ethically the question is, now what? What do I do if it comes to be that I have this disordered dopamine reward system?

For Catholics the answer's actually extremely brief and simple. You're not called to the sacrament and or vocation of matrimony and or marriage.

And, be chaste. Which is the same instruction given to all Catholics from the pope on down to common Catholics (common because we are the common priesthood, compared to the clergy, who are the ministerial priesthood), married and single Catholics alike, we're all called to chastity regardless.

So celebrating "pride": which is as we all know, celebrating unchastity, which is beyond being a victim of the disorder. This is doing perverted things with your permanently broken leg that makes no sense for you to be doing, nor for us to be celebrating or approving or encouraging, this is just all now silly.

At the least can we please not be including them in the curriculum of our youngest children who are going to government-provided schools?

 

[ok doser]

You look at some other dude and you become aroused ...

 

[Arthur Brain]

Is that an apology (sans retraction, understandably) for calling me dingbat? You're too kind.

Nope. Got anything as to how rape in a marriage is "something else" yet?

 

[Derf]

Nope. Got anything as to how rape in a marriage is "something else" yet?

Nope. All I've got is the definition and etymology of the word. What do you have, pure opinion with a touch of ad hominem?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Constitutional precedent defines a human being as starting at birth -- not prior.

And it's wrong for doing so, because, scientifically, human life begins at conception.

You cannot ignore that a developing human is a vastly different condition than a viable individual human being.

It's irrelevant, because they are BOTH human beings.

Should burning a bag seeds be equivalent to starting a forest fire?

No, because tree seeds are not humans.

All of my cells are human.

Yup.

The point is the very early stages of development cannot logically be compared to a human individual.

The very early stages of development ARE PART OF A HUMAN INDIVIDUAL'S DEVELOPMENT! How is that so hard for you to understand?

They shouldn't be "compared" simply because they're part of the same process!

It is more similar to the egg or sperm.

Wrong.

Neither the egg nor the sperm are unique human beings.

When they combine, however, is when a unique human being comes into existence.

I think some reverence should be afforded given the unique pairing of genes and the potentiality of human existence. Conception often naturally results in re-absorption instead of further development. Funerals are not held in regard to these microscopic events. This should mean something.

Because you say so?

Your use loose use of the term baby and murder have no impact on me.

Abortion is baby murder. That's a fact, and it SHOULD have an impact on you.

The fact that it doesn't shows how seared your conscience is.

They are a ridiculous characterization of events.

False.

A fetus does eventually take on characteristics of a human individual and gain viability.

This is begging the question that the fetus is not human.

The correction is this:

The fetus, a baby, HAS the characteristics of a human individual who is in his or her earliest stages of development.

Abortion at later stages would warrant considering some level of fetal rights.

Abortion is wrong because it's a baby. It's always wrong to kill a baby.

Pregnancy, more often than we like to realize, damages the health of the mother

In what way?

and can be life threatening.

But usually isn't.

It is no small thing to ask a woman to bear a child against her will.

It is no small thing to want to take the life of the child in the womb against his will.

It's one thing for a woman to bear a child for 9 months out of her life, after which she can, if she still doesn't want the child, give the child up for adoption.

It's quite another thing to take away the 70+ years that the child could potentially live all because it would inconvenience the mother for a short period.

Neither you nor any human has the right to do so.

Currently it is the moment of birth where legal right's attach.

So what?

I know you disagree with the state of the law, but do not pretend your point of view is currently codified.

In the current system? Never have.

However, it IS codified in the laws of reality.

Killing a human is never a virtue.

Then why do you continue advocating for it?

Sometimes it is a necessary or mitigated evil,

There is nothing necessary about killing the innocent. Stop trying to justify murder.

like in self-defense.

There is nothing evil about defending one's self.

Woe to those who call good evil and evil good, which is exactly what you just did.

It should always be considered as a possible consequence. It varies greatly. Many woman have little to no regrets at all especially when the abortion is early.

To their shame.

Nor should they when it is early enough.

They should whenever they kill their child.

If they don't, they'll wish they had by Judgement Day.

A human individual starts at birth.

Wrong.

A human individual starts at conception.

This is an established legal fact.

The law is wrong.

I actually think viability rather than birth is the more appropriate threshold.

What you think is irrelevant.

 

[ok doser]

One of the conversations I used to get involved in with the hardcore extreme feminists on Facebook couple years ago revolved around the viability of a fetus / infant. In many cases the argument they made was that the fetus wasn't worthy of protection because it couldn't survive on its own, and that presumably the infant could. Of course I would mock them roundly and point out that no infant can survive on its own, no toddler, no child could realistically be expected to survive on its own before the age of six or seven.

This conversation you're having with the Skeetard reminds me of that, and reminds me of working with young Scouts, practicing wilderness survival skills, and how my development as an adult father in this regard was as important as their development as teens.

We never stop developing. The human organism that I am today is very different from the one that I was 20 years ago or 40 years ago. It is very different than the one I will be in 20 years and 20 more years past that.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Nope. All I've got is the definition and etymology of the word. What do you have, pure opinion with a touch of ad hominem?

No, fact. It's rape, pure and simple. That you can't define what this "something else" of yours actually consists of reflects solely on you.

 

[Derf]

No, fact. It's rape, pure and simple. That you can't define what this "something else" of yours actually consists of reflects solely on you.

If your source is merely your own brain, Brain, then you have nothing to hold over anyone else. There can be all kinds of "facts" dancing around in there.

I've already explained that there can be abuse, including physical harm perpetrated by a husband on his wife. But it isn't rape.

 

[Stripe]

If your source is merely your own brain, Brain, then you have nothing to hold over anyone else. There can be all kinds of "facts" dancing around in there.

I've already explained that there can be abuse, including physical harm perpetrated by a husband on his wife. But it isn't rape.

I think you're arguing a semantic point using language that is inappropriate.

If a husband were to force himself, he would be charged with rape. I don't think it's worth trying to explain anything to Brain using that word.

Wait. Remove the final three words of that second paragraph.

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

If your source is merely your own brain, Brain, then you have nothing to hold over anyone else. There can be all kinds of "facts" dancing around in there.

Your thoughts come out of your brain as well or are you suggesting they arrive from another body part?

I've already explained that there can be abuse, including physical harm perpetrated by a husband on his wife. But it isn't rape.

Marriage has consent implicit in it, but your interpretation of that is impractical, general, and warped. We give consent to doctors for medical procedures but that does not mean they can do any procedure they want anytime they want. Malpractice is malpractice. Rape is rape.

And when the lauded goal of procreation is off the table, the pace of intimate interaction is now completely a matter of compromise.

 

[Idolater]

... And when the lauded goal of procreation is off the table, the pace of intimate interaction is now completely a matter of compromise.

That's always a matter of compromise. And it is a lauded goal. "Be fruitful and multiply."