The Continuing Saga of the Pedophile Priests

Originally posted by Yorick: Dramnek, I should also add, that my belief system also includes the belief that my God loves you. Intensely. Whether you are aware or not, whether you reject that love or not. He loves you and wants you to know him.

My belief system includes not beliveing anything without reasonable non-subjective evidence. The absurdity of the “you must open you heart and have faith to know god” argument is brought into perspective when you apply it to buying cars, how many car manufacturers would sell cars if they said “you must have faith in the fact that it won’t break down”.
we demand proof and that is how it should be.

[AzureWolf]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: [QB][/QB]

Just a quick interruption of the debate
But love the pic of Abaddon the Despoiler, did you just crop it from a pic of him and resize it?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: What the Church puts forth is morals and morality. You cannot derive an “ought” from an “is” Therefore IMHO there is no such thing as morality, just people and their desires. What we term morality is merely a sham masking people’s urges because they don’t have the courage or strength to own up to them. It is better to stop speaking morally and to start speaking honestly. Obviously we cannot all go round indulging in our desires all the time as organised society would be collapse, so our desires are better served by co-operation and negotiation and compromise, but there is no need to Believe in illusions.

Morals do exist Dramnek. By virtue of the people believing in them. Another illogical statement. Morals are the victory of conscious choice over animalistic instinct. Societies have agreed on morals that create a better place of living for the sick, the old, the young and the disadvantaged. In recognition that all life passes through these phases.

It takes more courage to wrestle with and master primal urges, than to be enslaved by them. With a moral code, I am a slave to nothing. Everything I do is by will and choice alone, unless it is a moment of weakness where instinct can take over.

Strong morals equal self control. Will power. When in control of yourslef you can do anything. Battlerage in a conflict situation results in flawed weaker response. Full mental faculties result in faster response.

Your line of thinking results in road rage murders, child abuse, maiming. war. Why supress the urge to molest a young boy Dramnek? They are only being honest about their urges are they not? You fool. Moral codes protect that young boy. The very thing you are condemning you would allow. [/QUOTE]

Straw Man

Cop-out. It was substancial enough you couldn't answer. Another subjective declaration.

Secular authorities can do it better, since it comes without the ideological baggage of religion.

Well I hate to tell you Dramnek, that I've read governmental reports that have findings PROVING, religious bodies are more effective than secular because of the spiritual nature and motivation of the said assistance. The Australian government is increasingly outsourcing the majority of it's various counselling services to a variety of religious bodies, because the secular services ARE NOT AS SUCESSFUL.

Your unfactual opinion, and presumtive generalised declaration is insubstancial, incorrect and quite simply.... wrong.

"Male nipples aren't exactly a genetic glitch: they are evidence of our developmental clock. In the early stages of life from conception until about 14 weeks, all human fetuses look the same, regardless of gender. At the tender age of 14 weeks post-fertilization , genetically-male fetuses begin to produce male hormones including testosterone. These hormones turn the androgynous fetus into a bouncing baby boy. Here's where the developmental clock comes in. By 14 weeks, when the hormones turn on, the nipples have already formed. So, while our male fetus goes on to become a baby boy, he keeps his nipples, reminding all of us that people, male and female, started off the same way."

Straw man. Ignores the reasons why they develop so early in the womb, and ignores the clitorus argument. You're picking and choosing Dramnek. I stand by what I say.

]Religion tries to impose its views on others or promote it’s views as being better for you. Religious leaders sound off all the time about issues, and have been involved in for example attempts to ban cloning of human embryos, Abortion etc thus restriction others choices. Gay bashing is also very popular with many religions and Churches, which in the eyes of most people of course lends it legitimacy. Most churches here certainly do not support same sex marriages and many do not even like female vicars, and if that’s not discrimination I don’t know what is, and I’ll wager the situation is the same in many other countries as well.

Give evidence and figures, otherwise you're posting generalised slander. What churches in what country have had convictions of Gay bashing? Which churches do not have female preachers or pastors? You hide behind generalisations and broad brushstrokes that are impossible to prove and impossible to refute, because of their insubstanciality. They mean nothing.

"No. It rests on what is the greater experience for me" or selfishness as others would term it. You also assume that everybody who needs or uses a condom will sleep around

Wrong. Other way round brightboy. Everybody who sleeps around needs a condom. This should have been obvious.

Then prove yourself right.

Ah, the onus of proof is on you as you are seeking to change my beliefs, and you are the one seeking to speak for those of faith. I am not, and have never claimed to speak for those without faith, and couldn't care what you believe. The only thing I care about regarding you, is your depressed mindset. Prove me wrong.

Hah, that’s the old 20,000 fanatics can’t be wrong idea. Just because people choose to do it or follow it, it doesn’t automatically mean there is anything in it. Many people are racist and agree on racist ideas and policies (for example the British National party) but that doesn’t mean there is anything good in it does there?

Sure it does. Good for those that follow and benefit from it. Whether it's good for everyone else is another matter. That is precisely my point. Monogamy, and celibacy before marriage is GOOD FOR THOSE THAT FOLLOW IT. Otherwise they wouldn't. It can be equated to Christmas presents. Some people like to resist the urge to open them before the day, while others wait, to make the day special and share the experience with the giver.

You Also presume to cast judgement on my personal views about sexual matters. If I believe that sex is special I can and Do, but other people do not have to do the same, and it is only in my opinion that sex is special. And how this belief of speciality is put into practise is also subjective and many people choose to do it differently.

Of course. However there are SEX THERAPISTS who people go to for advice. There are pastors and cousellors who people go to for advice. People may choose to do it differently, but many get dissatisfied and look for 'a better way'. If someone asks me, I give my opinion. I certainly wouldn't go up to a stanger on the street or someone who didn't approach me for my opinion. Pastors are people who listen to requests for guidance in certain matters, then pass on the collective knowledge they have attained. Again, who are you to criticise a WILLING EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION?

Mind your own business.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Dramnek, I should also add, that my belief system also includes the belief that my God loves you. Intensely. Whether you are aware or not, whether you reject that love or not. He loves you and wants you to know him.

My belief system includes not beliveing anything without reasonable non-subjective evidence. The absurdity of the “you must open you heart and have faith to know god” argument is brought into perspective when you apply it to buying cars, how many car manufacturers would sell cars if they said “you must have faith in the fact that it won’t break down”.
we demand proof and that is how it should be.[/QUOTE]Do you go and see the flight specks of a plane before you step on board? Do you test the airbag to see if it holds up in a crash? Do you go and find the inspection chart for a lift? Or do you have faith that the manufacturers and service personelle are speaking truth?

You put your life in the hands of others all time. The faith occurs without much effort at all.

[Talthyr Malkaviel]

Any exposure to any body fluids (for example Saliva) puts you at risk for catching an STD. This means there is a chance of catching an STD even if you are monogamous, as saliva contact with others can and often does occur, as well as other bodily fluid contacts.

No, it has to be through sex by definition, otherwise it would be a TD, not an STD, seems simple enough to me.

You cannot use God as a justification for anything since you cannot prove that he exists. It would like be trying to justify killing all cats in America on the basis that if someone who hated cats was president, they’d want that done.

And we base our argument on him not... that's equally like saying because there's no president who likes cats that you can kill cats.
I think that sort of supports the moral argument Yorick was giving to you, without them it wouldn't be wrong to kill cats would it.

The first living creatures did not reproduce sexually. But sexual reproduction allows a greater combination of genes, thus allowing for more mutations. More mutations means more possibility of one that aids survival, It also allows for more complex life forms, thus Sexual reproduction became the method that survived best and produced the most dominant animals. It’s perfectly possible for Sexual reproduction to occur without any pleasure whatsoever. But some Evolutionary Anthropologists (or Biologists?) think that taking pleasure from sex is very important for social species such as mankind, since it can help to from stable relationships between pairs, which allow for primitive societies to develop. Also taking pleasure from sex means that people will do it more often, thus increasing the chance of passing on their genes.

True, the first forms reproduced asexually, but you said it evolved into our way of reproduction, as if people used to have sex for no reason, but then evolution made offspring come from it somehow.
And also, there are other social animals who have sex without pleasure, only us dolphins and I think maybe one or two other life forms have sex for pleasure, what's so differetn about us that means we need pleasure?? If I was a christian I would most likely say God, but since I'm not I don't know exactly why... maybe we have less of a sense of duty to nature than some animals.

Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel: No, it has to be through sex by definition, otherwise it would be a TD, not an STD, seems simple enough to me.

What you fail to grasp is that a Sexually transmitted disease is not passed on through sex alone always, This is indeed it’s primary method of passing on, but it is through all bodily fluids that they are passed on. For example you can get HIV/AIDS (which is a STD) through blood transfusions, or (even though the chance is tiny) from swallowing other peoples saliva.

Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel: And we base our argument on him not... that's equally like saying because there's no president who likes cats that you can kill cats. I think that sort of supports the moral argument Yorick was giving to you, without them it wouldn't be wrong to kill cats would it.

Some People believe that Santa Claus exists, doesn’t mean that he does.
Some people believe that Elvis still lives, doesn’t mean he does.
Some people believe in ghosts, doesn’t mean they do exist.

You cannot Prove that we can derive “ought” from an “is”.
Arguments are meant to be based upon logic and evidence, not faith.

Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel: True, the first forms reproduced asexually, but you said it evolved into our way of reproduction, as if people used to have sex for no reason, but then evolution made offspring come from it somehow. And also, there are other social animals who have sex without pleasure, only us dolphins and I think maybe one or two other life forms have sex for pleasure, what's so differetn about us that means we need pleasure?? If I was a christian I would most likely say God, but since I'm not I don't know exactly why... maybe we have less of a sense of duty to nature than some animals.

You are looking at it the wrong way; ask, “Does pleasurable sex help to make us special?”
The first thing to realise is that there is no grand plan. What there is and what we have has evolved to Dominance because it best suited the circumstances for survival. Sexual reproduction allows greater chance for and greater mutations; Pleasurable sex means that it is more likely to be enacted thus increasing the chance for passing on your genes. It also allows sex to be given as a sign of trust and friendship, since when you have sex with someone you are (Hopefully!) giving them pleasure and them doing the same to you, you also trust them when you do this, A women trusts that a man will help to raise child etc if she becomes pregnant. This allows for stable reproductive relationships to occur, which in turn allows for society to arise from this.
Also animals do not have a duty to nature, non-human animals cannot even understand the concept of “duty”. For example it is proven that predators will hunt out their prey, thus misbalancing nature etc etc.

Originally posted by AzureWolf: quote: Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk:

Just a quick interruption of the debate
But love the pic of Abaddon the Despoiler, did you just crop it from a pic of him and resize it?[/QUOTE]It’s directly linked from the games-workshop website, I think they cropped and shrunk it from one of their commissioned pics. They’ve got vast amounts of some of the best commercial artwork I’ve seen for a long time at their website. Too much on the space marines though (as ever).
Also I cannot help noticing yer Sig, Hammer & Sickle + the female appears to form that shape with her pose, a postmodern Ironic reference or something?
Yet what exactly is the significance of CCCP on it?
Since many hold that it was ideologically and practically impure and it was deeply flawed because it based its polices upon the centralized control and restriction of information etc etc and was oreintated towards 2nd wave rather than 3rd.

Originally posted by Yorick: Morals do exist Dramnek. By virtue of the people believing in them. Another illogical statement. Morals are the victory of conscious choice over animalistic instinct. Societies have agreed on morals that create a better place of living for the sick, the old, the young and the disadvantaged. In recognition that all life passes through these phases. It takes more courage to wrestle with and master primal urges, than to be enslaved by them. With a moral code, I am a slave to nothing. Everything I do is by will and choice alone, unless it is a moment of weakness where instinct can take over. Strong morals equal self control. Will power. When in control of yourslef you can do anything. Battlerage in a conflict situation results in flawed weaker response. Full mental faculties result in faster response. Your line of thinking results in road rage murders, child abuse, maiming. war. Why supress the urge to molest a young boy Dramnek? They are only being honest about their urges are they not? You fool. Moral codes protect that young boy. The very thing you are condemning you would allow.

You are also using emotive analogies (i.e. Child molestation) thereby trying to create a straw man, try to read all of the post:
“Obviously we cannot all go round indulging in our desires all the time as organised society would be collapse, so our desires are better served by co-operation and negotiation and compromise, but there is no need to Believe in illusions.”
If a people do not want children to molested, they will co-operate to ensure than anyone who does molest children is punished. This is called “Law”, which are rules that the state enacts, and what is the state but a monopoly on power.

Originally posted by Yorick: Cop-out. It was substancial enough you couldn't answer. Another subjective declaration.

Nope, it was a straw man. I did not attack the concept of celibacy in itself nor did I say that people shouldn’t practice it. What I said was that the Catholic Church based the idea of celibacy before marriage upon deontological and illogical premises.

Originally posted by Yorick: Well I hate to tell you Dramnek, that I've read governmental reports that have findings PROVING, religious bodies are more effective than secular because of the spiritual nature and motivation of the said assistance. The Australian government is increasingly outsourcing the majority of it's various counselling services to a variety of religious bodies, because the secular services ARE NOT AS SUCESSFUL. Your unfactual opinion, and presumtive generalised declaration is insubstancial, incorrect and quite simply.... wrong.

Originally posted by Yorick: Straw man. Ignores the reasons why they develop so early in the womb, and ignores the clitorus argument. You're picking and choosing Dramnek. I stand by what I say.

Not everything in an Argument need be refuted the same way you don't have to take every piece out of an engine before it ceases to work,
But FYI:
"Sex organs are homogenous, the scrotum is just sealed together labia from the stock fetal pre-female form, males have a tiny, 1/8 inch hymen sealed off in a pocket just below the bladder... The clitoris is simply a mutated Penis..."

Originally posted by Yorick: Give evidence and figures, otherwise you're posting generalised slander. What churches in what country have had convictions of Gay bashing? Which churches do not have female preachers or pastors? You hide behind generalisations and broad brushstrokes that are impossible to prove and impossible to refute, because of their insubstantiality. They mean nothing.

FYI if it’s written its Libel. Not that it actually is mind you (see below)

“One of the highest members of the Mormon hierarchy declares that "A lesbian daughter [and presumably a gay son] could not remain in the church" (Apostle Richard G. Scott, "A Traditional Unit that Comes in Many Different Forms," LA Times, 9 Sep. 1997.)”

“The US House of Representatives voted July 19 to approve the Bush administration’s “faith-based” initiative, which funnels billions in federal funds to church-based charities, while giving such groups the legal right to engage in discrimination on the basis of religion, sexual orientation or marital status.”

“Well, true to form, the Baptists (The article is talking about the southern Baptist convention) have managed to outdo themselves again. At their 2000 Convention, they decided that women should no longer be allowed to serve as pastors.”

“The Salvation Army hires gay people, but rejects them for the ministry. According to a spokesman for the church group, it opposes granting domestic partnership benefits “whether for homosexual or unmarried heterosexual couples” on the grounds that sex outside of marriage is immoral”

(The Salvation Army doesn’t support same sex marriage)

There’s a lot more if you want it…

Originally posted by Yorick: Wrong. Other way round brightboy. Everybody who sleeps around needs a condom. This should have been obvious.

Nope, They don’t *need* a condom; you can still sleep around without one if you want to. It’s just that without one, your likelihood of getting an STD increases drastically and thus the likelihood of passing it on etc.

Originally posted by Yorick: Ah, the onus of proof is on you as you are seeking to change my beliefs, and you are the one seeking to speak for those of faith. I am not, and have never claimed to speak for those without faith, and couldn't care what you believe. The only thing I care about regarding you, is your depressed mindset. Prove me wrong.

No,
There is no proof that will stand up to scientific analysis that can prove that god exists, your logic is “you cannot prove that god doesn’t exists, so he must exist” this does not follow.
Therefore the burden of proof is on you since you are basing your argeuments around the existence of god.

Originally posted by Yorick: Sure it does. Good for those that follow and benefit from it. Whether it's good for everyone else is another matter. That is precisely my point. Monogamy, and celibacy before marriage is GOOD FOR THOSE THAT FOLLOW IT. Otherwise they wouldn't. It can be equated to Christmas presents. Some people like to resist the urge to open them before the day, while others wait, to make the day special and share the experience with the giver.

Then by your logic genocide is justified since it benefits the people who follow and/or enact it. Indeed by your logic anything is justified as long as it benefits those who enact it.

Originally posted by Yorick: Of course. However there are SEX THERAPISTS who people go to for advice. There are pastors and cousellors who people go to for advice. People may choose to do it differently, but many get dissatisfied and look for 'a better way'. If someone asks me, I give my opinion. I certainly wouldn't go up to a stanger on the street or someone who didn't approach me for my opinion. Pastors are people who listen to requests for guidance in certain matters, then pass on the collective knowledge they have attained. Again, who are you to criticise a WILLING EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION? Mind your own business.[/QB]

Straw man
Ad Hominem attack

[ 05-12-2002, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: Dramnek_Ulk ]

[Talthyr Malkaviel]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: What you fail to grasp is that a Sexually transmitted disease is not passed on through sex alone always, This is indeed it’s primary method of passing on, but it is through all bodily fluids that they are passed on. For example you can get HIV/AIDS (which is a STD) through blood transfusions, or (even though the chance is tiny) from swallowing other peoples saliva.

Right, well first of all, I grasp that very well thank you, and I am playing devil's advocate and was being purposely pedantic but when you first said it you said a much more general statement, and I merely meant, for exaple, that you couldn't get it form all forms of contact, like hugging people.

Some People believe that Santa Claus exists, doesn’t mean that he does. Some people believe that Elvis still lives, doesn’t mean he does. Some people believe in ghosts, doesn’t mean they do exist. You cannot Prove that we can derive “ought” from an “is”. Arguments are meant to be based upon logic and evidence, not faith.

Some people (including you and me) believe that these things are untrue... doesn't mean that we are right.
You and I don't believe in God, doesn't mean he doesn't exist, what if we are wrong, however difficult a concept that is for you to grasp.

You are looking at it the wrong way; ask, “Does pleasurable sex help to make us special?” The first thing to realise is that there is no grand plan. What there is and what we have has evolved to Dominance because it best suited the circumstances for survival. Sexual reproduction allows greater chance for and greater mutations; Pleasurable sex means that it is more likely to be enacted thus increasing the chance for passing on your genes. It also allows sex to be given as a sign of trust and friendship, since when you have sex with someone you are (Hopefully!) giving them pleasure and them doing the same to you, you also trust them when you do this, A women trusts that a man will help to raise child etc if she becomes pregnant. This allows for stable reproductive relationships to occur, which in turn allows for society to arise from this.

Well, although I do agree with the majority of your argument, you really do have an odd way of debating, you say countless times that something does happen, how do you know, however far I might agree with you, you're awfully presumptuous.

Also animals do not have a duty to nature, non-human animals cannot even understand the concept of “duty”. For example it is proven that predators will hunt out their prey, thus misbalancing nature etc etc.

Do not have a duty to nature?? Sorry for the choice of words, but my arse. (not an ad hominem attack, I'm not calling you an arse)
If they have no sense of duty to nature, a part of which is evolution, why then do animal who don't have sex for pleasure have sex at all?? They wouldn't at all, and I don't mean duty by our standards, I mean a deep-seated, implanted in their entire species duty.
Why do you think plants reproduce?? I doubt they find much pleasure in pollination, it's because nature dictates that their existecne is to procreate, and in another sense, they are more dutiful to nature than we could ever know.
And as far as animals hunting prey?? How does that unbalance nature?? That is another fundamental part of nature... do you think animals invented the food chain for fun??

All in all, after looking at your arguments, I think I know your basic problem (and logically my analysis is less likely to be biased because I mostly agree with you, and my view isn't clouded by the fact that you are of sifferetn opinion to me.)
I think that you have real trouble accepting other's views, and that you are convinced that your views are right, I don't know why, maybe you are the selfish one, I don't know exactly, but you never put 'I think' or 'In my opinion' you always put definites in places where it is entirely a matter of opinion, or totally unknowable.
You are a very presumptuous man, and I'm sorry that you can't be a little more tolerant of the fact that you might be wrong.
Pity though, you are a very good debater otherwise.

[ 05-12-2002, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Talthyr Malkaviel ]

[Neb]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: You cannot Prove that we can derive “ought” from an “is”. Arguments are meant to be based upon logic and evidence, not faith.

ALL arguments are based on faith at some point. You BELIEVE, you have FAITH in that your arguments are logical. You BELIEVE, you have FAITH in that your evidence is real and not fake. Nothing can ever be proven to be 100% true, there is always an alternate possibility no matter how impossible it might seem. So therefore the one that you accept as real is the one that you BELIEVE in, the one that you have FAITH in.

I love this particular argument and I BELIEVE, I have FAITH in, that it is true and logical [img]tongue.gif[/img]