| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"ArWeGod" |
| Date: |
01 Jul 2004 06:00:23 AM |
| Object: |
Protecting the kids |
Please forgive cross-posting to both alt.atheism and alt.religion.christian,
but I am interested in both sides' opinion of my questions.
I was recently considering the powerful forces that young children are
subject to in today's world as they are growing up. We try to prevent
premature smoking, and premature sexual experimentation. This gave me the
thought to one of the real dangers to a child's understanding.
Why isn't there a law to protect a young, impressionable mind from the
imposition of religion?! I cannot think of anything more addicting once it
has taken hold. Yet the poor, fragile mind of the child is completely
unprotected from a world-wide institution that flatly states (as does the
tobacco industry) that "if we get them young enough, we have them forever"
Q1. Is anything worse than corrupting young children?
Q2. Is anything worse than something that uses the same destructive tactics
as the tobacco industry?
Just asking...
--
ArWeGod
.
|
|
| User: "nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: Protecting the kids |
02 Jul 2004 03:56:49 AM |
|
|
"ArWeGod" <ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I was recently considering the powerful forces that young children are
subject to in today's world as they are growing up. We try to prevent
premature smoking, and premature sexual experimentation. This gave me the
thought to one of the real dangers to a child's understanding.
Why isn't there a law to protect a young, impressionable mind from the
imposition of religion?!
If you can demonstrate that religious upbringing leads to
dysfunctional individuals and/or mental damage (much like cigarette
smoking causes physical damage), you may have a point. On the other
hand, children have been brought up in religious or superstitious
surroundings for thousands upon thousands of years and a great
majority (proportionally much the same as those with nonreligious
upbringing I would assume) of them have turned out just fine,
including lots of scientists, atheists, humanists... etc. Like I said,
if you know of a study about statistically significant mental damage a
religious upbringing causes, I don't mind seeing it. Otherwise, you
are just letting your personal views get in the way of good judgement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ArWeGod" |
|
| Title: Re: Protecting the kids |
03 Jul 2004 02:37:29 AM |
|
|
"nobody" <nobody@here.com> wrote in message
news:fh8ae0hhha38napqb5b1295qnl6lgejdii@4ax.com...
"ArWeGod" <ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Why isn't there a law to protect a young, impressionable mind from the
imposition of religion?!
If you can demonstrate that religious upbringing leads to
dysfunctional individuals and/or mental damage (much like cigarette
smoking causes physical damage), you may have a point. On the other
hand, children have been brought up in religious or superstitious
surroundings for thousands upon thousands of years and a great
majority (proportionally much the same as those with nonreligious
upbringing I would assume) of them have turned out just fine,
including lots of scientists, atheists, humanists... etc. Like I said,
if you know of a study about statistically significant mental damage a
religious upbringing causes, I don't mind seeing it. Otherwise, you
are just letting your personal views get in the way of good judgement.
Oh. Prove that religious upbringing can cause "dysfunctional individuals
and/or mental damage"?
OK. Turn on channel 4. Now switch to 9. Go to CNN. Now jump to the BBC
channel.
You are probably picking a certain religion practiced by all the people you
know, except for that Jewish friend, and how wonderfully balanced you all
are. You probably don't live in New York City, or Beirut. You probably don't
use a subway to get to work every day. Just guessing...
--
ArWeMad
.
|
|
|
| User: "nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: Protecting the kids |
03 Jul 2004 10:52:14 AM |
|
|
<ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"nobody" <nobody@here.com> wrote in message
"ArWeGod" <ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Why isn't there a law to protect a young, impressionable mind from the
imposition of religion?!
If you can demonstrate that religious upbringing leads to
dysfunctional individuals and/or mental damage (much like cigarette
smoking causes physical damage), you may have a point. On the other
hand, children have been brought up in religious or superstitious
surroundings for thousands upon thousands of years and a great
majority (proportionally much the same as those with nonreligious
upbringing I would assume) of them have turned out just fine,
including lots of scientists, atheists, humanists... etc. Like I said,
if you know of a study about statistically significant mental damage a
religious upbringing causes, I don't mind seeing it. Otherwise, you
are just letting your personal views get in the way of good judgement.
Oh. Prove that religious upbringing can cause "dysfunctional individuals
and/or mental damage"?
I said demonstrate. Proof makes sense only in math and for spirits.
OK. Turn on channel 4. Now switch to 9. Go to CNN. Now jump to the BBC
channel.
Sorry, such flippant rhetoric isn't a demonstration.
But I'll take the bait anyway. You do realize that man has been
fighting his neighbors since their beginning, don't you? Keeping in
mind that the communication technology and the mass media has made the
dissemination of information a breeze and as a result we tend to
notice fights a lot more than we did, can you give me an example of an
era before the introduction of the major monotheistic religions where
people led relatively (say, per population) more secure and peaceful
lives, with more freedom and civility than we enjoy right now? Sure,
it's a shame that we still have these small pockets of ongoing
fighting but that's human nature for you. Religion or not, we have
acted the same way, and much worse, for hundereds of thousands of
years.
You are probably picking a certain religion practiced by all the people you
know, except for that Jewish friend, and how wonderfully balanced you all
are. You probably don't live in New York City, or Beirut. You probably don't
use a subway to get to work every day. Just guessing...
Guess away, my foolish fellow, guess away.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: Protecting the kids |
03 Jul 2004 04:56:32 PM |
|
|
"ArWeGod" <ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
You are probably picking a certain religion practiced by all the people you
know, except for that Jewish friend, and how wonderfully balanced you all
are. You probably don't live in New York City,
No I don't now. I did for about 4 years. And let me tell you that I
have felt a lot more safer in any WASP suburban neighborhood than in a
subway in NYC or in Central Park at night even though I am not W, AS
or P. The funny thing is, I don't think the latter are the typical
congregation places of the religious folk. A devil's advocate might
even suggest the lack of religious discipline and family values are
responsible for the moral degredation of inner cities.
You were saying?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jenny6833A" |
|
| Title: Re: Protecting the kids |
01 Jul 2004 09:20:22 AM |
|
|
"ArWeGod" ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net says
I was recently considering the powerful forces that young children are
subject to in today's world as they are growing up. We try to prevent
premature smoking, and premature sexual experimentation.
Why are smoking and sexual experimentation bad?
What do you mean by "premature"?
Premature or not, why are smoking and sex in the same class as religious
indoctrination?
:-)
Jenny
Before emailing, remove Clothes
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Protecting the kids |
01 Jul 2004 10:38:16 AM |
|
|
jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote in
news:20040701102022.04845.00000555@mb-m24.aol.com:
"ArWeGod" ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net says
I was recently considering the powerful forces that young children are
subject to in today's world as they are growing up. We try to prevent
premature smoking, and premature sexual experimentation.
Why are smoking and sexual experimentation bad?
Smoking is bad in general. Sexual experimentation before one is
emotionally mature can lead to dysfunctional or obsessive relationships.
What do you mean by "premature"?
Not yet learned to think critically or to distinguish when one is being
emotionally abused or manipulated in a relationship.
Premature or not, why are smoking and sex in the same class as
religious indoctrination?
Because they can lead to bad ("harmful") habits.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Protecting the kids |
02 Jul 2004 04:21:26 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95197663EC1B8fstone69@207.69.154.202...
jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote in
news:20040701102022.04845.00000555@mb-m24.aol.com:
"ArWeGod" ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net says
I was recently considering the powerful forces that young children are
subject to in today's world as they are growing up. We try to prevent
premature smoking, and premature sexual experimentation.
Why are smoking and sexual experimentation bad?
Smoking is bad in general.
Unless it's cannabis, which has been shown to reduce cancer tumors....
http://www.ardpark.org/research/shrinktumors.htm
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Protecting the kids |
02 Jul 2004 08:21:16 PM |
|
|
"Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in
news:40e5d1b6$0$6441$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95197663EC1B8fstone69@207.69.154.202...
jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote in
news:20040701102022.04845.00000555@mb-m24.aol.com:
"ArWeGod" ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net says
I was recently considering the powerful forces that young children
are subject to in today's world as they are growing up. We try to
prevent premature smoking, and premature sexual experimentation.
Why are smoking and sexual experimentation bad?
Smoking is bad in general.
Unless it's cannabis, which has been shown to reduce cancer tumors....
http://www.ardpark.org/research/shrinktumors.htm
That was by injection, not smoking. Smoking cannabis will still ***** up
your lungs.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Protecting the kids |
03 Jul 2004 06:23:46 AM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns951AD93EE9255fstone69@207.69.154.201...
"Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in
news:40e5d1b6$0$6441$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95197663EC1B8fstone69@207.69.154.202...
jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote in
news:20040701102022.04845.00000555@mb-m24.aol.com:
"ArWeGod" ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net says
I was recently considering the powerful forces that young children
are subject to in today's world as they are growing up. We try to
prevent premature smoking, and premature sexual experimentation.
Why are smoking and sexual experimentation bad?
Smoking is bad in general.
Unless it's cannabis, which has been shown to reduce cancer tumors....
http://www.ardpark.org/research/shrinktumors.htm
That was by injection, not smoking. Smoking cannabis will still ***** up
your lungs.
Which is why it used to be used to help asthma....?
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Protecting the kids |
03 Jul 2004 07:12:51 AM |
|
|
"Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in
news:40e69722$0$6450$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns951AD93EE9255fstone69@207.69.154.201...
"Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in
news:40e5d1b6$0$6441$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95197663EC1B8fstone69@207.69.154.202...
jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote in
news:20040701102022.04845.00000555@mb-m24.aol.com:
"ArWeGod" ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net says
I was recently considering the powerful forces that young
children are subject to in today's world as they are growing up.
We try to prevent premature smoking, and premature sexual
experimentation.
Why are smoking and sexual experimentation bad?
Smoking is bad in general.
Unless it's cannabis, which has been shown to reduce cancer
tumors....
http://www.ardpark.org/research/shrinktumors.htm
That was by injection, not smoking. Smoking cannabis will still *****
up your lungs.
Which is why it used to be used to help asthma....?
Don't even waste my time with that sort of crap claim.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nivlem" |
|
| Title: Re: Protecting the kids |
03 Jul 2004 01:13:05 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in
news:40e69722$0$6450$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns951AD93EE9255fstone69@207.69.154.201...
"Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in
news:40e5d1b6$0$6441$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95197663EC1B8fstone69@207.69.154.202...
jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote in
news:20040701102022.04845.00000555@mb-m24.aol.com:
"ArWeGod" ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net says
I was recently considering the powerful forces that young
children are subject to in today's world as they are growing up.
We try to prevent premature smoking, and premature sexual
experimentation.
Why are smoking and sexual experimentation bad?
Smoking is bad in general.
Unless it's cannabis, which has been shown to reduce cancer
tumors....
http://www.ardpark.org/research/shrinktumors.htm
That was by injection, not smoking. Smoking cannabis will still *****
up your lungs.
Which is why it used to be used to help asthma....?
Don't even waste my time with that sort of crap claim.
This is weird, I actually find myself agreeing with Fred Stone about
some small thing. Holy *****! They used to think smoking cigarettes was
helpful for asthma, too you know. Personally, I found that frequent
smoking of marijuana brought on asthma, which had previously been
entirely absent. Stopped using it, problem went away. I don't see
smoking weed as any better or worse than getting drunk. A certain amount
people getting trashed some of the time can probably be tolerated by
society at large. Guys who smoke an 8th a day are at least as
debilitated as guys who drink a case a day, though, and something should
be done about both..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Protecting the kids |
03 Jul 2004 03:42:27 PM |
|
|
"Nivlem" <mlml@svn.net> wrote in message news:40E6F731.5000708@svn.net...
Fred Stone wrote:
"Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in
news:40e69722$0$6450$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns951AD93EE9255fstone69@207.69.154.201...
"Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in
news:40e5d1b6$0$6441$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95197663EC1B8fstone69@207.69.154.202...
jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote in
news:20040701102022.04845.00000555@mb-m24.aol.com:
"ArWeGod" ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net says
I was recently considering the powerful forces that young
children are subject to in today's world as they are growing up.
We try to prevent premature smoking, and premature sexual
experimentation.
Why are smoking and sexual experimentation bad?
Smoking is bad in general.
Unless it's cannabis, which has been shown to reduce cancer
tumors....
http://www.ardpark.org/research/shrinktumors.htm
That was by injection, not smoking. Smoking cannabis will still *****
up your lungs.
Which is why it used to be used to help asthma....?
Don't even waste my time with that sort of crap claim.
This is weird, I actually find myself agreeing with Fred Stone about
some small thing. Holy *****! They used to think smoking cigarettes was
helpful for asthma, too you know. Personally, I found that frequent
smoking of marijuana brought on asthma, which had previously been
entirely absent.
My brother used to suffer from really bad asthma attacks...
until he started smoking Cannabis.
(I mean cannabis, not that ***** 'Soap-bar' stuff..which is frankly
crap...
http://www.ukcia.org/activism/soapbar.htm )
Stopped using it, problem went away. I don't see
smoking weed as any better or worse than getting drunk. A certain amount
people getting trashed some of the time can probably be tolerated by
society at large. Guys who smoke an 8th a day are at least as
debilitated as guys who drink a case a day, though, and something should
be done about both..
http://www.everyonedoesit.com/info/health/cannabis_health_therapeutic_uses_asthma.htm
http://www.platinum-celebs.com/lifestyle/news/002176.html
http://www.gwpharm.com/research_asthma.asp
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Protecting the kids |
03 Jul 2004 05:50:06 PM |
|
|
"Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in
news:40e71a13$0$6444$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com:
"Nivlem" <mlml@svn.net> wrote in message
news:40E6F731.5000708@svn.net...
Fred Stone wrote:
"Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in
news:40e69722$0$6450$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns951AD93EE9255fstone69@207.69.154.201...
"Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in
news:40e5d1b6$0$6441$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95197663EC1B8fstone69@207.69.154.202...
jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote in
news:20040701102022.04845.00000555@mb-m24.aol.com:
"ArWeGod" ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net says
I was recently considering the powerful forces that young
children are subject to in today's world as they are growing
up. We try to prevent premature smoking, and premature sexual
experimentation.
Why are smoking and sexual experimentation bad?
Smoking is bad in general.
Unless it's cannabis, which has been shown to reduce cancer
tumors....
http://www.ardpark.org/research/shrinktumors.htm
That was by injection, not smoking. Smoking cannabis will still
***** up your lungs.
Which is why it used to be used to help asthma....?
Don't even waste my time with that sort of crap claim.
This is weird, I actually find myself agreeing with Fred Stone about
some small thing. Holy *****! They used to think smoking cigarettes
was helpful for asthma, too you know. Personally, I found that
frequent smoking of marijuana brought on asthma, which had previously
been entirely absent.
My brother used to suffer from really bad asthma attacks...
until he started smoking Cannabis.
(I mean cannabis, not that ***** 'Soap-bar' stuff..which is frankly
crap...
http://www.ukcia.org/activism/soapbar.htm )
Stopped using it, problem went away. I don't see
smoking weed as any better or worse than getting drunk. A certain
amount people getting trashed some of the time can probably be
tolerated by society at large. Guys who smoke an 8th a day are at
least as debilitated as guys who drink a case a day, though, and
something should be done about both..
http://www.everyonedoesit.com/info/health/cannabis_health_therapeutic_
uses_asthma.htm
"Cannabis smoking is obviously inappropriate for treatment of asthma due
to the irritant effects of the smoke..."
http://www.platinum-celebs.com/lifestyle/news/002176.html
Doesn't say whether she smoked it or not.
http://www.gwpharm.com/research_asthma.asp
Not clear about short-term "benefits" of bronchdilation vs long-term
effects. Also:
"Problems remain with the concept, however. Almost no modern authorities
feel that asthmatics should smoke cannabis for asthma (7), although it
seems that even chronic usage may not lead to emphysematous degeneration
(8). Use of THC inhalation in isolation, however, has proved to induce
cough and lung irritation even without concomitant smoke."
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Protecting the kids |
03 Jul 2004 03:58:54 PM |
|
|
Nivlem <mlml@svn.net> wrote in news:40E6F731.5000708@svn.net:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in
news:40e69722$0$6450$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns951AD93EE9255fstone69@207.69.154.201...
"Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in
news:40e5d1b6$0$6441$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95197663EC1B8fstone69@207.69.154.202...
jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote in
news:20040701102022.04845.00000555@mb-m24.aol.com:
"ArWeGod" ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net says
I was recently considering the powerful forces that young
children are subject to in today's world as they are growing up.
We try to prevent premature smoking, and premature sexual
experimentation.
Why are smoking and sexual experimentation bad?
Smoking is bad in general.
Unless it's cannabis, which has been shown to reduce cancer
tumors....
http://www.ardpark.org/research/shrinktumors.htm
That was by injection, not smoking. Smoking cannabis will still *****
up your lungs.
Which is why it used to be used to help asthma....?
Don't even waste my time with that sort of crap claim.
This is weird, I actually find myself agreeing with Fred Stone about
some small thing. Holy *****!
:-)
They used to think smoking cigarettes was
helpful for asthma, too you know. Personally, I found that frequent
smoking of marijuana brought on asthma, which had previously been
entirely absent. Stopped using it, problem went away. I don't see
smoking weed as any better or worse than getting drunk.
Worse, in a way, because you don't get the hangover to tell you that
you're getting in a rut.
A certain
amount people getting trashed some of the time can probably be
tolerated by society at large. Guys who smoke an 8th a day are at
least as debilitated as guys who drink a case a day, though, and
something should be done about both..
Yes, if you keep your bong on your nightstand you probably have a
problem with marijuana... ;-)
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Protecting the kids |
05 Jul 2004 08:25:07 AM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns951BACC1E5901fstone69@207.69.154.206...
Nivlem <mlml@svn.net> wrote in news:40E6F731.5000708@svn.net:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in
news:40e69722$0$6450$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns951AD93EE9255fstone69@207.69.154.201...
"Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in
news:40e5d1b6$0$6441$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95197663EC1B8fstone69@207.69.154.202...
jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote in
news:20040701102022.04845.00000555@mb-m24.aol.com:
"ArWeGod" ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net says
I was recently considering the powerful forces that young
children are subject to in today's world as they are growing up.
We try to prevent premature smoking, and premature sexual
experimentation.
Why are smoking and sexual experimentation bad?
Smoking is bad in general.
Unless it's cannabis, which has been shown to reduce cancer
tumors....
http://www.ardpark.org/research/shrinktumors.htm
That was by injection, not smoking. Smoking cannabis will still *****
up your lungs.
Which is why it used to be used to help asthma....?
Don't even waste my time with that sort of crap claim.
This is weird, I actually find myself agreeing with Fred Stone about
some small thing. Holy *****!
:-)
They used to think smoking cigarettes was
helpful for asthma, too you know. Personally, I found that frequent
smoking of marijuana brought on asthma, which had previously been
entirely absent. Stopped using it, problem went away. I don't see
smoking weed as any better or worse than getting drunk.
Worse, in a way, because you don't get the hangover to tell you that
you're getting in a rut.
A certain
amount people getting trashed some of the time can probably be
tolerated by society at large. Guys who smoke an 8th a day are at
least as debilitated as guys who drink a case a day, though, and
something should be done about both..
Yes, if you keep your bong on your nightstand you probably have a
problem with marijuana... ;-)
Indeed...........use doesn't have to be abuse.
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jenny6833A" |
|
| Title: Re: Protecting the kids |
01 Jul 2004 02:30:41 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone says
jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote
"ArWeGod" ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net says
I was recently considering the powerful forces that young children are
subject to in today's world as they are growing up. We try to prevent
premature smoking, and premature sexual experimentation.
Why are smoking and sexual experimentation bad?
Smoking is bad in general.
Now there's a carefully reasoned, detailed response!
Sexual experimentation before one is
emotionally mature can lead to dysfunctional or obsessive relationships.
Can? I'd agree that damn near anything is possible. However, most of what's
possible doesn't happen. What is your point?
Are you claiming that emotional maturity is dependent on age? Or do you admit
that a lot of so-called adults enter into unsuccessful relationships?
And what does any of that have to do with YOUNG children?
What do you mean by "premature"?
Not yet learned to think critically or to distinguish when one is being
emotionally abused or manipulated in a relationship.
If one is happy with a relationship, does it matter if *other* people think one
is being "emotionally abused or manipulated"?
Premature or not, why are smoking and sex in the same class as
religious indoctrination?
Because they can lead to bad ("harmful") habits.
Harmful to whom?
So, anything *you* think is harmful is bad?
I guess I expected more substance.
:-)
Jenny
(who wonders how Fred would classify a miriad of other pursuits that *might* --
according to someone or other -- go wrong)
Before emailing, remove Clothes
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Protecting the kids |
01 Jul 2004 03:33:48 PM |
|
|
jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote in
news:20040701153041.25422.00000858@mb-m29.aol.com:
Fred Stone says
jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote
"ArWeGod" ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net says
I was recently considering the powerful forces that young children
are subject to in today's world as they are growing up. We try to
prevent premature smoking, and premature sexual experimentation.
Why are smoking and sexual experimentation bad?
Smoking is bad in general.
Now there's a carefully reasoned, detailed response!
Duh, how many Surgeon Generals' reports do you need?
Sexual experimentation before one is
emotionally mature can lead to dysfunctional or obsessive
relationships.
Can? I'd agree that damn near anything is possible. However, most of
what's possible doesn't happen. What is your point?
Are you capable of responding to the point instead of avoiding it?
Are you claiming that emotional maturity is dependent on age?
Yes. One generally expects that people will tend to become more mature
as they get older. Some more successfully than others.
Or do
you admit that a lot of so-called adults enter into unsuccessful
relationships?
So what?
And what does any of that have to do with YOUNG children?
They're not as likely to have enough experience with less dangerous
situations to be able to make good judgements in situations that can
lead to more traumatic results.
What do you mean by "premature"?
Not yet learned to think critically or to distinguish when one is
being emotionally abused or manipulated in a relationship.
If one is happy with a relationship, does it matter if *other* people
think one is being "emotionally abused or manipulated"?
If one is being emotionally abused or manipulated one is probably
suffering from an impaired ability to judge whether one is happy or not.
Premature or not, why are smoking and sex in the same class as
religious indoctrination?
Because they can lead to bad ("harmful") habits.
Harmful to whom?
To the people who have that habit.
So, anything *you* think is harmful is bad?
I guess I expected more substance.
I guess I expected something besides juvenile avoidance responses.
:-)
Jenny
(who wonders how Fred would classify a miriad of other pursuits that
*might* -- according to someone or other -- go wrong)
I wonder what you're trying to prove with your flippant replies.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jenny6833A" |
|
| Title: Re: Protecting the kids |
02 Jul 2004 03:30:43 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone says
jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote
Fred Stone says
jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote
"ArWeGod" ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net says
I was recently considering the powerful forces that young children
are subject to in today's world as they are growing up. We try to
prevent premature smoking, and premature sexual experimentation.
Why are smoking and sexual experimentation bad?
Smoking is bad in general.
Now there's a carefully reasoned, detailed response!
Duh, how many Surgeon Generals' reports do you need?
I'll bet you believe whatever any political appointee says.
Fact is, harm from smoking occurs (if it does occur in a given individual) only
after many years of smoking. Harm from religious indoctrination occurs
immediately and continues as long as the individual lives and often well
beyond. The two are therefore not comparable.
Sexual experimentation before one is
emotionally mature can lead to dysfunctional or obsessive
relationships.
Can? I'd agree that damn near anything is possible. However, most of
what's possible doesn't happen. What is your point?
Are you capable of responding to the point instead of avoiding it?
Apparently you're anti-sex too -- or you just knee-jerkedly accept the common
'wisdom' without feeling any need to examine or analyze.
How does playing doctor harm young children?
Recall that the OP said YOUNG CHILDREN.
Besides 'playing doctor,' what other kind of sexual experimentation is even
possible among YOUNG CHILDREN.
I conclude that the kind of sexual experimentation of which YOUNG CHILDREN are
capable is not harmful at all -- although it may shock and horrify nutcase
fundies and others of similar mentality who are prone to have a hissy fit at
the mere thought of sex.
Harm from religious indoctrination occurs immediately and continues as long as
the individual lives and often well beyond. The comparison of sexual
experimentation among YOUNG CHILDREN to religious indoctrination therefore
fails also.
<snip history of failed attempts to make Fred think>
My questions were directed at the Original Poster who, IMO, hadn't thought
through his thesis.
Fred, by butting in you've succeeded only in persuading me that at least some
people with a.a. numbers can't/won't analyze and question commonly accepted
faith-statements any better than others in society.
:-)
Jenny
Before emailing, remove Clothes
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: Protecting the kids |
02 Jul 2004 10:39:12 AM |
|
|
On 02 Jul 2004 08:30:43 GMT, jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A)
thought hard and said:
Duh, how many Surgeon Generals' reports do you need?
I'll bet you believe whatever any political appointee says.
Cigarettes have not been called cancer sticks for decades now without
a reason.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Protecting the kids |
02 Jul 2004 09:36:56 AM |
|
|
jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote in
news:20040702043043.19087.00000974@mb-m06.aol.com:
Fred Stone says
jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote
Fred Stone says
jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote
"ArWeGod" ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net says
I was recently considering the powerful forces that young children
are subject to in today's world as they are growing up. We try to
prevent premature smoking, and premature sexual experimentation.
Why are smoking and sexual experimentation bad?
Smoking is bad in general.
Now there's a carefully reasoned, detailed response!
Duh, how many Surgeon Generals' reports do you need?
I'll bet you believe whatever any political appointee says.
I'll bet you've got avoidance answers for everything.
Fact is, harm from smoking occurs (if it does occur in a given
individual) only after many years of smoking.
Addiction only take a few days.
Harm from religious
indoctrination occurs immediately and continues as long as the
individual lives and often well beyond. The two are therefore not
comparable.
Wrong.
Sexual experimentation before one is
emotionally mature can lead to dysfunctional or obsessive
relationships.
Can? I'd agree that damn near anything is possible. However, most
of what's possible doesn't happen. What is your point?
Are you capable of responding to the point instead of avoiding it?
Apparently you're anti-sex too
Oh, no, I'm all for it. For adults.
-- or you just knee-jerkedly accept the
common 'wisdom' without feeling any need to examine or analyze.
How does playing doctor harm young children?
How does "playing doctor" equate to "sexual experimentation?"
Recall that the OP said YOUNG CHILDREN.
Besides 'playing doctor,' what other kind of sexual experimentation is
even possible among YOUNG CHILDREN.
Just about any kind. YOUNG CHILDREN are quite capable of becoming
sexually aroused - you should read up on child sexual abuse and what
happens between abused children. Just because they aren't getting the
hormonal input of adolescents doesn't mean the parts don't work.
I conclude that the kind of sexual experimentation of which YOUNG
CHILDREN are capable is not harmful at all
Since you pretend that they're not capable of anything harmful.
-- although it may shock
and horrify nutcase fundies and others of similar mentality who are
prone to have a hissy fit at the mere thought of sex.
Harm from religious indoctrination occurs immediately and continues as
long as the individual lives and often well beyond. The comparison of
sexual experimentation among YOUNG CHILDREN to religious
indoctrination therefore fails also.
False premises lead to incorrect conclusions.
<snip history of failed attempts to make Fred think>
My questions were directed at the Original Poster who, IMO, hadn't
thought through his thesis.
Fred, by butting in you've succeeded only in persuading me that at
least some people with a.a. numbers can't/won't analyze and question
commonly accepted faith-statements any better than others in society.
That's a nice standard avoidance answer there, dearie. Trust me, I know
*all* the avoidance answers.
:-)
Jenny
Before emailing, remove Clothes
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: Protecting the kids |
02 Jul 2004 10:46:56 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 14:36:56 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
thought hard and said:
Apparently you're anti-sex too
Oh, no, I'm all for it. For adults.
When does one become an adult? Some of my peers are still have the
mentality of a ten year-old.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Protecting the kids |
02 Jul 2004 08:18:59 PM |
|
|
Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:2q0be0lq1c5v177ef9n377lapfkn7gh95s@4ax.com:
On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 14:36:56 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
thought hard and said:
Apparently you're anti-sex too
Oh, no, I'm all for it. For adults.
When does one become an adult?
That's not a simple question to answer. A first approximation might
begin with the ability to distinguish "I want that" from "I need that".
Puberty would also be a factor.
Some of my peers are still have the
mentality of a ten year-old.
Oh, heck, some of mine (I'm 47) haven't progressed much beyond that.
They haven't got the above rule down either. :-)
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: Protecting the kids |
02 Jul 2004 04:12:08 AM |
|
|
jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote:
Fact is, harm from smoking occurs (if it does occur in a given individual) only
after many years of smoking. Harm from religious indoctrination occurs
immediately and continues as long as the individual lives and often well
beyond.
Cites from reputable journals please.
I have many friends, family members, coworkers... etc who are
religious and were brought up so, yet, they are all perfectly
functioning individuals without any observable mental or physical
damage because of their religious views or upbringing. Unless you can
follow up on your claim with reputable studies, I will hold that you
are spouting off nonsense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jenny6833A" |
|
| Title: Re: Protecting the kids |
02 Jul 2004 06:49:30 AM |
|
|
nobody says
jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote:
Fact is, harm from smoking occurs (if it does occur in a given individual)
only
after many years of smoking. Harm from religious indoctrination occurs
immediately and continues as long as the individual lives and often well
beyond.
Cites from reputable journals please.
I'm expressing an opinion that's oft expressed and well accepted here in
alt.atheism -- including by the original poster in this thread.
"ArWeGod" ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net said in the original post
Why isn't there a law to protect a young, impressionable mind from the
imposition of religion?! I cannot think of anything more addicting once it
has taken hold. Yet the poor, fragile mind of the child is completely
unprotected from a world-wide institution that flatly states (as does the
tobacco industry) that "if we get them young enough, we have them forever"
You're welcome to take it up with him.
I have many friends, family members, coworkers... etc who are
religious and were brought up so, yet, they are all perfectly
functioning individuals ...
ROTFLMAO!!!
Your friends are "perfectly functioning"?
I wasn't aware that so many perfect people were around.
... without any observable mental or physical
damage because of their religious views or upbringing.
If the vast majority is {whatever}, that {whatever} is "normal." You're
spouting the result of a self-fulfilling prophesy.
:-)
Jenny
Before emailing, remove Clothes
.
|
|
|
| User: "nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: Protecting the kids |
02 Jul 2004 08:05:05 AM |
|
|
jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote:
nobody says
jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote:
Fact is, harm from smoking occurs (if it does occur in a given individual)
only
after many years of smoking. Harm from religious indoctrination occurs
immediately and continues as long as the individual lives and often well
beyond.
Cites from reputable journals please.
I'm expressing an opinion that's oft expressed and well accepted here in
alt.atheism -- including by the original poster in this thread.
I am rather aware that the opinion is oft expressed and well accepted
here. However, that doesn't necessarily make it a fact. Most of the
time, such oft expressed and well accepted opinions here are merely
indications a herd mentality coupled with knee-jerk reactions as well
as the persecution complex and have little basis in reality.
I have many friends, family members, coworkers... etc who are
religious and were brought up so, yet, they are all perfectly
functioning individuals ...
ROTFLMAO!!!
Your friends are "perfectly functioning"?
I wasn't aware that so many perfect people were around.
Playing the fool now, I see.
... without any observable mental or physical
damage because of their religious views or upbringing.
If the vast majority is {whatever}, that {whatever} is "normal." You're
spouting the result of a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Nonsense. I am not talking about what's socially acceptable or normal.
Even when the majority smoked and it was socially acceptable and
normal, the medical establishment was able to provide the facts about
the damage smoking causes. All I ask you is to show me the research
that demonstrates comparable, or even worse damage resulting from
religious upbringing, like you claimed. Or were you merely trying to
add more fuel onto the fire and maybe earn some brownie points in the
process?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AnotherObserver®" |
|
| Title: Re: Protecting the kids |
01 Jul 2004 08:59:35 PM |
|
|
jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote:
"ArWeGod" ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net says
I was recently considering the powerful forces that young children are
subject to in today's world as they are growing up. We try to prevent
premature smoking, and premature sexual experimentation.
Why are smoking and sexual experimentation bad?
What do you mean by "premature"?
Premature or not, why are smoking and sex in the same class as religious
indoctrination?
Religious indoctrination is bad in the sense that obsessive
love/sexuality is bad, both are counterproductive and generally lead
to a narrow and dark view of the world outside the illusion.
Obsessive compulsive disorder is the culprit causing the illusion, a
reduction at nearly fifty percent of the transporter protein Serotonin
is a cause of OSD, both the religious and love experience cause that
fifty percent reduction. Pleasure of sex, especially at orgasm, is
produced by the hormones oxytocin and vasopressin, leading to the
reduction of the transporter protein, leading to love/sexual
obsession.
Religious indoctrination is a negative state, perhaps not directly
relating to a physical damage such as smoking produces, and not to a
social damage such as teen/unwanted pregnancies and disease, but a
mental damage, creating absurd and dysfunctional limitations on
society as a whole.
The qualifying factor that places all three in the same class is that
they all three lead to negative states of humanity.
--
Davidwd
~~~~~~~~~
Posting group: alt.atheism
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jenny6833A" |
|
| Title: Re: Protecting the kids |
02 Jul 2004 07:33:30 AM |
|
|
AnotherObserver® says
jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote:
"ArWeGod" ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net says
I was recently considering the powerful forces that young children are
subject to in today's world as they are growing up. We try to prevent
premature smoking, and premature sexual experimentation.
Why are smoking and sexual experimentation bad?
What do you mean by "premature"?
Premature or not, why are smoking and sex in the same class as religious
indoctrination?
Religious indoctrination is bad in the sense that obsessive
love/sexuality is bad, both are counterproductive and generally lead
to a narrow and dark view of the world outside the illusion.
OK so far.
Obsessive compulsive disorder is the culprit causing the illusion, a
reduction at nearly fifty percent of the transporter protein Serotonin
is a cause of OSD, both the religious and love experience cause that
fifty percent reduction.
So far, so good.
Pleasure of sex, especially at orgasm, is
produced by the hormones oxytocin and vasopressin, leading to the
reduction of the transporter protein, leading to love/sexual
obsession.
All true, no doubt, but it doesn't seem relevant to the question I raised which
is the comparative harm done by religious indoctrination of young children
versus smoking and sexual experimentation by young children.
We're talking about *young* children. Not older children, not preteens, not
teens, not adults, but *young* children. Refer to the original post.
With only the rarest of exceptions, young children aren't yet capable of sex
leading to orgasm.
Religious indoctrination is a negative state, perhaps not directly
relating to a physical damage such as smoking produces ...
But the negative effects of religious indoctrination occur promptly, not many
years later as with smoking. The comparison is thus flawed.
... and not to a
social damage such as teen/unwanted pregnancies and disease ...
Which doesn't apply to more than 1% of *young* children. The other 99% of
young children aren't capable of becoming pregnant or producing a pregnancy.
Moreover, such sexual experimentation as they may engage in won't produce
pregnancies. The comparison is thus flawed.
... but a
mental damage, creating absurd and dysfunctional limitations on
society as a whole.
Please explain the damage caused by religious indoctrination to
nobody@here.com. He wants cites. It appears that you have them.
The qualifying factor that places all three in the same class is that
they all three lead to negative states of humanity.
As do a whole lot of other things that aren't on the current societal fad list
of things we're supposed to be knee-jerkedly and vehemently against.
The original poster speaks of the harm religion does to the minds of young
children -- then compares that harm to an act that has no detectable near-term
harmful effect (smoking) or that doesn't even apply to young children (sexual
experimentation) beyond the alleged horrors of playing doctor: young children
aren't capable of sexual experimentation of the potentially harmful kind.
The original poster's comparisons were poorly chosen because they are seriously
flawed.
:-)
Jenny
(who will leave it at that)
Before emailing, remove Clothes
.
|
|
|
| User: "ArWeGod" |
|
| Title: Re: Protecting the kids |
03 Jul 2004 02:48:55 AM |
|
|
"Jenny6833A" <jenny6833a@aol.comClothes> wrote in message
news:20040702083330.05640.00000950@mb-m14.aol.com...
Which doesn't apply to more than 1% of *young* children. The other 99% of
young children aren't capable of becoming pregnant or producing a
pregnancy.
Moreover, such sexual experimentation as they may engage in won't produce
pregnancies. The comparison is thus flawed.
Religion is practiced on young children from before they can talk.
Premature sexual experimentation happens when the person is not yet mature
(pre-mature). Different people become mature enough for sexual congress at
different ages. Those that begin before they are mature enough to understand
or want what is happening tend to have sexual hangups later in life.
For an unscientific study, watch the "Howard Stern Show" a few times and you
will hear him ask each hooker or stripper what her first sexual experience
was. It is generally a young molestation by a close family member or friend.
I can submit no finer example.
Oh, and all the 9/11 bombers had religious indoctrination at a young age.
--
ArWeBlind
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AnotherObserver®" |
|
| Title: Re: Protecting the kids |
03 Jul 2004 11:01:41 AM |
|
|
jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote:
AnotherObserver® says
jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A) wrote:
Why are smoking and sexual experimentation bad?
What do you mean by "premature"?
Premature or not, why are smoking and sex in the same class as religious
indoctrination?
Religious indoctrination is a negative state, perhaps not directly
relating to a physical damage such as smoking produces ...
But the negative effects of religious indoctrination occur promptly, not many
years later as with smoking. The comparison is thus flawed.
Religious indoctrination is a long term process before any effects are
notable.
... and not to a
social damage such as teen/unwanted pregnancies and disease ...
Which doesn't apply to more than 1% of *young* children. The other 99% of
young children aren't capable of becoming pregnant or producing a pregnancy.
Moreover, such sexual experimentation as they may engage in won't produce
pregnancies. The comparison is thus flawed.
I'm not suggesting that it's wrong for young children to experiment
with themselves and other young children around them, I know this is
natural... so, like, chill!
... but a
mental damage, creating absurd and dysfunctional limitations on
society as a whole.
Please explain the damage caused by religious indoctrination to
nobody@here.com. He wants cites. It appears that you have them.
The qualifying factor that places all three in the same class is that
they all three lead to negative states of humanity.
As do a whole lot of other things that aren't on the current societal fad list
of things we're supposed to be knee-jerkedly and vehemently against.
Out of scope from *your original question.
The original poster speaks of the harm religion does to the minds of young
children -- then compares that harm to an act that has no detectable near-term
harmful effect (smoking) or that doesn't even apply to young children (sexual
experimentation) beyond the alleged horrors of playing doctor: young children
aren't capable of sexual experimentation of the potentially harmful kind.
The original poster's comparisons were poorly chosen because they are seriously
flawed.
I'm not sure the comparisons were flawed, but they weren't specificly
addressed. As you know, I didn't respond to the original poster, I
responded to your question:
Premature or not, why are smoking and sex in the same class as religious
indoctrination?
....which seems to remove any age association and is concerned with
classification.
Jenny
(who will leave it at that)
AnotherObserver®, who isn't leaving it at that!
--
Davidwd
~~~~~~~~~
Posting group: alt.atheism
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Va Fungool" |
|
| Title: Re: Protecting the kids |
02 Jul 2004 12:38:33 PM |
|
|
Q1. Is anything worse than corrupting young children?
Q2. Is anything worse than something that uses the same destructive tactics
as the tobacco industry?
Yes, brainwashing them into believing in mythical all powerful deities
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
