|
On July 02 2013 06:10 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 05:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 05:20 DoubleReed wrote:
Oh thank goodness he hasn't left. And now it's clear that he thinks giving women rights and control over their own body is basically the next step in the forces of The Matriarchy. Men will be nothing but sex slaves to the dildo-wielding feminist rulers!! Don't be absurd. He said women don't enjoy sex, so that means no dildos allowed in the matriarchy. you people should learn to read. i said women don't enjoy 2min of throbbing, the time it takes a man to ejaculate, the time it takes to do his evolutionary duty. you're all acting as if neanderthals were practicing kama sutra. do you even know that scientists spent time, energy and resources to figure out why the clitoris is not inside the vagina but outside it?. the logic of it was that it has to be inside so that the penis could rub against it so that both women and men could achieve orgasms while procreating.
Huh. Because in my experience, the girl almost always comes first. Not that I'm a scientist.
Whatever helps you sleep at night, bro.
|
On July 02 2013 01:49 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 01:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 23:04 ZackAttack wrote:On July 01 2013 04:25 TSORG wrote:On June 30 2013 22:05 ZackAttack wrote:
This is my last post in this thread. I would just like to say that when people say things like, "science is just another religion" it really makes me sad. I don't see how people can be so blind when the answer is right in front of them. I for one am not sad to see you go, you don't read what people say, you are not interested in a discussion, all you do is preaching what you believe is true, not just true, but also right in front of all of us. It is funny that you seem to be one to be the first on the barricades to yell "Fanatic" at anyone else who does the same but with a different message. And I would bet a large sum of money that, had you lived 500 years ago, you would be saying the same thing about heretics who did not see that the truth of gods existence is right in front of them. Goodbye. I cannot let this kind of drivel slide. You can keep thinking that scientific reasoning and reading a holy text are equal in merit when making real world decisions about other people lives if you want, but it is clear that is not the case. The reason that is not the case is because religion is arbitrary, and scientific theory is not. Please point to me a single law based on "scientific theory". Also, I'm beginning to think that you haven't studied religion.... at all. The ramblings of a delusional schizophrenic are only slightly less valid than any religion that blindly goes on it's own word. The difference is that science admits its faults and tries to get it right Yeah, religions never evolve and/or admit faults in their beliefs. Historically ignorant statements for the win! but just forcing women to carry children to term because it says in a book and doesn't give a reason is the worst possible way to go about it, save for actually trying to make things worse. Says who? Says you. Statements of fact with no attempt to even create logical arguments are useless. You're just closing your ears and screaming: "NO! NO! NO!" and yet have the gall to accuse others of being close-minded... it would be fascinating if it wasn't so childish. A simple and obvious example is speed limits. These exist because car crashes are undesirable. The specific speed limit depends upon a number of factors, the common denominator being how quickly a vehicle can break at what speed over what distance, the other factors being size and width of road, frequency of traffic, surroundings etc. You'll notice when divining our speed limit at no point did we consult a religious text that says thou shalt drive at 100mph at all times, because God said so. [edit: You'll also notice this sounds like a really bad idea, I hope.] The same goes for all laws that aren't throwbacks from less educated, informed and democratic times. He shouldn't need to construct a logical argument when it's staring you in the face whilst beating you over the head with a rusty shovel.
please show me the scientific justification for democracy and freedom through equality...
there is none. why? because the latter is an ideology originating from the revolutionary period (with roots in the renaissaince) and has as much ontologic validity as the bible. the former is just a form of politics that we can desire for pragmatic reasons but does not really have any principle reasons over lets say monarchy, oligarchy or technocracy. the romans already knew that...
|
On July 02 2013 06:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 06:10 xM(Z wrote:On July 02 2013 05:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 05:20 DoubleReed wrote:
Oh thank goodness he hasn't left. And now it's clear that he thinks giving women rights and control over their own body is basically the next step in the forces of The Matriarchy. Men will be nothing but sex slaves to the dildo-wielding feminist rulers!! Don't be absurd. He said women don't enjoy sex, so that means no dildos allowed in the matriarchy. you people should learn to read. i said women don't enjoy 2min of throbbing, the time it takes a man to ejaculate, the time it takes to do his evolutionary duty. you're all acting as if neanderthals were practicing kama sutra. do you even know that scientists spent time, energy and resources to figure out why the clitoris is not inside the vagina but outside it?. the logic of it was that it has to be inside so that the penis could rub against it so that both women and men could achieve orgasms while procreating. The clitoris is not the only body part that gives women pleasure.... Do you really not know this?
have i said that? nope;.and pleasure =/= orgasm
(but you can go with statistics 70%-80% of all women can only have or only had clitoral orgasm)
|
Top be fair, Kuhn is somewhat dated, although it makes an interesting read.
The point is that Kuhn never really solves the demarcation problem, he just sidesteps it, while Popper's falsification is a beautiful philosophy, but does not connect to how science actually works in reality.
The long and the short of it is that it is not easy at all to draw a line between science and pseudoscience. There are some things that we can clearly mark as pseudoscience: creationism, homeopathy and astrology. However, what about large domains of theoretical physics? Are they science? Or pseudoscience? Many hypotheses in theoretical physics make no falsifiable predictions about reality (at least not using technology we have or can envision having in the foreseeable future), yet are firmly considered a scientific discipline.
If you feel Kuhn was on the right track, I suggest Feyerabend, who puts his finger on the sore spot of Kuhn's paradigm shifts and simply argues that the demarcation problem is a false problem and there is no such thing as a distinction between scientific thinking and non-scientific thinking.
I vehemently disagree and think that there really is something about the scientific method that makes it an objectively better way of discovering things about reality than other methods (such as reading about it in the bible). But haven't gotten much further than Popper's falsification in how to distinguish the two.
|
On July 02 2013 06:10 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 05:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 05:20 DoubleReed wrote:
Oh thank goodness he hasn't left. And now it's clear that he thinks giving women rights and control over their own body is basically the next step in the forces of The Matriarchy. Men will be nothing but sex slaves to the dildo-wielding feminist rulers!! Don't be absurd. He said women don't enjoy sex, so that means no dildos allowed in the matriarchy. you people should learn to read. i said women don't enjoy 2min of throbbing, the time it takes a man to ejaculate, the time it takes to do his evolutionary duty. you're all acting as if neanderthals were practicing kama sutra. do you even know that scientists spent time, energy and resources to figure out why the clitoris is not inside the vagina but outside it?. the logic of it was that it has to be inside so that the penis could rub against it so that both women and men could achieve orgasms while procreating.
I hope you realize you are not making your case stronger by pulling out random google facts that have no relevance to the argument. And the clitoris is not a fucking button as much as fanfiction would lead you to believe otherwise.
|
On July 02 2013 06:17 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 06:10 xM(Z wrote:On July 02 2013 05:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 05:20 DoubleReed wrote:
Oh thank goodness he hasn't left. And now it's clear that he thinks giving women rights and control over their own body is basically the next step in the forces of The Matriarchy. Men will be nothing but sex slaves to the dildo-wielding feminist rulers!! Don't be absurd. He said women don't enjoy sex, so that means no dildos allowed in the matriarchy. you people should learn to read. i said women don't enjoy 2min of throbbing, the time it takes a man to ejaculate, the time it takes to do his evolutionary duty. you're all acting as if neanderthals were practicing kama sutra. do you even know that scientists spent time, energy and resources to figure out why the clitoris is not inside the vagina but outside it?. the logic of it was that it has to be inside so that the penis could rub against it so that both women and men could achieve orgasms while procreating. Huh. Because in my experience, the girl almost always comes first. Not that I'm a scientist. Whatever helps you sleep at night, bro.
she was faking them!?!
or,On average, it takes women 10-20 minutes to reach orgasm. Men reach orgasm after 7-14 minutes overall, but average two to three minutes after beginning intercourse.
you are doing wrong.
|
On July 02 2013 06:18 TSORG wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 01:49 Reason wrote:On July 02 2013 01:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 23:04 ZackAttack wrote:On July 01 2013 04:25 TSORG wrote:On June 30 2013 22:05 ZackAttack wrote:
This is my last post in this thread. I would just like to say that when people say things like, "science is just another religion" it really makes me sad. I don't see how people can be so blind when the answer is right in front of them. I for one am not sad to see you go, you don't read what people say, you are not interested in a discussion, all you do is preaching what you believe is true, not just true, but also right in front of all of us. It is funny that you seem to be one to be the first on the barricades to yell "Fanatic" at anyone else who does the same but with a different message. And I would bet a large sum of money that, had you lived 500 years ago, you would be saying the same thing about heretics who did not see that the truth of gods existence is right in front of them. Goodbye. I cannot let this kind of drivel slide. You can keep thinking that scientific reasoning and reading a holy text are equal in merit when making real world decisions about other people lives if you want, but it is clear that is not the case. The reason that is not the case is because religion is arbitrary, and scientific theory is not. Please point to me a single law based on "scientific theory". Also, I'm beginning to think that you haven't studied religion.... at all. The ramblings of a delusional schizophrenic are only slightly less valid than any religion that blindly goes on it's own word. The difference is that science admits its faults and tries to get it right Yeah, religions never evolve and/or admit faults in their beliefs. Historically ignorant statements for the win! but just forcing women to carry children to term because it says in a book and doesn't give a reason is the worst possible way to go about it, save for actually trying to make things worse. Says who? Says you. Statements of fact with no attempt to even create logical arguments are useless. You're just closing your ears and screaming: "NO! NO! NO!" and yet have the gall to accuse others of being close-minded... it would be fascinating if it wasn't so childish. A simple and obvious example is speed limits. These exist because car crashes are undesirable. The specific speed limit depends upon a number of factors, the common denominator being how quickly a vehicle can break at what speed over what distance, the other factors being size and width of road, frequency of traffic, surroundings etc. You'll notice when divining our speed limit at no point did we consult a religious text that says thou shalt drive at 100mph at all times, because God said so. [edit: You'll also notice this sounds like a really bad idea, I hope.] The same goes for all laws that aren't throwbacks from less educated, informed and democratic times. He shouldn't need to construct a logical argument when it's staring you in the face whilst beating you over the head with a rusty shovel. please show me the scientific justification for democracy and freedom through equality... there is none. why? because the latter is an ideology originating from the revolutionary period (with roots in the renaissaince) and has as much ontologic validity as the bible. the former is just a form of politics that we can desire for pragmatic reasons but does not really have any principle reasons over lets say monarchy, oligarchy or technocracy. the romans already knew that...
Monarchy has tonnes of problem in the fact that you get what you get. You might as well pick a guy at random, with the added bonus that at least the royal houses in old Europe were inbred as all fuck.
Personally I think "meh, I don't want to have a baby" is as good of a reason to have an abortion as any. I think there's a big difference between being alive and having a proper life. Being an unwanted, unloved child can have far worse effects than never being born imo.
|
On July 02 2013 06:28 Acrofales wrote:
Top be fair, Kuhn is somewhat dated, although it makes an interesting read.
The point is that Kuhn never really solves the demarcation problem, he just sidesteps it, while Popper's falsification is a beautiful philosophy, but does not connect to how science actually works in reality.
The long and the short of it is that it is not easy at all to draw a line between science and pseudoscience. There are some things that we can clearly mark as pseudoscience: creationism, homeopathy and astrology. However, what about large domains of theoretical physics? Are they science? Or pseudoscience? Many hypotheses in theoretical physics make no falsifiable predictions about reality (at least not using technology we have or can envision having in the foreseeable future), yet are firmly considered a scientific discipline.
If you feel Kuhn was on the right track, I suggest Feyerabend, who puts his finger on the sore spot of Kuhn's paradigm shifts and simply argues that the demarcation problem is a false problem and there is no such thing as a distinction between scientific thinking and non-scientific thinking.
I vehemently disagree and think that there really is something about the scientific method that makes it an objectively better way of discovering things about reality than other methods (such as reading about it in the bible). But haven't gotten much further than Popper's falsification in how to distinguish the two.
Most holy texts come together the same way science papers come together.
One or more witnesses find _______ object/event
Heavy discourse on whether _____ object/event is true or not
Holy texts add a third and fourth step
Add X years; make arbitrary cut preventing addition or subtraction of findings
Wait X more years; different groups have add/subtract their own stuff
In the end it all hinges on witness testimony that can no longer be disproved due to the passage of time. What makes science more trust worthy is the ability to repeat said events/objects. But most holy texts talk about a 2nd coming ish type thing/Afterlife/Both suggesting that the events are indeed repeatable (just like in science) just not *right now.*
So I wouldn't say its about methodology as much as it is preference of data. Science wants data to be (for the most part) tangible and empirical. The Bible is less credible since the data is less tangible and hence less testable. I wouldn't say its false just because we can't prove angels are real. But since I can't study angels why waste my time pretending to study them?
|
lol. Your right, asking for a logical reason to use the bible to make laws, means I "only care about disproving religious doctrines." I never said you could not use it, I said you need to have a better reason then it being the bible. Also, if you really think theft and murder wouldn't be illegal without religion to tell us it's wrong you are delusional. All I ask is that a real reason for the bible being applicable is shown instead of "you'll go to hell for killing your baby." All you do is question my motives for asking obvious questions. You can't just say the bible is applicable because its kind of a big deal. I am not ignoring "data" because it is from a holy text. I am ignoring it because there is no reason to include it, no one has a reason to include it, and it's accuracy is highly questionable. Saying that the bible has as much relevance to the abortion debate as the actual court cases that ruled on this very issue is completely wrong.
|
On July 02 2013 06:36 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 06:18 TSORG wrote:On July 02 2013 01:49 Reason wrote:On July 02 2013 01:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 23:04 ZackAttack wrote:On July 01 2013 04:25 TSORG wrote:On June 30 2013 22:05 ZackAttack wrote:
This is my last post in this thread. I would just like to say that when people say things like, "science is just another religion" it really makes me sad. I don't see how people can be so blind when the answer is right in front of them. I for one am not sad to see you go, you don't read what people say, you are not interested in a discussion, all you do is preaching what you believe is true, not just true, but also right in front of all of us. It is funny that you seem to be one to be the first on the barricades to yell "Fanatic" at anyone else who does the same but with a different message. And I would bet a large sum of money that, had you lived 500 years ago, you would be saying the same thing about heretics who did not see that the truth of gods existence is right in front of them. Goodbye. I cannot let this kind of drivel slide. You can keep thinking that scientific reasoning and reading a holy text are equal in merit when making real world decisions about other people lives if you want, but it is clear that is not the case. The reason that is not the case is because religion is arbitrary, and scientific theory is not. Please point to me a single law based on "scientific theory". Also, I'm beginning to think that you haven't studied religion.... at all. The ramblings of a delusional schizophrenic are only slightly less valid than any religion that blindly goes on it's own word. The difference is that science admits its faults and tries to get it right Yeah, religions never evolve and/or admit faults in their beliefs. Historically ignorant statements for the win! but just forcing women to carry children to term because it says in a book and doesn't give a reason is the worst possible way to go about it, save for actually trying to make things worse. Says who? Says you. Statements of fact with no attempt to even create logical arguments are useless. You're just closing your ears and screaming: "NO! NO! NO!" and yet have the gall to accuse others of being close-minded... it would be fascinating if it wasn't so childish. A simple and obvious example is speed limits. These exist because car crashes are undesirable. The specific speed limit depends upon a number of factors, the common denominator being how quickly a vehicle can break at what speed over what distance, the other factors being size and width of road, frequency of traffic, surroundings etc. You'll notice when divining our speed limit at no point did we consult a religious text that says thou shalt drive at 100mph at all times, because God said so. [edit: You'll also notice this sounds like a really bad idea, I hope.] The same goes for all laws that aren't throwbacks from less educated, informed and democratic times. He shouldn't need to construct a logical argument when it's staring you in the face whilst beating you over the head with a rusty shovel. please show me the scientific justification for democracy and freedom through equality... there is none. why? because the latter is an ideology originating from the revolutionary period (with roots in the renaissaince) and has as much ontologic validity as the bible. the former is just a form of politics that we can desire for pragmatic reasons but does not really have any principle reasons over lets say monarchy, oligarchy or technocracy. the romans already knew that... Monarchy has tonnes of problem in the fact that you get what you get. You might as well pick a guy at random, with the added bonus that at least the royal houses in old Europe were inbred as all fuck. Personally I think "meh, I don't want to have a baby" is as good of a reason to have an abortion as any. I think there's a big difference between being alive and having a proper life. Being an unwanted, unloved child can have far worse effects than never being born imo.
there are different inheritance laws, but lets say dictatorship then, in the Roman sense, not in the Berlusconi/Putin sense -_-
|
On July 02 2013 06:28 Acrofales wrote:
Top be fair, Kuhn is somewhat dated, although it makes an interesting read.
The point is that Kuhn never really solves the demarcation problem, he just sidesteps it, while Popper's falsification is a beautiful philosophy, but does not connect to how science actually works in reality.
The long and the short of it is that it is not easy at all to draw a line between science and pseudoscience. There are some things that we can clearly mark as pseudoscience: creationism, homeopathy and astrology. However, what about large domains of theoretical physics? Are they science? Or pseudoscience? Many hypotheses in theoretical physics make no falsifiable predictions about reality (at least not using technology we have or can envision having in the foreseeable future), yet are firmly considered a scientific discipline.
If you feel Kuhn was on the right track, I suggest Feyerabend, who puts his finger on the sore spot of Kuhn's paradigm shifts and simply argues that the demarcation problem is a false problem and there is no such thing as a distinction between scientific thinking and non-scientific thinking.
I vehemently disagree and think that there really is something about the scientific method that makes it an objectively better way of discovering things about reality than other methods (such as reading about it in the bible). But haven't gotten much further than Popper's falsification in how to distinguish the two.
Good post, I will give a more indepth reply tomorrow.
For now, some parts of Kuhn are indeed outdated, but what he shows is that data isnt as objective as many people want to believe and that theory can influence how we intepret the data. As well as that science is not at all as flexible as many people claim it is, and that it often works with outdated theories because, as someone mentioned earlier about induction, there isnt really a valid alternative.
Ive read a bit of Feyerabend, Lakatos as well, but i would agree with you that I think they are taking it too far. However some things when talking about science need to be seperated, you have the scientific technological advances, you have the scientific practice (of scientists sharing data and doing research) but you also have scientific theory and method(ology), the first two have merits in their own right, the latter deserves some scrutiny and critical reflection. But often, whenever you try this many people just cringe, and throw every cliche at you they can find close to them and just outright reject whatever you try to say without understanding it. And it is this reaction, often of people who do not even really have anything to do with science except that they consume its fruits, is what i would compare to religious fanaticism and dogmatic behaviour, if i;d ever care to make that useless comparison between religion and science.
|
On July 02 2013 06:41 ZackAttack wrote:
lol. Your right, asking for a logical reason to use the bible to make laws, means I "only care about disproving religious doctrines." I never said you could not use it, I said you need to have a better reason then it being the bible. Also, if you really think theft and murder wouldn't be illegal without religion to tell us it's wrong you are delusional. All I ask is that a real reason for the bible being applicable is shown instead of "you'll go to hell for killing your baby." All you do is question my motives for asking obvious questions. You can't just say the bible is applicable because its kind of a big deal. I am not ignoring "data" because it is from a holy text. I am ignoring it because there is no reason to include it, no one has a reason to include it, and it's accuracy is highly questionable. Saying that the bible has as much relevance to the abortion debate as the actual court cases that ruled on this very issue is completely wrong.
I've never argued that theft and murder would be legal without the bible. But a lot of them are there *because* of the bible. I would never try to make them legal just because I dislike the Bible.
You can't change a law simply because you don't like the source it came from--you need to prove why the current law is bad.
But if you really want to see a good argument from the Bible when it comes to abortion.
Thou shall not kill.
According to the bible, Murder is bad. Do you support murder? If you don't support murder then you don't support abortion. Case closed.
Do you see how easy it is to use the bible?
Now this is where you either say that a fetus isn't human or that the bible isn't needed for murder to be illegal.
If you go the fetus route, then you have to prove that a fetus isn't human.
If you go the "bible isn't needed to make murder illegal" route, then prove to me why murder has to be allowed just because you dislike the reason murder was made illegal in western history? Because remember, just because history *could* have come to the conclusion without the bible, does not change the fact that it did get to that legal ground because of the bible. Remember, this is law, and law only deals with what actually happened, not hypothetical timelines.
The real response to someone saying abortion is murder and murder is evil is "Roe V Wade decided that abortion is legal and hence the definition of abortion is not murder, by law."
You don't need to bring up science, or disprove religion. Abortion being legal in the US means the only argument that can be made on it is Roe v Wade until it gets brought up again by the Supreme Court. Why? Because a law cannot be changed willy nilly, being old is a good enough reason for it to exist.
|
On July 02 2013 06:33 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 06:17 DoubleReed wrote:On July 02 2013 06:10 xM(Z wrote:On July 02 2013 05:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 05:20 DoubleReed wrote:
Oh thank goodness he hasn't left. And now it's clear that he thinks giving women rights and control over their own body is basically the next step in the forces of The Matriarchy. Men will be nothing but sex slaves to the dildo-wielding feminist rulers!! Don't be absurd. He said women don't enjoy sex, so that means no dildos allowed in the matriarchy. you people should learn to read. i said women don't enjoy 2min of throbbing, the time it takes a man to ejaculate, the time it takes to do his evolutionary duty. you're all acting as if neanderthals were practicing kama sutra. do you even know that scientists spent time, energy and resources to figure out why the clitoris is not inside the vagina but outside it?. the logic of it was that it has to be inside so that the penis could rub against it so that both women and men could achieve orgasms while procreating. Huh. Because in my experience, the girl almost always comes first. Not that I'm a scientist. Whatever helps you sleep at night, bro. she was faking them!?! or, Show nested quote +On average, it takes women 10-20 minutes to reach orgasm. Men reach orgasm after 7-14 minutes overall, but average two to three minutes after beginning intercourse. you are doing wrong.
Yea, maybe I'm doing it wrong. But it always feels so right.
You are KILLING me, by the way. You are absolutely adorable.
|
i think you are kinda giving the bible too much credit, most of western law comes from the romans, and the romans had their laws before they knew the bible. and murder was not allowed in roman society either.
other than that, carry on.
|
On July 02 2013 07:01 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 06:33 xM(Z wrote:On July 02 2013 06:17 DoubleReed wrote:On July 02 2013 06:10 xM(Z wrote:On July 02 2013 05:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 05:20 DoubleReed wrote:
Oh thank goodness he hasn't left. And now it's clear that he thinks giving women rights and control over their own body is basically the next step in the forces of The Matriarchy. Men will be nothing but sex slaves to the dildo-wielding feminist rulers!! Don't be absurd. He said women don't enjoy sex, so that means no dildos allowed in the matriarchy. you people should learn to read. i said women don't enjoy 2min of throbbing, the time it takes a man to ejaculate, the time it takes to do his evolutionary duty. you're all acting as if neanderthals were practicing kama sutra. do you even know that scientists spent time, energy and resources to figure out why the clitoris is not inside the vagina but outside it?. the logic of it was that it has to be inside so that the penis could rub against it so that both women and men could achieve orgasms while procreating. Huh. Because in my experience, the girl almost always comes first. Not that I'm a scientist. Whatever helps you sleep at night, bro. she was faking them!?! or, On average, it takes women 10-20 minutes to reach orgasm. Men reach orgasm after 7-14 minutes overall, but average two to three minutes after beginning intercourse. you are doing wrong. Yea, maybe I'm doing it wrong. But it always feels so right. You are KILLING me, by the way. You are absolutely adorable.
can we put a bow on him?
|
On July 02 2013 06:30 gruff wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 06:10 xM(Z wrote:On July 02 2013 05:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 05:20 DoubleReed wrote:
Oh thank goodness he hasn't left. And now it's clear that he thinks giving women rights and control over their own body is basically the next step in the forces of The Matriarchy. Men will be nothing but sex slaves to the dildo-wielding feminist rulers!! Don't be absurd. He said women don't enjoy sex, so that means no dildos allowed in the matriarchy. you people should learn to read. i said women don't enjoy 2min of throbbing, the time it takes a man to ejaculate, the time it takes to do his evolutionary duty. you're all acting as if neanderthals were practicing kama sutra. do you even know that scientists spent time, energy and resources to figure out why the clitoris is not inside the vagina but outside it?. the logic of it was that it has to be inside so that the penis could rub against it so that both women and men could achieve orgasms while procreating. I hope you realize you are not making your case stronger by pulling out random google facts that have no relevance to the argument. And the clitoris is not a fucking button as much as fanfiction would lead you to believe otherwise.
it has relevance, evolutionary relevance. evolution through procreation -> procreation through sex -> enforcing sexual behaviors through a reward system. so when the reward system differed from men to women scientists asked what gives?.
all they could come up with is that if the clitoris would be located inside the vagina, women would be in a coma during birth (in other words it would have been incredibly painful).
the question still remained: why, did evolution, placed the clitoris outside?. if men were not meant to full satisfy women only through penetration, then we have unexplained mechanics at hand!. they need to be researched.
now, add to that that some women said they experienced the most powerful orgasms during childbirth (normal child birth) plus the fact that there is an instinctual drive in women to touch/rub their clitoris whenever they feel pain in either of their openings, plus the MRI scans showing affective bonds developing during a female orgasm and you get to a possibility: women orgasms were not supposed to be had between women and men but between women and children during birth.
inductive reasoning, i swear!
|
On July 02 2013 07:02 TSORG wrote:
i think you are kinda giving the bible too much credit, most of western law comes from the romans, and the romans had their laws before they knew the bible. and murder was not allowed in roman society either.
other than that, carry on.
Do you really think the Bible is that different from the Roman/Greek pantheon?
I'm just showing that laws are laws no matter how silly their origin. Saying some laws are not legitimate simply because of what initiated it is very poor argumentation. Bad laws are inherently bad and can be proven so objectively. Good laws are inherently good and can be proven so objectively. Just because the reason they came about is far fetched doesn't mean we stop following them. Those we do stop following should only be those we can prove to be bad.
Focusing on who started what law instead of how the law affects the people of the society is just silly.
So when you say a law is good because of X, Y, and Z--and someone asks "by what about W?" then you show them why W is not relevant to your argument nor that it proves X, Y, and Z wrong.
You then have a debate on the merits of X, Y, and Z vs W and conclude from there. Saying you don't want to listen to the arguments of other people because "fuck the bible" does nothing but show a weakness to your argument.
|
On July 02 2013 07:03 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 06:30 gruff wrote:On July 02 2013 06:10 xM(Z wrote:On July 02 2013 05:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 05:20 DoubleReed wrote:
Oh thank goodness he hasn't left. And now it's clear that he thinks giving women rights and control over their own body is basically the next step in the forces of The Matriarchy. Men will be nothing but sex slaves to the dildo-wielding feminist rulers!! Don't be absurd. He said women don't enjoy sex, so that means no dildos allowed in the matriarchy. you people should learn to read. i said women don't enjoy 2min of throbbing, the time it takes a man to ejaculate, the time it takes to do his evolutionary duty. you're all acting as if neanderthals were practicing kama sutra. do you even know that scientists spent time, energy and resources to figure out why the clitoris is not inside the vagina but outside it?. the logic of it was that it has to be inside so that the penis could rub against it so that both women and men could achieve orgasms while procreating. I hope you realize you are not making your case stronger by pulling out random google facts that have no relevance to the argument. And the clitoris is not a fucking button as much as fanfiction would lead you to believe otherwise. it has relevance, evolutionary relevance. evolution through procreation -> procreation through sex -> enforcing sexual behaviors through a reward system. so when the reward system differed from men to women scientists asked what gives?. all they could come up with is that if the clitoris would be located inside the vagina, women would be in a coma during birth (in other words it would have been incredibly painful). the question still remained: why, did evolution, placed the clitoris outside?. if men were not meant to full satisfy women only through penetration, then we have unexplained mechanics at hand!. they need to be researched. now, add to that that some women said they experienced the most powerful orgasms during childbirth (normal child birth) plus the fact that there is an instinctual drive in women to touch/rub their clitoris whenever they feel pain in either of their openings, plus the MRI scans showing affective bonds developing during a female orgasm and you get to a possibility: women orgasms were not supposed to be had between women and men but between women and children during birth. inductive reasoning, i swear!
Let me quote you on this, your idea of women is hilarious.
Childbirth = orgasm
Penis = bored
|
On July 02 2013 06:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 06:41 ZackAttack wrote:
lol. Your right, asking for a logical reason to use the bible to make laws, means I "only care about disproving religious doctrines." I never said you could not use it, I said you need to have a better reason then it being the bible. Also, if you really think theft and murder wouldn't be illegal without religion to tell us it's wrong you are delusional. All I ask is that a real reason for the bible being applicable is shown instead of "you'll go to hell for killing your baby." All you do is question my motives for asking obvious questions. You can't just say the bible is applicable because its kind of a big deal. I am not ignoring "data" because it is from a holy text. I am ignoring it because there is no reason to include it, no one has a reason to include it, and it's accuracy is highly questionable. Saying that the bible has as much relevance to the abortion debate as the actual court cases that ruled on this very issue is completely wrong. I've never argued that theft and murder would be legal without the bible. But a lot of them are there *because* of the bible. I would never try to make them legal just because I dislike the Bible. You can't change a law simply because you don't like the source it came from--you need to prove why the current law is bad. But if you really want to see a good argument from the Bible when it comes to abortion. Thou shall not kill. According to the bible, Murder is bad. Do you support murder? If you don't support murder then you don't support abortion. Case closed. Do you see how easy it is to use the bible? Now this is where you either say that a fetus isn't human or that the bible isn't needed for murder to be illegal. If you go the fetus route, then you have to prove that a fetus isn't human. If you go the "bible isn't needed to make murder illegal" route, then prove to me why murder has to be allowed just because you dislike the reason murder was made illegal in western history? Because remember, just because history *could* have come to the conclusion without the bible, does not change the fact that it did get to that legal ground because of the bible. Remember, this is law, and law only deals with what actually happened, not hypothetical timelines. The real response to someone saying abortion is murder and murder is evil is "Roe V Wade decided that abortion is legal and hence the definition of abortion is not murder, by law." You don't need to bring up science, or disprove religion. Abortion being legal in the US means the only argument that can be made on it is Roe v Wade until it gets brought up again by the Supreme Court. Why? Because a law cannot be changed willy nilly, being old is a good enough reason for it to exist.
Saying that the bible is against murder is not an argument against murder. That is the point. You can't just say something is bad because it says so right here in this book. You have to have some reason. It's abundantly easy to use the bible to make arguments that are statements with no backup. The only thing I am arguing against is exactly that. I'm not saying the bible is wrong, I'm saying it can't just be right because someone thinks it is. Actual arguments have to be made. Saying that the bible is against something and that's it is not good enough. I might as well say, "abortion is wrong because I said so." This is not me trying to disprove dogma. The argument hasn't even started. I am asking for an honest discussion, and I can't get one.
|
On July 02 2013 07:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 07:03 xM(Z wrote:On July 02 2013 06:30 gruff wrote:On July 02 2013 06:10 xM(Z wrote:On July 02 2013 05:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 05:20 DoubleReed wrote:
Oh thank goodness he hasn't left. And now it's clear that he thinks giving women rights and control over their own body is basically the next step in the forces of The Matriarchy. Men will be nothing but sex slaves to the dildo-wielding feminist rulers!! Don't be absurd. He said women don't enjoy sex, so that means no dildos allowed in the matriarchy. you people should learn to read. i said women don't enjoy 2min of throbbing, the time it takes a man to ejaculate, the time it takes to do his evolutionary duty. you're all acting as if neanderthals were practicing kama sutra. do you even know that scientists spent time, energy and resources to figure out why the clitoris is not inside the vagina but outside it?. the logic of it was that it has to be inside so that the penis could rub against it so that both women and men could achieve orgasms while procreating. I hope you realize you are not making your case stronger by pulling out random google facts that have no relevance to the argument. And the clitoris is not a fucking button as much as fanfiction would lead you to believe otherwise. it has relevance, evolutionary relevance. evolution through procreation -> procreation through sex -> enforcing sexual behaviors through a reward system. so when the reward system differed from men to women scientists asked what gives?. all they could come up with is that if the clitoris would be located inside the vagina, women would be in a coma during birth (in other words it would have been incredibly painful). the question still remained: why, did evolution, placed the clitoris outside?. if men were not meant to full satisfy women only through penetration, then we have unexplained mechanics at hand!. they need to be researched. now, add to that that some women said they experienced the most powerful orgasms during childbirth (normal child birth) plus the fact that there is an instinctual drive in women to touch/rub their clitoris whenever they feel pain in either of their openings, plus the MRI scans showing affective bonds developing during a female orgasm and you get to a possibility: women orgasms were not supposed to be had between women and men but between women and children during birth. inductive reasoning, i swear! Let me quote you on this, your idea of women is hilarious. Childbirth = orgasm Penis = bored
google orgasms during childbirth.
or you could entertain this idea: a woman easiness with witch she sees abortion is caused from out-of-place orgasms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
