FREE TAPATALK APP

Ethan Thane Athen · 27th January 2010, 03:27 AM

Originally Posted by Sun Countess

Simple. Religions were invented by men.

Indeed. Or you could re-phrase it as:

Religions are a human invention and therefore reflect the attitudes and society of the people who invented them - most of which (at the time) had men in positions of authority / control.

In other words, man invented god in his own image.

jiggeryqua · 27th January 2010, 04:13 AM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

But if we subscribe to the idea that sex is some kind of a human right, to the extent that we subsidize some guy's Viagra pills... shouldn't we take it to a more logical conclusion? How about sponsoring weekly trips to the brothel for the socially inept? I mean, really, if it's that much of a tragedy and potential for psychological harm if some guy or gal doesn't get enough sex, surely we should care first about those who can't get any _and_ have a bigger social stigma attached.

Not really, but just to illustrate the trouble with acting as if there was some kind of a positive right to sex.

I used to work as a Life Skills Tutor for adults with severe learning difficulties and complex challenging behaviours. Human adults, that is - people, with a full range of human rights...and human drives. We provided for all their basic needs and made an effort to support them in all their more basic desires too. We employed visiting professionals (osteopaths, music therapists and such). It was generally acknowledged, but impossible to address, that their psychological well-being (and consequently their challenging behaviour and the safety of the staff and their housemates) could be improved by supporting their need to adequately express their human sexuality. Probably with visiting professionals (because our regular support staff certainly didn't sign up for that kind of support...)

There are all sorts of problems, difficulties and adjustments associated with recognising that other human beings have any of the rights most of us take for granted. You could certainly have a 'right to sex' - you have a right to a family life, after all, and I don't see how else you'd get one (feel free to construct hugely unlikely, vastly expensive ways of picking at that point). What you couldn't have is the right to get it from/with any particular individual - but there aren't many places where 'visiting professionals' are legal, even if they were to have the right skills to help the most needy.

Oh, but you said 'not really' - yeah, sorry, if people haven't got what it takes to compete with you in getting laid or any other field, **** 'em.

TimCallahan · 27th January 2010, 06:29 AM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

. . . . So, then, I guess we're in agreement that any insurance which pays for Viagra is irresponsible and evil?

While I would think that paying for Viagra would be skating on the edge of what's acceptable for insurance companies to pay, I rather doubt that most guys who need it are likely to be fertile.

HansMustermann · 27th January 2010, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by jiggeryqua

I used to work as a Life Skills Tutor for adults with severe learning difficulties and complex challenging behaviours. Human adults, that is - people, with a full range of human rights...and human drives. We provided for all their basic needs and made an effort to support them in all their more basic desires too. We employed visiting professionals (osteopaths, music therapists and such). It was generally acknowledged, but impossible to address, that their psychological well-being (and consequently their challenging behaviour and the safety of the staff and their housemates) could be improved by supporting their need to adequately express their human sexuality. Probably with visiting professionals (because our regular support staff certainly didn't sign up for that kind of support...)

There are all sorts of problems, difficulties and adjustments associated with recognising that other human beings have any of the rights most of us take for granted. You could certainly have a 'right to sex' - you have a right to a family life, after all, and I don't see how else you'd get one (feel free to construct hugely unlikely, vastly expensive ways of picking at that point). What you couldn't have is the right to get it from/with any particular individual - but there aren't many places where 'visiting professionals' are legal, even if they were to have the right skills to help the most needy.

Oh, but you said 'not really' - yeah, sorry, if people haven't got what it takes to compete with you in getting laid or any other field, **** 'em.

Well, let's put it this way... did _you_ and the other tutors ever pool _your_ cash to pay for a sex worker for such a poor lad? I mean, at least for his birthday?

Or are you just preaching why everyone _else_ should pay for it?

jiggeryqua · 27th January 2010, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Well, let's put it this way... did _you_ and the other tutors ever pool _your_ cash to pay for a sex worker for such a poor lad? I mean, at least for his birthday?

Or are you just preaching why everyone _else_ should pay for it?

Lads and lasses (it was an interesting place to work, watching human behaviour with no social conditioning). We didn't pay for anything, directly, since in the UK at least I don't think you'd find many people reluctant to let their taxes pay for the benefit system that paid for the people we supported to have their basic human rights delivered. We're talking about people who would not survive without 24-hr care...or are you preaching that they shouldn't survive?

Oh, and we did discuss the problem, and consider the option you presented -although as was indicated in the post you're sniping at, we would have needed a sex worker with some very specialist training to deal with mute, deaf-blind, autistic and doubly-incontinent clients. With 'complex challenging behaviours' (imagine all the things that could be a euphemism for, sleep on it, add all the rest that occur to you, then double it). Sex work is still viewed somewhat puritanically in most so-called 'developed' countries and although our bosses were aware of the issues I still think we'd have got sacked even for funding it ourselves. Questions of informed consent come in to play too, of course.

On the other hand, those of us who worked there, from the cleaner to the directors of the company, were some of the most selfless, generous people you'd ever be fortunate enough to meet. There was only one tutor, by the way, with a bank of support workers, a psychologist and a welfare manager. They didn't have one for maths and one for science and one for art appreciation - perhaps I didn't adequately convey the difficulties faced and presented by our clients. But maybe you're right - it would have been much cheaper for the state to buy them a pillow each, and hire someone to press it against their face.

HansMustermann · 27th January 2010, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by jiggeryqua

But maybe you're right - it would have been much cheaper for the state to buy them a pillow each, and hire someone to press it against their face.

Was there a point to that strawman?

jiggeryqua · 27th January 2010, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Was there a point to that strawman?

Maybe you're right (that you shouldn't have to pay for their support, or that you shouldn't have to pay for the bits you consider 'treats'). It would have been much cheaper for the state to buy them a pillow each, and hire someone to press it against their face.

Better?

HansMustermann · 27th January 2010, 09:35 AM

So, what you're trying to say is that you have a genuine case of OCPD? I mean, if you genuinely can't see any shades of grey between not paying for their sex and not paying for their care at all, and verily wanting a pillow pressed against their face...

There is group therapy for OCPD, and if that makes you feel any better, I'm all for the NHS or insurance or whatever paying for yours

jiggeryqua · 27th January 2010, 09:46 AM

Oh...I looked it up, and it turns out that standing up for the human rights of people unable to speak for themselves is a disorder now. I don't see 'shades of grey' between deciding that some needs shouldn't be paid for by you and secretly wishing that the state would just buy the pillows (hell, use the same one, why waste more of 'your' tax money). Help me out here - in the support of severely disabled people, what are you prepared to pay for, and what should be able to opt out of? Basic needs needn't involve more than some stripey pyjamas, some watery 'potato' soup with no potatoes in it and enough space to lie down on a bunk you share with three other people, I guess...

HansMustermann · 27th January 2010, 11:30 AM

You know, gradually I'm getting fed up with the whole theme of ascribing your own deranged fantasies to me, and the whole "look how much better I am than the likes of you" theme. I mean, stuff like, "those of us who worked there [...] were some of the most selfless, generous people you'd ever be fortunate enough to meet" or the even funnier "it turns out that standing up for the human rights of people unable to speak for themselves is a disorder now". Full of yourself much?

Not to mention, it's one big non-sequitur anyway. I'm starting to wonder if you actually _have_ a point, seeing that you only seem to address strawmen of your own.

But ok...

What care would I provide, if I were in a position to decide something like that? Hmm. Not a bad exercise.

In an ideal world, they'd actually get a cure. In my ideal world, I'd rather have it that, say, a blind person can get one of these new CCD implants than pay for just prolonging the agony. But I guess the world is rarely an ideal place.

Well, I guess the basic human needs would be a good starting point, although I wouldn't take it to the extremes in your latest ridiculous strawman.

For a start "some watery 'potato' soup with no potatoes in it" doesn't sound that great in the long run. In fact, it's more like a delayed death sentence. I'm pretty sure that at the very least I'd want anyone in society's care to get a balanced protein diet, and enough calories and vitamins. Otherwise, as you were saying, we might as well take the pillow shortcut. I guess the average hospital food is a good reference point in that aspect.

Also, "enough space to lie down on a bunk you share with three other people" doesn't sound like a particularly good way to get some rest or some personal space. I suppose we could argue the exact number of square metres, but again as a rule of thumb I'd take the average hospital as a reference point.

About the "stripey pyjamas", I have no objection there. I guess any pattern is just as good in the end. The exact colour and pattern is far less important IMHO than it being clean. Wouldn't want them to get some disease after all.

I'm pretty sure I'd also want to see to it that they get adequate healthcare. Though by that I mean literally _health_ care. If physiotherapy (e.g., a massage) is what's needed to keep them from getting some medical condition, by all means, they should be provided that. Again, I find a hospital to be a good reference point.

So I guess on the whole the short version is: I'd put them in a hospital.

Of course, that doesn't preclude the normal negative rights they have. (Btw, check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univers...f_Human_Rights ) If they have a home and would rather be there, I'm not gonna send my Legions Of Terror to round them up and move them to a hospital

But, of course, that would mean giving up some of the advantages in a hospital too.

jiggeryqua · 27th January 2010, 12:57 PM

You mean 'literally' health care? But not mental health care, even though there's no genuine distinction between 'mental' health and any other definition of 'health'. We've established (at least to the degree we're ever likely to) that the health of our clients would have been improved by some level of satisfaction of their basic human needs (for which read 'drives' - there is no need to eat, since there is no need to be alive. But we eat, and concede that others should. We have sex...I'll grant that you do, in the absence of evidence - but you do not concede that others should. Lack of sex will not kill you, that's true - but neither will many illnesses).

There were very few 'advantages' to the warehouse 'hospitals' the UK used to consign severely disabled people to. Over the last twenty years or so we've moved to a system of supporting people in their own, or group, homes, as legitimate members of the community. But you'd consign them to hospitals - with a choice of pyjamas (stripey or spotted). In these homes they receive medical care, monitored diets, and a programme of education, community and leisure activities. The only 'advantage' to having been consigned to a hospital was yours, in that you didn't have to see 'sub'humans around you.

In fairness, I may not have adequately conveyed the depth and breadth of the 'severe' learning difficulties and the 'complex' challenging behaviours - and since our clients would historically recently have been kept out of your way - you have every right to question my classing myself with some of the most generous, selfless, caring people I've ever met. I've met a great many people, in many fields and a few countries. I don't work there anymore - I'm not as selfless, generous and caring as the women (they were mostly women) who'd worked with these people for twenty years and would continue to do so, despite the impossibility of anything that might be considered improvement, let alone 'cure', while everyday involved being bitten, scratched, punched, kicked, spat on, **** on and otherwise abused. Largely Catholics, too, as it happens - just to bring the discussion back toward the topic. I'm not a Catholic either.

HansMustermann · 27th January 2010, 01:17 PM

Oh, no reason not to include a psychiatrist and a neurologist in the care.

But I see you're back at the strawmen and ad hominem anyway. You write stuff like, "The only 'advantage' to having been consigned to a hospital was yours, in that you didn't have to see 'sub'humans around you." Really? Did I actually write anywhere "subhumans" or not wanting to see them?

Gee, how easy every debate becomes if you can reduce it to an idiotic carricature along the lines of "I'm one of the nicest people you'd ever have the luck to meet, while my opponent is a monster who'd smother disabled people with a pillow." (Both claims out of your own messages, btw.)

Heh.

sgtbaker · 27th January 2010, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

Ah well.
I apologised and do so again - no insult intended - and certainly not personally.
As opposed to your first personal crack re the 1950s and Melbourne huh? - which btw I thought was pretty funny.

A joke is a joke, and depending on the topic, some like them and some don't. It usually/often depends on ones sensitivities. It might also depend on how seriously one likes to take a particular subject.

A crowded hospital waiting room nervously anticipates the news on the condition of their beloved family member. After hours the doctor comes out to address the room, "I regret to inform you that the patient's head injury was far too severe and not expected to survive the night. However, we have effectively been able to perform successful brain transplants and it just so happens that we have one male brain and one female brain just waiting to be harvested. The only difference would be the cost. The male brain is $5000 and the female is $500." A smug male family member, thinking they finally proved the male brain to be worth more than the female stands up and asks why the male brain costs so much more. The doctor replies, "Well, by law, we have to charge less for the female brain on account of it being used."

I don't have anything more to add to the original thread because what I think has already been stated. The religious doctrines always seem to be written in coordination with acceptable practice of the time.

P.S. A.A.Alfie, I thought your joke was funny

jiggeryqua · 27th January 2010, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Oh, no reason not to include a psychiatrist and a neurologist in the care.

But I see you're back at the strawmen and ad hominem anyway. You write stuff like, "The only 'advantage' to having been consigned to a hospital was yours, in that you didn't have to see 'sub'humans around you." Really? Did I actually write anywhere "subhumans" or not wanting to see them?

Gee, how easy every debate becomes if you can reduce it to an idiotic carricature along the lines of "I'm one of the nicest people you'd ever have the luck to meet, while my opponent is a monster who'd smother disabled people with a pillow." (Both claims out of your own messages, btw.)

Heh.

I just had a real life visitor, who looked at my monitor and asked what I was doing. I said I was 'debating' with one of those online presences who always ignore the actual point of your argument and instead find a single sentence they think they see a flaw in, and then try to attack you through that. He nodded, as familiar as I am with the type.

The point of those warehouse hospitals was to 'tidy away' disturbing people (in that they disturb our general ideas of what it means to be a person, never mind their 'challenging' behaviours). That was the advantage that you gained. I meant 'you', that broader section of humanity that would prefer to have people in hospitals than in the community, even though they could not be 'treated' or 'cured'. I now include you personally, since you stated that that was where you'd rather consign them. You didn't pick up on my describing them as 'legitimate' people, with a right to be in the same community as you. But then you stated clearly enough that you thought they weren't legitimate members of your community - that they should be consigned to the warehouse 'hospitals' they've only recently escaped. I paraphrase that as 'sub' human - what's your actual argument with that, other than 'oh, er, uhm, that wasn't what I meant'?

Neither claim was in my posts by the way - I clarified, with a parenthesised reference and a change of punctuation, that the statement that it would be cheaper to buy pillows was a mere fact, not your position. It can be extrapolated from your position, but I'm happy to pretend it wasn't what you meant to say.

HansMustermann · 27th January 2010, 01:43 PM

Quote:

I just had a real life visitor, who looked at my monitor and asked what I was doing. I said I was 'debating' with one of those online presences who always ignore the actual point of your argument and instead find a single sentence they think they see a flaw in, and then try to attack you through that. He nodded, as familiar as I am with the type.

So basically you introduce yet another ad-hominem. Gee, who would have expected it?

But anyway, basically, you just need to ignore the following paragraph:

Quote:

Of course, that doesn't preclude the normal negative rights they have. (Btw, check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univers...f_Human_Rights ) If they have a home and would rather be there, I'm not gonna send my Legions Of Terror to round them up and move them to a hospital But, of course, that would mean giving up some of the advantages in a hospital too.

And then you can pretend that I'm actually proposing to round them up and put them in hospitals. And then you can sneak back a variant of your old strawman, "But then you stated clearly enough that you thought they weren't legitimate members of your community"

Really? Proposing to give them an option to professional healthcare equals kicking them out of the community?

Are you at least trolling, or do you have genuine comprehension problems?

jiggeryqua · 27th January 2010, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

So basically you introduce yet another ad-hominem. Gee, who would have expected it?

Except that that's observably what you've done. It's not an ad hominem, it's a review , with the facts accessible by anyone who wants to scroll up and check.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

But anyway, basically, you just need to ignore the following paragraph:

And then you can pretend that I'm actually proposing to round them up and put them in hospitals. And then you can sneak back a variant of your old strawman, "But then you stated clearly enough that you thought they weren't legitimate members of your community"

Or, I can not pretend, and just remark on your preference for putting them in hospitals (which you clearly stated), which I clearly did. None of the people I supported 'had' their own homes, as such (though they might conceivably have inherited property one day). The group homes were paid for out of their pooled welfare payments, I don't know if that 'counts' for you. You want them removed from the community and kept in warehouse hospitals, which they've only recently escaped from. You do not consider them legitimate members of your community. We've established that. I'll concede, again, that you don't actually know what you're talking about, which is why I haven't been harsher. If you want to know what you're talking about, do some research (and no, I won't do it for you). If you don't, get some Wittgenstein: "Whereof you do not know, thereof you should not speak'.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Really? Proposing to give them an option to professional healthcare equals kicking them out of the community?

Are you at least trolling, or do you have genuine comprehension problems?

Third option (not that you meant to imply that your options were the only possible options...): I'm engaging with the points and you perceive an "opponent" and settle for unfounded points of order, which delay proceedings and, with luck, confuse or derail or distract this 'opponent' you're 'competing' with.

jiggeryqua · 27th January 2010, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Of course, that doesn't preclude the normal negative rights they have. (Btw, check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univers...f_Human_Rights )

Using that wiki reference, I counted 37 positive rights (including sub-clauses), 12 negative rights (mostly in those sub-clauses) and 2 rights that I could only describe as 'neutral'.

"Whereof you do not know, thereof you should not speak."

HansMustermann · 27th January 2010, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by jiggeryqua

Or, I can not pretend, and just remark on your preference for putting them in hospitals (which you clearly stated), which I clearly did.

Or you could stop pretending to have forgotten your question, really. It was what would I pay for, not an exhaustive list of options. But then you act as if that were some directive of what should be done with those, and not answering your question about what costs I see as reasonable.

Originally Posted by jiggeryqua

None of the people I supported 'had' their own homes, as such (though they might conceivably have inherited property one day). The group homes were paid for out of their pooled welfare payments, I don't know if that 'counts' for you.

Shared property is still property.

Originally Posted by jiggeryqua

You want them removed from the community and kept in warehouse hospitals, which they've only recently escaped from. You do not consider them legitimate members of your community. We've established that.

Your repeating the same stupidity three times doesn't count as "We've established that". We're not in The Hunting Of The Snark, you know?

Originally Posted by jiggeryqua

I'll concede, again, that you don't actually know what you're talking about, which is why I haven't been harsher.

Then how about actually supporting your point, instead of such irrelevant BS? And that goes too for your speculations about my motives, and all the other bunch of fallacies.

Originally Posted by jiggeryqua

If you want to know what you're talking about, do some research (and no, I won't do it for you). If you don't, get some Wittgenstein: "Whereof you do not know, thereof you should not speak'.

Aaand, more snarkiness rounding up the ad hominem, instead of any support. Gee, some might think you should start taking your own advice.

Originally Posted by jiggeryqua

Third option (not that you meant to imply that your options were the only possible options...)

... but apparently the realization that answering your specific question wasn't an exhaustive list of options, doesn't apply to all else.

Originally Posted by jiggeryqua

I'm engaging with the points and you perceive an "opponent" and settle for unfounded points of order, which delay proceedings and, with luck, confuse or derail or distract this 'opponent' you're 'competing' with.

That's funny, because that's what I've been asking of you all along: address those points, and cut it out with the strawmen, ad-hominem and other derails. Feel free to do so any time you're ready.

Really, in the time you wrote all this drivel detailing your delusions about my motives, "establishing" BS that exists only in your imagination, etc, you could have actually made the case of why being provided sex might be a good thing. Because that's what we started from.

Yes, attempt to confuse and derail is all you've done.

Hallo Alfie · 27th January 2010, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

While I would think that paying for Viagra would be skating on the edge of what's acceptable for insurance companies to pay, I rather doubt that most guys who need it are likely to be fertile.

Have you some citations on that please?
It really doesn't dound right.
Sperm production (or lack thereof) does not necessarily cause impotence. There are hundreds of other reasons.

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

A crowded hospital waiting room nervously anticipates the news on the condition of their beloved family member. After hours the doctor comes out to address the room, "I regret to inform you that the patient's head injury was far too severe and not expected to survive the night. However, we have effectively been able to perform successful brain transplants and it just so happens that we have one male brain and one female brain just waiting to be harvested. The only difference would be the cost. The male brain is $5000 and the female is $500." A smug male family member, thinking they finally proved the male brain to be worth more than the female stands up and asks why the male brain costs so much more. The doctor replies, "Well, by law, we have to charge less for the female brain on account of it being used."

I don't have anything more to add to the original thread because what I think has already been stated. The religious doctrines always seem to be written in coordination with acceptable practice of the time.

P.S. A.A.Alfie, I thought your joke was funny

Cheers, right back at you.

I liked yours too.

Originally Posted by jiggeryqua

Except that that's observably what you've done. It's not an ad hominem, it's a review , with the facts accessible by anyone who wants to scroll up and check.

snipses... .

If Hans and Jiggery are finished - can we get back to the topic please?
Um, what was the topic - bad sexist jokes or somthing?

HansMustermann · 27th January 2010, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by jiggeryqua

Using that wiki reference, I counted 37 positive rights (including sub-clauses), 12 negative rights (mostly in those sub-clauses) and 2 rights that I could only describe as 'neutral'.

"Whereof you do not know, thereof you should not speak."

And it's another derail. Gee. And it only took taking it out of the context of "I wouldn't hospitalize them against their will", and latching on a phrase out of context.

Let me guess... when you told that someone, "I said I was 'debating' with one of those online presences who always ignore the actual point of your argument and instead find a single sentence they think they see a flaw in, and then try to attack you through that."... you were describing your own behaviour, right?

jiggeryqua · 27th January 2010, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

And it's another derail. Gee. And it only took taking it out of the context of "I wouldn't hospitalize them against their will", and latching on a phrase out of context.

Let me guess... when you told that someone, "I said I was 'debating' with one of those online presences who always ignore the actual point of your argument and instead find a single sentence they think they see a flaw in, and then try to attack you through that."... you were describing your own behaviour, right?

Oh give it a rest. In the discussion of what society should pay for in terms of care, you (from a position of ignorance) insist that society should not facilitate someone's sex life, regardless of Rights (which you demonstrably are not familiar with), and go on to insist that anyone who is so in need that they cannot get laid on your terms should be consigned to the sort of 'hospitals' that we no longer use, just as we no longer deny women rights, just as we no longer enslave africans, just as we no longer build concentration camps. I've worked in that field, you evidently have no understanding of it, you just want to 'win' against an 'opponent' because it's the 'internet' and you've been reduced to the primary school taunt of "I know you are, but what am I?"

You referenced something you have clearly never read (you described the UDoHR as 'negative rights' when they are overwhelmingly positive). You lost, if that's your metaphor of choice, right there. Lie down and take the count.

You don't want 'your' tax money to pay for sex. I don't know why - we do know that it's important to anyone's sense of self esteem, of being a real person, of being a legitimate member of society. Consigning people to 'hospitals', as you wish, is not to recognise them as legitimate members of society. Affording a class of people only such minimal, grudging charity as will serve to save you from a label of 'monster' is repellent to me.

KingMerv00 · 27th January 2010, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by EeneyMinnieMoe

Religion is created by humans and therefore reflects human behavior and thought.

Heterosexual men are naturally disgusted by and afraid of male homosexuality and find lesbianism baffling and threatening (and to a smaller extent, heterosexuals in general, both men and women, find homosexuality strange and abnormal.) And so religion bans homosexuality.

Men naturally hate and fear women and think they are better than women are. They want to control them and rule over them. They want an obedient wife or girlfriend who will bend to their will. So religion says that women are inferior to men.

Humans want control and power over animals and so religion says they have it, men value chastity in women and exclusive sexual rights to them and therefore religion says women must be virgins before marriage, humans naturally dislike people of other races and so religion tells them they are superior, humans are naturally violent and so religion tells them they can oppress, demean, assault and fight wars against people of other religions, ethnic origins and races- and so on and on and on.

Religion just imitates and parallels human behavior.

You still around EeneyMinnieMoe? Were you being serious? Do you really think I want to dominate women, that I fear homosexuality, and that I think chastity is a good thing?

Hallo Alfie · 27th January 2010, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

You still around EeneyMinnieMoe? Were you being serious? Do you really think I want to dominate women, that I fear homosexuality, and that I think chastity is a good thing?

You're number three or four to ask simialr questions on the "seriousness" of that post.
We are all eagerly awaiting a response.
If and when we get one, please take your place in the queue.

TimCallahan · 29th January 2010, 08:36 AM

To get things back to the original topic I thought we could come up with some standards by which to measure women's position in various religions. Here are a few suggestions:

1) Is the religion, either in its doctrine or in its holy books specifically sexist?

For example: In 1 Corinthians, Paul (although this is likely an interpolation) tells women to be silent in church. In Romans he says the head of every woman is her husband.

2) Regardless of what it's doctrines say, is it sexist in its everyday application?

For example: All the Qur'an says about how women should dress is that both genders should dress modestly. And yet, we have the burqa.

3) Does it allow both genders into the priesthood, or does it exclude one gender?

The Roman Catholic church comes readily to mind. However, many Protestant denominations likewise exclude women from the clergy. At the opposite pole, albeit in much smaller numbers, certain radically feminist Wiccan groups specifically exclude men from their priestesshoods.

Does anyone have any other ideas for standards?

27th January 2010, 03:27 AM	#161
Ethan Thane Athen Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 954	Originally Posted by Sun Countess Simple. Religions were invented by men. Indeed. Or you could re-phrase it as: Religions are a human invention and therefore reflect the attitudes and society of the people who invented them - most of which (at the time) had men in positions of authority / control. In other words, man invented god in his own image.
Ethan Thane Athen Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 954

27th January 2010, 06:29 AM	#163
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,212	Originally Posted by HansMustermann . . . . So, then, I guess we're in agreement that any insurance which pays for Viagra is irresponsible and evil? While I would think that paying for Viagra would be skating on the edge of what's acceptable for insurance companies to pay, I rather doubt that most guys who need it are likely to be fertile.
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,212

27th January 2010, 01:29 PM	#173
sgtbaker Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,586	Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie Ah well. I apologised and do so again - no insult intended - and certainly not personally. As opposed to your first personal crack re the 1950s and Melbourne huh? - which btw I thought was pretty funny. A joke is a joke, and depending on the topic, some like them and some don't. It usually/often depends on ones sensitivities. It might also depend on how seriously one likes to take a particular subject. A crowded hospital waiting room nervously anticipates the news on the condition of their beloved family member. After hours the doctor comes out to address the room, "I regret to inform you that the patient's head injury was far too severe and not expected to survive the night. However, we have effectively been able to perform successful brain transplants and it just so happens that we have one male brain and one female brain just waiting to be harvested. The only difference would be the cost. The male brain is $5000 and the female is $500." A smug male family member, thinking they finally proved the male brain to be worth more than the female stands up and asks why the male brain costs so much more. The doctor replies, "Well, by law, we have to charge less for the female brain on account of it being used." I don't have anything more to add to the original thread because what I think has already been stated. The religious doctrines always seem to be written in coordination with acceptable practice of the time. P.S. A.A.Alfie, I thought your joke was funny
sgtbaker Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,586

27th January 2010, 01:43 PM	#175
HansMustermann Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9,903	Quote: I just had a real life visitor, who looked at my monitor and asked what I was doing. I said I was 'debating' with one of those online presences who always ignore the actual point of your argument and instead find a single sentence they think they see a flaw in, and then try to attack you through that. He nodded, as familiar as I am with the type. So basically you introduce yet another ad-hominem. Gee, who would have expected it? But anyway, basically, you just need to ignore the following paragraph: Quote: Of course, that doesn't preclude the normal negative rights they have. (Btw, check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univers...f_Human_Rights ) If they have a home and would rather be there, I'm not gonna send my Legions Of Terror to round them up and move them to a hospital But, of course, that would mean giving up some of the advantages in a hospital too. And then you can pretend that I'm actually proposing to round them up and put them in hospitals. And then you can sneak back a variant of your old strawman, "But then you stated clearly enough that you thought they weren't legitimate members of your community" Really? Proposing to give them an option to professional healthcare equals kicking them out of the community? Are you at least trolling, or do you have genuine comprehension problems?
	Last edited by HansMustermann; 27th January 2010 at 01:45 PM.

27th January 2010, 02:43 PM	#179
Hallo Alfie Suspended Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 10,113	Originally Posted by TimCallahan While I would think that paying for Viagra would be skating on the edge of what's acceptable for insurance companies to pay, I rather doubt that most guys who need it are likely to be fertile. Have you some citations on that please? It really doesn't dound right. Sperm production (or lack thereof) does not necessarily cause impotence. There are hundreds of other reasons. Originally Posted by sgtbaker A crowded hospital waiting room nervously anticipates the news on the condition of their beloved family member. After hours the doctor comes out to address the room, "I regret to inform you that the patient's head injury was far too severe and not expected to survive the night. However, we have effectively been able to perform successful brain transplants and it just so happens that we have one male brain and one female brain just waiting to be harvested. The only difference would be the cost. The male brain is $5000 and the female is $500." A smug male family member, thinking they finally proved the male brain to be worth more than the female stands up and asks why the male brain costs so much more. The doctor replies, "Well, by law, we have to charge less for the female brain on account of it being used." I don't have anything more to add to the original thread because what I think has already been stated. The religious doctrines always seem to be written in coordination with acceptable practice of the time. P.S. A.A.Alfie, I thought your joke was funny Cheers, right back at you. I liked yours too. Originally Posted by jiggeryqua Except that that's observably what you've done. It's not an ad hominem, it's a review , with the facts accessible by anyone who wants to scroll up and check. snipses... . If Hans and Jiggery are finished - can we get back to the topic please? Um, what was the topic - bad sexist jokes or somthing?
	Last edited by Hallo Alfie; 27th January 2010 at 02:46 PM.

27th January 2010, 04:13 AM	#162
jiggeryqua Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 2,976	Originally Posted by HansMustermann But if we subscribe to the idea that sex is some kind of a human right, to the extent that we subsidize some guy's Viagra pills... shouldn't we take it to a more logical conclusion? How about sponsoring weekly trips to the brothel for the socially inept? I mean, really, if it's that much of a tragedy and potential for psychological harm if some guy or gal doesn't get enough sex, surely we should care first about those who can't get any _and_ have a bigger social stigma attached. Not really, but just to illustrate the trouble with acting as if there was some kind of a positive right to sex. I used to work as a Life Skills Tutor for adults with severe learning difficulties and complex challenging behaviours. Human adults, that is - people, with a full range of human rights...and human drives. We provided for all their basic needs and made an effort to support them in all their more basic desires too. We employed visiting professionals (osteopaths, music therapists and such). It was generally acknowledged, but impossible to address, that their psychological well-being (and consequently their challenging behaviour and the safety of the staff and their housemates) could be improved by supporting their need to adequately express their human sexuality. Probably with visiting professionals (because our regular support staff certainly didn't sign up for that kind of support...) There are all sorts of problems, difficulties and adjustments associated with recognising that other human beings have any of the rights most of us take for granted. You could certainly have a 'right to sex' - you have a right to a family life, after all, and I don't see how else you'd get one (feel free to construct hugely unlikely, vastly expensive ways of picking at that point). What you couldn't have is the right to get it from/with any particular individual - but there aren't many places where 'visiting professionals' are legal, even if they were to have the right skills to help the most needy. Oh, but you said 'not really' - yeah, sorry, if people haven't got what it takes to compete with you in getting laid or any other field, **** 'em.

27th January 2010, 07:57 AM	#164
HansMustermann Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9,903	Originally Posted by jiggeryqua I used to work as a Life Skills Tutor for adults with severe learning difficulties and complex challenging behaviours. Human adults, that is - people, with a full range of human rights...and human drives. We provided for all their basic needs and made an effort to support them in all their more basic desires too. We employed visiting professionals (osteopaths, music therapists and such). It was generally acknowledged, but impossible to address, that their psychological well-being (and consequently their challenging behaviour and the safety of the staff and their housemates) could be improved by supporting their need to adequately express their human sexuality. Probably with visiting professionals (because our regular support staff certainly didn't sign up for that kind of support...) There are all sorts of problems, difficulties and adjustments associated with recognising that other human beings have any of the rights most of us take for granted. You could certainly have a 'right to sex' - you have a right to a family life, after all, and I don't see how else you'd get one (feel free to construct hugely unlikely, vastly expensive ways of picking at that point). What you couldn't have is the right to get it from/with any particular individual - but there aren't many places where 'visiting professionals' are legal, even if they were to have the right skills to help the most needy. Oh, but you said 'not really' - yeah, sorry, if people haven't got what it takes to compete with you in getting laid or any other field, **** 'em. Well, let's put it this way... did _you_ and the other tutors ever pool _your_ cash to pay for a sex worker for such a poor lad? I mean, at least for his birthday? Or are you just preaching why everyone _else_ should pay for it?

27th January 2010, 08:32 AM	#165
jiggeryqua Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 2,976	Originally Posted by HansMustermann Well, let's put it this way... did _you_ and the other tutors ever pool _your_ cash to pay for a sex worker for such a poor lad? I mean, at least for his birthday? Or are you just preaching why everyone _else_ should pay for it? Lads and lasses (it was an interesting place to work, watching human behaviour with no social conditioning). We didn't pay for anything, directly, since in the UK at least I don't think you'd find many people reluctant to let their taxes pay for the benefit system that paid for the people we supported to have their basic human rights delivered. We're talking about people who would not survive without 24-hr care...or are you preaching that they shouldn't survive? Oh, and we did discuss the problem, and consider the option you presented -although as was indicated in the post you're sniping at, we would have needed a sex worker with some very specialist training to deal with mute, deaf-blind, autistic and doubly-incontinent clients. With 'complex challenging behaviours' (imagine all the things that could be a euphemism for, sleep on it, add all the rest that occur to you, then double it). Sex work is still viewed somewhat puritanically in most so-called 'developed' countries and although our bosses were aware of the issues I still think we'd have got sacked even for funding it ourselves. Questions of informed consent come in to play too, of course. On the other hand, those of us who worked there, from the cleaner to the directors of the company, were some of the most selfless, generous people you'd ever be fortunate enough to meet. There was only one tutor, by the way, with a bank of support workers, a psychologist and a welfare manager. They didn't have one for maths and one for science and one for art appreciation - perhaps I didn't adequately convey the difficulties faced and presented by our clients. But maybe you're right - it would have been much cheaper for the state to buy them a pillow each, and hire someone to press it against their face.

27th January 2010, 08:47 AM	#166
HansMustermann Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9,903	Originally Posted by jiggeryqua But maybe you're right - it would have been much cheaper for the state to buy them a pillow each, and hire someone to press it against their face. Was there a point to that strawman?

27th January 2010, 09:22 AM	#167
jiggeryqua Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 2,976	Originally Posted by HansMustermann Was there a point to that strawman? Maybe you're right (that you shouldn't have to pay for their support, or that you shouldn't have to pay for the bits you consider 'treats'). It would have been much cheaper for the state to buy them a pillow each, and hire someone to press it against their face. Better?

27th January 2010, 09:35 AM	#168
HansMustermann Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9,903	So, what you're trying to say is that you have a genuine case of OCPD? I mean, if you genuinely can't see any shades of grey between not paying for their sex and not paying for their care at all, and verily wanting a pillow pressed against their face... There is group therapy for OCPD, and if that makes you feel any better, I'm all for the NHS or insurance or whatever paying for yours

27th January 2010, 09:46 AM	#169
jiggeryqua Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 2,976	Oh...I looked it up, and it turns out that standing up for the human rights of people unable to speak for themselves is a disorder now. I don't see 'shades of grey' between deciding that some needs shouldn't be paid for by you and secretly wishing that the state would just buy the pillows (hell, use the same one, why waste more of 'your' tax money). Help me out here - in the support of severely disabled people, what are you prepared to pay for, and what should be able to opt out of? Basic needs needn't involve more than some stripey pyjamas, some watery 'potato' soup with no potatoes in it and enough space to lie down on a bunk you share with three other people, I guess...

27th January 2010, 11:30 AM	#170
HansMustermann Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9,903	You know, gradually I'm getting fed up with the whole theme of ascribing your own deranged fantasies to me, and the whole "look how much better I am than the likes of you" theme. I mean, stuff like, "those of us who worked there [...] were some of the most selfless, generous people you'd ever be fortunate enough to meet" or the even funnier "it turns out that standing up for the human rights of people unable to speak for themselves is a disorder now". Full of yourself much? Not to mention, it's one big non-sequitur anyway. I'm starting to wonder if you actually _have_ a point, seeing that you only seem to address strawmen of your own. But ok... What care would I provide, if I were in a position to decide something like that? Hmm. Not a bad exercise. In an ideal world, they'd actually get a cure. In my ideal world, I'd rather have it that, say, a blind person can get one of these new CCD implants than pay for just prolonging the agony. But I guess the world is rarely an ideal place. Well, I guess the basic human needs would be a good starting point, although I wouldn't take it to the extremes in your latest ridiculous strawman. For a start "some watery 'potato' soup with no potatoes in it" doesn't sound that great in the long run. In fact, it's more like a delayed death sentence. I'm pretty sure that at the very least I'd want anyone in society's care to get a balanced protein diet, and enough calories and vitamins. Otherwise, as you were saying, we might as well take the pillow shortcut. I guess the average hospital food is a good reference point in that aspect. Also, "enough space to lie down on a bunk you share with three other people" doesn't sound like a particularly good way to get some rest or some personal space. I suppose we could argue the exact number of square metres, but again as a rule of thumb I'd take the average hospital as a reference point. About the "stripey pyjamas", I have no objection there. I guess any pattern is just as good in the end. The exact colour and pattern is far less important IMHO than it being clean. Wouldn't want them to get some disease after all. I'm pretty sure I'd also want to see to it that they get adequate healthcare. Though by that I mean literally _health_ care. If physiotherapy (e.g., a massage) is what's needed to keep them from getting some medical condition, by all means, they should be provided that. Again, I find a hospital to be a good reference point. So I guess on the whole the short version is: I'd put them in a hospital. Of course, that doesn't preclude the normal negative rights they have. (Btw, check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univers...f_Human_Rights ) If they have a home and would rather be there, I'm not gonna send my Legions Of Terror to round them up and move them to a hospital But, of course, that would mean giving up some of the advantages in a hospital too.

27th January 2010, 12:57 PM	#171
jiggeryqua Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 2,976	You mean 'literally' health care? But not mental health care, even though there's no genuine distinction between 'mental' health and any other definition of 'health'. We've established (at least to the degree we're ever likely to) that the health of our clients would have been improved by some level of satisfaction of their basic human needs (for which read 'drives' - there is no need to eat, since there is no need to be alive. But we eat, and concede that others should. We have sex...I'll grant that you do, in the absence of evidence - but you do not concede that others should. Lack of sex will not kill you, that's true - but neither will many illnesses). There were very few 'advantages' to the warehouse 'hospitals' the UK used to consign severely disabled people to. Over the last twenty years or so we've moved to a system of supporting people in their own, or group, homes, as legitimate members of the community. But you'd consign them to hospitals - with a choice of pyjamas (stripey or spotted). In these homes they receive medical care, monitored diets, and a programme of education, community and leisure activities. The only 'advantage' to having been consigned to a hospital was yours, in that you didn't have to see 'sub'humans around you. In fairness, I may not have adequately conveyed the depth and breadth of the 'severe' learning difficulties and the 'complex' challenging behaviours - and since our clients would historically recently have been kept out of your way - you have every right to question my classing myself with some of the most generous, selfless, caring people I've ever met. I've met a great many people, in many fields and a few countries. I don't work there anymore - I'm not as selfless, generous and caring as the women (they were mostly women) who'd worked with these people for twenty years and would continue to do so, despite the impossibility of anything that might be considered improvement, let alone 'cure', while everyday involved being bitten, scratched, punched, kicked, spat on, **** on and otherwise abused. Largely Catholics, too, as it happens - just to bring the discussion back toward the topic. I'm not a Catholic either.

27th January 2010, 01:17 PM	#172
HansMustermann Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9,903	Oh, no reason not to include a psychiatrist and a neurologist in the care. But I see you're back at the strawmen and ad hominem anyway. You write stuff like, "The only 'advantage' to having been consigned to a hospital was yours, in that you didn't have to see 'sub'humans around you." Really? Did I actually write anywhere "subhumans" or not wanting to see them? Gee, how easy every debate becomes if you can reduce it to an idiotic carricature along the lines of "I'm one of the nicest people you'd ever have the luck to meet, while my opponent is a monster who'd smother disabled people with a pillow." (Both claims out of your own messages, btw.) Heh.

27th January 2010, 01:36 PM	#174
jiggeryqua Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 2,976	Originally Posted by HansMustermann Oh, no reason not to include a psychiatrist and a neurologist in the care. But I see you're back at the strawmen and ad hominem anyway. You write stuff like, "The only 'advantage' to having been consigned to a hospital was yours, in that you didn't have to see 'sub'humans around you." Really? Did I actually write anywhere "subhumans" or not wanting to see them? Gee, how easy every debate becomes if you can reduce it to an idiotic carricature along the lines of "I'm one of the nicest people you'd ever have the luck to meet, while my opponent is a monster who'd smother disabled people with a pillow." (Both claims out of your own messages, btw.) Heh. I just had a real life visitor, who looked at my monitor and asked what I was doing. I said I was 'debating' with one of those online presences who always ignore the actual point of your argument and instead find a single sentence they think they see a flaw in, and then try to attack you through that. He nodded, as familiar as I am with the type. The point of those warehouse hospitals was to 'tidy away' disturbing people (in that they disturb our general ideas of what it means to be a person, never mind their 'challenging' behaviours). That was the advantage that you gained. I meant 'you', that broader section of humanity that would prefer to have people in hospitals than in the community, even though they could not be 'treated' or 'cured'. I now include you personally, since you stated that that was where you'd rather consign them. You didn't pick up on my describing them as 'legitimate' people, with a right to be in the same community as you. But then you stated clearly enough that you thought they weren't legitimate members of your community - that they should be consigned to the warehouse 'hospitals' they've only recently escaped. I paraphrase that as 'sub' human - what's your actual argument with that, other than 'oh, er, uhm, that wasn't what I meant'? Neither claim was in my posts by the way - I clarified, with a parenthesised reference and a change of punctuation, that the statement that it would be cheaper to buy pillows was a mere fact, not your position. It can be extrapolated from your position, but I'm happy to pretend it wasn't what you meant to say.

27th January 2010, 02:21 PM	#176
jiggeryqua Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 2,976	Originally Posted by HansMustermann So basically you introduce yet another ad-hominem. Gee, who would have expected it? Except that that's observably what you've done. It's not an ad hominem, it's a review , with the facts accessible by anyone who wants to scroll up and check. Originally Posted by HansMustermann But anyway, basically, you just need to ignore the following paragraph: And then you can pretend that I'm actually proposing to round them up and put them in hospitals. And then you can sneak back a variant of your old strawman, "But then you stated clearly enough that you thought they weren't legitimate members of your community" Or, I can not pretend, and just remark on your preference for putting them in hospitals (which you clearly stated), which I clearly did. None of the people I supported 'had' their own homes, as such (though they might conceivably have inherited property one day). The group homes were paid for out of their pooled welfare payments, I don't know if that 'counts' for you. You want them removed from the community and kept in warehouse hospitals, which they've only recently escaped from. You do not consider them legitimate members of your community. We've established that. I'll concede, again, that you don't actually know what you're talking about, which is why I haven't been harsher. If you want to know what you're talking about, do some research (and no, I won't do it for you). If you don't, get some Wittgenstein: "Whereof you do not know, thereof you should not speak'. Originally Posted by HansMustermann Really? Proposing to give them an option to professional healthcare equals kicking them out of the community? Are you at least trolling, or do you have genuine comprehension problems? Third option (not that you meant to imply that your options were the only possible options...): I'm engaging with the points and you perceive an "opponent" and settle for unfounded points of order, which delay proceedings and, with luck, confuse or derail or distract this 'opponent' you're 'competing' with.

27th January 2010, 02:34 PM	#177
jiggeryqua Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 2,976	Originally Posted by HansMustermann Of course, that doesn't preclude the normal negative rights they have. (Btw, check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univers...f_Human_Rights ) Using that wiki reference, I counted 37 positive rights (including sub-clauses), 12 negative rights (mostly in those sub-clauses) and 2 rights that I could only describe as 'neutral'. "Whereof you do not know, thereof you should not speak."

27th January 2010, 02:40 PM	#178
HansMustermann Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9,903	Originally Posted by jiggeryqua Or, I can not pretend, and just remark on your preference for putting them in hospitals (which you clearly stated), which I clearly did. Or you could stop pretending to have forgotten your question, really. It was what would I pay for, not an exhaustive list of options. But then you act as if that were some directive of what should be done with those, and not answering your question about what costs I see as reasonable. Originally Posted by jiggeryqua None of the people I supported 'had' their own homes, as such (though they might conceivably have inherited property one day). The group homes were paid for out of their pooled welfare payments, I don't know if that 'counts' for you. Shared property is still property. Originally Posted by jiggeryqua You want them removed from the community and kept in warehouse hospitals, which they've only recently escaped from. You do not consider them legitimate members of your community. We've established that. Your repeating the same stupidity three times doesn't count as "We've established that". We're not in The Hunting Of The Snark, you know? Originally Posted by jiggeryqua I'll concede, again, that you don't actually know what you're talking about, which is why I haven't been harsher. Then how about actually supporting your point, instead of such irrelevant BS? And that goes too for your speculations about my motives, and all the other bunch of fallacies. Originally Posted by jiggeryqua If you want to know what you're talking about, do some research (and no, I won't do it for you). If you don't, get some Wittgenstein: "Whereof you do not know, thereof you should not speak'. Aaand, more snarkiness rounding up the ad hominem, instead of any support. Gee, some might think you should start taking your own advice. Originally Posted by jiggeryqua Third option (not that you meant to imply that your options were the only possible options...) ... but apparently the realization that answering your specific question wasn't an exhaustive list of options, doesn't apply to all else. Originally Posted by jiggeryqua I'm engaging with the points and you perceive an "opponent" and settle for unfounded points of order, which delay proceedings and, with luck, confuse or derail or distract this 'opponent' you're 'competing' with. That's funny, because that's what I've been asking of you all along: address those points, and cut it out with the strawmen, ad-hominem and other derails. Feel free to do so any time you're ready. Really, in the time you wrote all this drivel detailing your delusions about my motives, "establishing" BS that exists only in your imagination, etc, you could have actually made the case of why being provided sex might be a good thing. Because that's what we started from. Yes, attempt to confuse and derail is all you've done.

27th January 2010, 02:44 PM	#180
HansMustermann Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9,903	Originally Posted by jiggeryqua Using that wiki reference, I counted 37 positive rights (including sub-clauses), 12 negative rights (mostly in those sub-clauses) and 2 rights that I could only describe as 'neutral'. "Whereof you do not know, thereof you should not speak." And it's another derail. Gee. And it only took taking it out of the context of "I wouldn't hospitalize them against their will", and latching on a phrase out of context. Let me guess... when you told that someone, "I said I was 'debating' with one of those online presences who always ignore the actual point of your argument and instead find a single sentence they think they see a flaw in, and then try to attack you through that."... you were describing your own behaviour, right?

27th January 2010, 03:13 PM	#181
jiggeryqua Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 2,976	Originally Posted by HansMustermann And it's another derail. Gee. And it only took taking it out of the context of "I wouldn't hospitalize them against their will", and latching on a phrase out of context. Let me guess... when you told that someone, "I said I was 'debating' with one of those online presences who always ignore the actual point of your argument and instead find a single sentence they think they see a flaw in, and then try to attack you through that."... you were describing your own behaviour, right? Oh give it a rest. In the discussion of what society should pay for in terms of care, you (from a position of ignorance) insist that society should not facilitate someone's sex life, regardless of Rights (which you demonstrably are not familiar with), and go on to insist that anyone who is so in need that they cannot get laid on your terms should be consigned to the sort of 'hospitals' that we no longer use, just as we no longer deny women rights, just as we no longer enslave africans, just as we no longer build concentration camps. I've worked in that field, you evidently have no understanding of it, you just want to 'win' against an 'opponent' because it's the 'internet' and you've been reduced to the primary school taunt of "I know you are, but what am I?" You referenced something you have clearly never read (you described the UDoHR as 'negative rights' when they are overwhelmingly positive). You lost, if that's your metaphor of choice, right there. Lie down and take the count. You don't want 'your' tax money to pay for sex. I don't know why - we do know that it's important to anyone's sense of self esteem, of being a real person, of being a legitimate member of society. Consigning people to 'hospitals', as you wish, is not to recognise them as legitimate members of society. Affording a class of people only such minimal, grudging charity as will serve to save you from a label of 'monster' is repellent to me.

27th January 2010, 03:55 PM	#182
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Originally Posted by EeneyMinnieMoe Religion is created by humans and therefore reflects human behavior and thought. Heterosexual men are naturally disgusted by and afraid of male homosexuality and find lesbianism baffling and threatening (and to a smaller extent, heterosexuals in general, both men and women, find homosexuality strange and abnormal.) And so religion bans homosexuality. Men naturally hate and fear women and think they are better than women are. They want to control them and rule over them. They want an obedient wife or girlfriend who will bend to their will. So religion says that women are inferior to men. Humans want control and power over animals and so religion says they have it, men value chastity in women and exclusive sexual rights to them and therefore religion says women must be virgins before marriage, humans naturally dislike people of other races and so religion tells them they are superior, humans are naturally violent and so religion tells them they can oppress, demean, assault and fight wars against people of other religions, ethnic origins and races- and so on and on and on. Religion just imitates and parallels human behavior. You still around EeneyMinnieMoe? Were you being serious? Do you really think I want to dominate women, that I fear homosexuality, and that I think chastity is a good thing?
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust?

27th January 2010, 06:03 PM	#183
Hallo Alfie Suspended Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 10,113	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 You still around EeneyMinnieMoe? Were you being serious? Do you really think I want to dominate women, that I fear homosexuality, and that I think chastity is a good thing? You're number three or four to ask simialr questions on the "seriousness" of that post. We are all eagerly awaiting a response. If and when we get one, please take your place in the queue.

29th January 2010, 08:36 AM	#184
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,212	To get things back to the original topic I thought we could come up with some standards by which to measure women's position in various religions. Here are a few suggestions: 1) Is the religion, either in its doctrine or in its holy books specifically sexist? For example: In 1 Corinthians, Paul (although this is likely an interpolation) tells women to be silent in church. In Romans he says the head of every woman is her husband. 2) Regardless of what it's doctrines say, is it sexist in its everyday application? For example: All the Qur'an says about how women should dress is that both genders should dress modestly. And yet, we have the burqa. 3) Does it allow both genders into the priesthood, or does it exclude one gender? The Roman Catholic church comes readily to mind. However, many Protestant denominations likewise exclude women from the clergy. At the opposite pole, albeit in much smaller numbers, certain radically feminist Wiccan groups specifically exclude men from their priestesshoods. Does anyone have any other ideas for standards?
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,212	Last edited by TimCallahan; 29th January 2010 at 08:37 AM.