| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"Everfresh" |
| Date: |
01 Sep 2005 02:56:02 PM |
| Object: |
Teach an Ape philosophy |
Have you ever tried to teach an animal higher philosophy? Try it.
Explain to your dog that he shouldn't poop on the sidewalk as way of
following society's conventions and to protect others from disease.
It will look at your with a smile as if to say, "Let's go play ball."
The point? It won't have a clue what you are saying. The same can be
said for early aged children. They, also, won't have a clue what you
are talking about.
So, what do you do to protect them from danger? You say, "Don't," or
"NO," or such. If they do, you punish them and show them the right
way.
What is my point? People died from sexual disease for thousands of
years before they understood what disease was. However, the godly were
protected by following the system of DON'Ts and NOs that God had set
up.
We may understand things a bit more, now, but we haven't explored more
than 1 percent of the world and what makes it up. We haven't tested
our society norms or their affect on society and relationships. We
still make a lot of mistakes. There are dangers all around that we
still don't even have a clue exist. So, even though God's laws may
seem harsh at times, I'll accept that he knows more than I do and his
rules are for my benefit and protection, as the rules of any parent
would be. In short, I'll trust God.
Ken Clifton
http://www.live365.com/stations/poetsoul
.
|
|
| User: "Dave Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: Teach an Ape philosophy |
01 Sep 2005 06:59:17 PM |
|
|
"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125604562.400180.291760@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Have you ever tried to teach an animal higher philosophy?
Someone did it to you.
Try it.
Explain to your dog that he shouldn't poop on the sidewalk as way of
following society's conventions and to protect others from disease.
Now that's funny.
Let me tell you why.
You teach a dog not to ***** on the floor because he'll get punished by
inflicting pain and fear for reasons that he doesn't understand.
That's the same way christians are kept in line. You teach him punishment in
the afterlife for natural acts for reasons he can't understand. You teach
him freedom and fun are bad and obedience good.
So if you want to teach someone higher philosophy, teach him the
unconditional love a dog understands. Just don't teach him christianity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Teach an Ape philosophy |
10 Sep 2005 03:47:39 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 18:59:17 -0500, Dave Thompson wrote
(in article <11hf5eq53s09n85@corp.supernews.com>):
"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125604562.400180.291760@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Have you ever tried to teach an animal higher philosophy?
Someone did it to you.
Try it.
Explain to your dog that he shouldn't poop on the sidewalk as way of
following society's conventions and to protect others from disease.
Now that's funny.
Let me tell you why.
You teach a dog not to ***** on the floor because he'll get punished by
inflicting pain and fear for reasons that he doesn't understand.
That's the same way christians are kept in line. You teach him punishment in
the afterlife for natural acts for reasons he can't understand. You teach
him freedom and fun are bad and obedience good.
So if you want to teach someone higher philosophy, teach him the
unconditional love a dog understands. Just don't teach him christianity.
"What's wrong with Pascal's Wager?"
"It's cheap". [One of my philosophy Profs]
++ gray (who is sadder but wiser)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Teach an Ape philosophy |
01 Sep 2005 07:16:09 PM |
|
|
"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
We may understand things a bit more, now, but we haven't explored more
than 1 percent of the world and what makes it up. We haven't tested
our society norms or their affect on society and relationships. We
still make a lot of mistakes. There are dangers all around that we
still don't even have a clue exist. So, even though God's laws may
seem harsh at times, I'll accept that he knows more than I do and his
rules are for my benefit and protection, as the rules of any parent
would be. In short, I'll trust God.
Does this mean that you keep kosher and avoid seafood? Or do you pick
and choose which are the laws that you trust God about?
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Everfresh" |
|
| Title: Re: Teach an Ape philosophy |
02 Sep 2005 09:08:33 AM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
We may understand things a bit more, now, but we haven't explored more
than 1 percent of the world and what makes it up. We haven't tested
our society norms or their affect on society and relationships. We
still make a lot of mistakes. There are dangers all around that we
still don't even have a clue exist. So, even though God's laws may
seem harsh at times, I'll accept that he knows more than I do and his
rules are for my benefit and protection, as the rules of any parent
would be. In short, I'll trust God.
Does this mean that you keep kosher and avoid seafood? Or do you pick
and choose which are the laws that you trust God about?
A valid question. I, personally, follow the spirit of the law to the
letter. I know that may sound odd, but it is my position. I believe
many of the old testament laws were symbolic leading up to Christ.
When Christ fulfilled them, you didn't need the symbol anymore, which
is why Christ told Peter to eat all types of animals. Other laws,
however, were clearly not symbolic and were of a moral basis. These
laws based on right and wrong cannot have changed, because God's
definition of right and wrong do not change.
Ken Clifton
http://www.live365.com/stations/poetsoul
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Teach an Ape philosophy |
02 Sep 2005 10:17:36 AM |
|
|
"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
We may understand things a bit more, now, but we haven't explored more
than 1 percent of the world and what makes it up. We haven't tested
our society norms or their affect on society and relationships. We
still make a lot of mistakes. There are dangers all around that we
still don't even have a clue exist. So, even though God's laws may
seem harsh at times, I'll accept that he knows more than I do and his
rules are for my benefit and protection, as the rules of any parent
would be. In short, I'll trust God.
Does this mean that you keep kosher and avoid seafood? Or do you pick
and choose which are the laws that you trust God about?
A valid question. I, personally, follow the spirit of the law to the
letter.
In other words, you do whatever the hell you want, and then attempt to
justify it by picking and choosing among God's laws, and interpreting
them to maximize your saintliness.
I know that may sound odd, but it is my position. I believe
many of the old testament laws were symbolic leading up to Christ.
Why are some symbolic and others not symbolic? What makes you
uniquely qualified to decide?
When Christ fulfilled them, you didn't need the symbol anymore, which
is why Christ told Peter to eat all types of animals.
That doesn't explain most of the dietary laws. How did Christ fulfill
the seafood law?
Other laws, however, were clearly not symbolic and were of a moral basis.
Clearly to you perhaps. But to others, the things YOU call "moral"
might be merely symbolic to them, and vice versa.
These
laws based on right and wrong cannot have changed, because God's
definition of right and wrong do not change.
But God only defined "right and wrong" through his laws, so that means
that eating seafood is still wrong.
Why don't you stone your kids to death every time they are
disrespectful to you? Thus saith the Lord. Clearly not symbolic of
Christ either.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Secret Squirrel" |
|
| Title: Re: Teach an Ape philosophy |
05 Sep 2005 03:01:37 AM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1125604562.400180.291760@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Have you ever tried to teach an animal higher philosophy?
Try it. Explain to your dog that he shouldn't poop on the
sidewalk as way of following society's conventions and to
protect others from disease.
The dog doesn't need that advice; in natural numbers, he
and his ilk would never exist in high enough concentrations
for pooping on the sidewalk to ever become a sanitation
problem. And there'd be no sidewalks.
It will look at your with a smile as if to say, "Let's go
play ball." The point? It won't have a clue what you are
saying. The same can be said for early aged children.
They, also, won't have a clue what you are talking about.
So? They don't have language.
So, what do you do to protect them from danger? You say,
"Don't," or "NO," or such. If they do, you punish them and
show them the right way.
Heh, sometimes that doesn't work either.
What is my point? People died from sexual disease for
thousands of years before they understood what disease was.
No they didn't. Sexually transmitted diseases are a recent
phenomena. It's only been in the last 2000 years or so, at
most, when human population density rose to concentrations
dense enough to "support" such diseases, that they became a
threat.
However, the godly were protected by following the system
of DON'Ts and NOs that God had set up.
Those "dos" and "don'ts" had nothing to do with disease
prevention, and lots to do with wholly unrelated factors.
The creation of marriage, and hence exogamy. The encouragement
of warfare. The creation of patriarchy and the exploitation
of women and children.
In fact, Biblical "dos" and "don'ts" wouldn't have done
squat to prevent much disease, as a diseased Solomon would
have easily been able to transmit it to his whole harem.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQxo5AT/rA6+b3AyhAQF0mwf/Tp4i+senc/t+z3FS8UeF0Z4pytjEYy0c
6X+Hr0GVNE1x5KcytUDocF+4vU25waRuIXOmwbB2fQYdkquifGRS9Lr0fX77Kd9f
Q1VXF9xhGG8AFT78v9lC0rrtsgw2PP0JV6ERAjx+7pceeX6NCRnc7aLtiJTAaiaQ
GskJfGNvSykMpofkrrNxd5KMJg9DsDqXktgqw7J6XLQx/v9nhGLYZyjuFDmu2gvK
T3/PZDaI9SpEw32t9xSGnjDRByp6RAwRp+XZQNFeig0JytS4CZuXLUwEhwHvilb1
3VeCwghak3CGSVf/D+385uR4GCTyXxpeuj/jJZH0Z6dfZtvXilTk+w==
=27iy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Teach an Ape philosophy |
05 Sep 2005 12:39:53 PM |
|
|
Secret Squirrel wrote:
Have you ever tried to teach an animal higher philosophy?
Try it. Explain to your dog that he shouldn't poop on the
sidewalk as way of following society's conventions and to
protect others from disease.
The dog doesn't need that advice; in natural numbers, he
and his ilk would never exist in high enough concentrations
for pooping on the sidewalk to ever become a sanitation
problem. And there'd be no sidewalks.
True. People forget disease is mostly a problem with
overpopulation. I also keep my address book on a separate
file for the same reason.
So, what do you do to protect them from danger? You say,
"Don't," or "NO," or such. If they do, you punish them and
show them the right way.
Heh, sometimes that doesn't work either.
Just like humans. (There have been different theories of
criminology over the years, but no one denies the
majority of criminals know what they're doing is wrong.
Well, except back in the days of phrenology.)
What is my point? People died from sexual disease for
thousands of years before they understood what disease was.
No they didn't. Sexually transmitted diseases are a recent
phenomena. It's only been in the last 2000 years or so, at
most, when human population density rose to concentrations
dense enough to "support" such diseases, that they became a
threat.
Also true. But even then, DNA tends to be related to
geographic proximity, much to the chagrin of white
racists everywhere.
However, the godly were protected by following the system
of DON'Ts and NOs that God had set up.
Those "dos" and "don'ts" had nothing to do with disease
prevention, and lots to do with wholly unrelated factors.
The creation of marriage, and hence exogamy. The encouragement
of warfare. The creation of patriarchy and the exploitation
of women and children.
What is "patriarchy" anyway? Anthropologically,
[pm]atriarchy isn't an accepted term. Exogamy
itself does seem to strangely be more common in
smaller-scale societies. The !Kung actually exclude
3/4 of the opposite sex.
In fact, Biblical "dos" and "don'ts" wouldn't have done
squat to prevent much disease, as a diseased Solomon would
have easily been able to transmit it to his whole harem.
True. In fact, that's why HIV's such a problem in
Africa: The polygynous social structure. And of course
the women without husbands under such a system have to
become prostitutes. And remember, when a guy cheats,
it's not cheating.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Secret Squirrel" |
|
| Title: Re: Teach an Ape philosophy |
18 Sep 2005 07:12:40 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
man_in_black529@yahoo.com wrote in
news:1125941993.179604.166210@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Secret Squirrel wrote:
Those "dos" and "don'ts" had nothing to do with disease
prevention, and lots to do with wholly unrelated factors.
The creation of marriage, and hence exogamy. The
encouragement of warfare. The creation of patriarchy and
the exploitation of women and children.
What is "patriarchy" anyway? Anthropologically,
[pm]atriarchy isn't an accepted term.
I should have said patrilocality; the combination of "every
man a warrior" and patrilocality is not good news for women
and children. You have men hardened to kill, who have been
taught to settle disputes with violence, ruling the lives
of women and children and there frequently are no brakes.
(Matrilocality does put brakes on male warrior agresssion
by making the husband the stranger and surrounding the wife
with her brothers).
Exogamy
itself does seem to strangely be more common in
smaller-scale societies. The !Kung actually exclude
3/4 of the opposite sex.
That's actually pretty logical. The small-scale communities
require more cooperation and alliances; only when you have
families that have accumulated wealth can you start to drop
incest requirements. Much "incest" occurs among the elites,
as a strategy to preserve wealth and holdings, including
some cultures that encouraged brother-sister marriages to
achieve those ends.
Again, this is consistent with my contention that deep-down
we're like bonobos; what isn't prohibited by our cultures,
we can easily do. Not to mention of course that in cultures
where one is the top dog and can ignore the prohibitions that
are enforced on everyone else, any sexual fancy or whim is
entertained.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQyyuAT/rA6+b3AyhAQHxYAf/XWoJmpdPS9KP2JxXiXNKwbCV6Whvu2YJ
0bcUgFqZoTj6rxOJbX9bG2U4OsLJJ8MNsVtz4BNrHrMEjnujX6Ej7i2qcm0R2E/e
DcHsHCsptfYsqcgJZj6J6HK20mU9wjLEx/uvWUs878LPhsuhhOXuzBYdx0xZD7g7
n/wKF3NDwDVQcjEceE7EDdlLzjuceIL5Slb65kN8BAn3ws6R0itt10wjfWCKN4wU
1MVNpsj+NucjFkGtZnHuvG9GXKya3XDW9AatJTySsqHeOQuTxln4BlUH8j4qNP+h
EHRag+L4chg46ipola5nyMcdG6NhjGMnR6UWglXGuaQ0n8tgQmAH6Q==
=9VU5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Teach an Ape philosophy |
10 Sep 2005 04:31:31 AM |
|
|
Are you qualified?
Either be religious or think, that's the choice.
Well, in your case, that decision has come too late.
Religion is where the money is.
And that's the way it is, Tammy Faye Clifford.
Gray Shockley
---------------------------------------
And the bells always sound /so/ bad.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Teach an Ape philosophy |
01 Sep 2005 07:55:53 PM |
|
|
In article <1125604562.400180.291760@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
Have you ever tried to teach an animal higher philosophy? Try it.
Explain to your dog that he shouldn't poop on the sidewalk as way of
following society's conventions and to protect others from disease.
It will look at your with a smile as if to say, "Let's go play ball."
The point? It won't have a clue what you are saying. The same can be
said for early aged children. They, also, won't have a clue what you
are talking about.
So, what do you do to protect them from danger? You say, "Don't," or
"NO," or such. If they do, you punish them and show them the right
way.
What is my point? People died from sexual disease for thousands of
years before they understood what disease was. However, the godly were
protected by following the system of DON'Ts and NOs that God had set
up.
Really?
Tell me: what fatal sexual diseases existed in the Middle East
before, let us say, the fifteenth century?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: Teach an Ape philosophy |
02 Sep 2005 12:55:04 AM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:df87up$cct$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <1125604562.400180.291760@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
Have you ever tried to teach an animal higher philosophy? Try it.
Explain to your dog that he shouldn't poop on the sidewalk as way of
following society's conventions and to protect others from disease.
It will look at your with a smile as if to say, "Let's go play ball."
The point? It won't have a clue what you are saying. The same can be
said for early aged children. They, also, won't have a clue what you
are talking about.
So, what do you do to protect them from danger? You say, "Don't," or
"NO," or such. If they do, you punish them and show them the right
way.
What is my point? People died from sexual disease for thousands of
years before they understood what disease was. However, the godly were
protected by following the system of DON'Ts and NOs that God had set
up.
Really?
Tell me: what fatal sexual diseases existed in the Middle East
before, let us say, the fifteenth century?
I don't know if you've figured out the latest Everfresh douchebag trend, but
he doesn't respond to unbelievers anymore.
Evidently god has made him a martyr and there's no need anymore to address
the challenges.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Everfresh" |
|
| Title: Re: Teach an Ape philosophy |
02 Sep 2005 09:03:34 AM |
|
|
Dave Thompson wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:df87up$cct$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <1125604562.400180.291760@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
Have you ever tried to teach an animal higher philosophy? Try it.
Explain to your dog that he shouldn't poop on the sidewalk as way of
following society's conventions and to protect others from disease.
It will look at your with a smile as if to say, "Let's go play ball."
The point? It won't have a clue what you are saying. The same can be
said for early aged children. They, also, won't have a clue what you
are talking about.
So, what do you do to protect them from danger? You say, "Don't," or
"NO," or such. If they do, you punish them and show them the right
way.
What is my point? People died from sexual disease for thousands of
years before they understood what disease was. However, the godly were
protected by following the system of DON'Ts and NOs that God had set
up.
Really?
Tell me: what fatal sexual diseases existed in the Middle East
before, let us say, the fifteenth century?
I don't know if you've figured out the latest Everfresh douchebag trend, but
he doesn't respond to unbelievers anymore.
Evidently god has made him a martyr and there's no need anymore to address
the challenges.
Dave, I've personally responded to you many times in the past month,
but you keep saying that. The rule I use, however, it to not respond
to fools. If I have ignored you in the past, I figured your own words
made you look more foolish than any reply by me would have.
Ken Clifton
http://www.live365.com/stations/poetsoul
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Teach an Ape philosophy |
02 Sep 2005 09:17:59 AM |
|
|
In article <1125669814.532013.111930@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
Dave Thompson wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:df87up$cct$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <1125604562.400180.291760@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
Have you ever tried to teach an animal higher philosophy? Try it.
Explain to your dog that he shouldn't poop on the sidewalk as way of
following society's conventions and to protect others from disease.
It will look at your with a smile as if to say, "Let's go play ball."
The point? It won't have a clue what you are saying. The same can be
said for early aged children. They, also, won't have a clue what you
are talking about.
So, what do you do to protect them from danger? You say, "Don't," or
"NO," or such. If they do, you punish them and show them the right
way.
What is my point? People died from sexual disease for thousands of
years before they understood what disease was. However, the godly were
protected by following the system of DON'Ts and NOs that God had set
up.
Really?
Tell me: what fatal sexual diseases existed in the Middle East
before, let us say, the fifteenth century?
I don't know if you've figured out the latest Everfresh douchebag trend, but
he doesn't respond to unbelievers anymore.
Evidently god has made him a martyr and there's no need anymore to address
the challenges.
Dave, I've personally responded to you many times in the past month,
but you keep saying that. The rule I use, however, it to not respond
to fools. If I have ignored you in the past, I figured your own words
made you look more foolish than any reply by me would have.
Well, in that case, I'd say it's anything but a foolish question
to ask you exactly which fatal veneral diseases the Hebrews and early
Christians avoided by hewing to God's dicta.
After all, this it your thesis, not mine; I'm just looking
to explore it a bit.
Paul's discouraging of marriage would certainly have cut
down the death toll -- quite significant back then -- from
the venerially-induced medical condition known as
"pregnancy", but that's the only one I can think of.
And I'm going to guess that's not really what you
had in mind.
So, what sexual diseases were the people of The Book
dying for thousands of years before they understood what disease
was?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Everfresh" |
|
| Title: Re: Teach an Ape philosophy |
02 Sep 2005 09:23:58 AM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1125669814.532013.111930@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
Dave Thompson wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:df87up$cct$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <1125604562.400180.291760@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
Have you ever tried to teach an animal higher philosophy? Try it.
Explain to your dog that he shouldn't poop on the sidewalk as way of
following society's conventions and to protect others from disease.
It will look at your with a smile as if to say, "Let's go play ball."
The point? It won't have a clue what you are saying. The same can be
said for early aged children. They, also, won't have a clue what you
are talking about.
So, what do you do to protect them from danger? You say, "Don't," or
"NO," or such. If they do, you punish them and show them the right
way.
What is my point? People died from sexual disease for thousands of
years before they understood what disease was. However, the godly were
protected by following the system of DON'Ts and NOs that God had set
up.
Really?
Tell me: what fatal sexual diseases existed in the Middle East
before, let us say, the fifteenth century?
I don't know if you've figured out the latest Everfresh douchebag trend, but
he doesn't respond to unbelievers anymore.
Evidently god has made him a martyr and there's no need anymore to address
the challenges.
Dave, I've personally responded to you many times in the past month,
but you keep saying that. The rule I use, however, it to not respond
to fools. If I have ignored you in the past, I figured your own words
made you look more foolish than any reply by me would have.
Well, in that case, I'd say it's anything but a foolish question
to ask you exactly which fatal veneral diseases the Hebrews and early
Christians avoided by hewing to God's dicta.
After all, this it your thesis, not mine; I'm just looking
to explore it a bit.
Paul's discouraging of marriage would certainly have cut
down the death toll -- quite significant back then -- from
the venerially-induced medical condition known as
"pregnancy", but that's the only one I can think of.
And I'm going to guess that's not really what you
had in mind.
So, what sexual diseases were the people of The Book
dying for thousands of years before they understood what disease
was?
Are you actually telling me that when the Egyptians and others were
having sex with animals that you don't think diseases were formed?
You're telling me that when those that were having sex with animals had
sex with multiple human partners that the disesases didn't spread? I
think it's likely that many of the "plagues" of the olden days were
sexual in nature. For you to think that those others could have sex
with animals and multiple partners without disease is about an
unscientific of an assumption as you can get.
Ken Clifton
http://www.live365.com/stations/poetsoul
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Teach an Ape philosophy |
02 Sep 2005 10:30:29 AM |
|
|
"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
Well, in that case, I'd say it's anything but a foolish question
to ask you exactly which fatal veneral diseases the Hebrews and early
Christians avoided by hewing to God's dicta.
After all, this it your thesis, not mine; I'm just looking
to explore it a bit.
Paul's discouraging of marriage would certainly have cut
down the death toll -- quite significant back then -- from
the venerially-induced medical condition known as
"pregnancy", but that's the only one I can think of.
And I'm going to guess that's not really what you
had in mind.
So, what sexual diseases were the people of The Book
dying for thousands of years before they understood what disease
was?
Are you actually telling me that when the Egyptians and others were
having sex with animals that you don't think diseases were formed?
Disease isn't "formed". It is transmitted?
What diseases were transmitted by sexual relations with animals in
Egypt and the Middle East?
You're telling me that when those that were having sex with animals had
sex with multiple human partners that the disesases didn't spread?
There is no particular reason to believe that those particular actions
caused any particular disease to spread, and there were plenty of
other vectors for disease.
I mean, if the laws were really given by God to protect from disease,
why isn't it God's Law to wash your hands, or to cover your mouth when
coughing, or to drain standing water (that might breed mosquitoes)?
I
think it's likely that many of the "plagues" of the olden days were
sexual in nature.
And your evidence of such diseases, that have not been detected by
archaeologists, is?
One thing to note is that pretty much all of the sexually transmitted
diseases that are known are very slow to kill those who are infected.
If there were such diseases, they would be endemic, not epidemic.
For you to think that those others could have sex
with animals and multiple partners without disease is about an
unscientific of an assumption as you can get.
Actually, what is unscientific is to hypothesize that there was
disease resulting from those actions without any particular evidence.
You can't name the diseases, and you can't provide any evidence that
they were transmitted by sex.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Teach an Ape philosophy |
02 Sep 2005 11:00:13 AM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
Well, in that case, I'd say it's anything but a foolish question
to ask you exactly which fatal veneral diseases the Hebrews and early
Christians avoided by hewing to God's dicta.
After all, this it your thesis, not mine; I'm just looking
to explore it a bit.
Paul's discouraging of marriage would certainly have cut
down the death toll -- quite significant back then -- from
the venerially-induced medical condition known as
"pregnancy", but that's the only one I can think of.
And I'm going to guess that's not really what you
had in mind.
So, what sexual diseases were the people of The Book
dying for thousands of years before they understood what disease
was?
Are you actually telling me that when the Egyptians and others were
having sex with animals that you don't think diseases were formed?
Disease isn't "formed". It is transmitted?
What diseases were transmitted by sexual relations with animals in
Egypt and the Middle East?
You're telling me that when those that were having sex with animals had
sex with multiple human partners that the disesases didn't spread?
There is no particular reason to believe that those particular actions
caused any particular disease to spread, and there were plenty of
other vectors for disease.
I mean, if the laws were really given by God to protect from disease,
why isn't it God's Law to wash your hands, or to cover your mouth when
coughing, or to drain standing water (that might breed mosquitoes)?
I
think it's likely that many of the "plagues" of the olden days were
sexual in nature.
And your evidence of such diseases, that have not been detected by
archaeologists, is?
And the forensic anthropologists. I'd think they'd be even more
likely to be able to demonstrate evidence.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Everfresh" |
|
| Title: Re: Teach an Ape philosophy |
02 Sep 2005 10:36:32 AM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
Well, in that case, I'd say it's anything but a foolish question
to ask you exactly which fatal veneral diseases the Hebrews and early
Christians avoided by hewing to God's dicta.
After all, this it your thesis, not mine; I'm just looking
to explore it a bit.
Paul's discouraging of marriage would certainly have cut
down the death toll -- quite significant back then -- from
the venerially-induced medical condition known as
"pregnancy", but that's the only one I can think of.
And I'm going to guess that's not really what you
had in mind.
So, what sexual diseases were the people of The Book
dying for thousands of years before they understood what disease
was?
Are you actually telling me that when the Egyptians and others were
having sex with animals that you don't think diseases were formed?
Disease isn't "formed". It is transmitted?
What diseases were transmitted by sexual relations with animals in
Egypt and the Middle East?
You're telling me that when those that were having sex with animals had
sex with multiple human partners that the disesases didn't spread?
There is no particular reason to believe that those particular actions
caused any particular disease to spread, and there were plenty of
other vectors for disease.
I mean, if the laws were really given by God to protect from disease,
why isn't it God's Law to wash your hands, or to cover your mouth when
coughing, or to drain standing water (that might breed mosquitoes)?
I
think it's likely that many of the "plagues" of the olden days were
sexual in nature.
And your evidence of such diseases, that have not been detected by
archaeologists, is?
One thing to note is that pretty much all of the sexually transmitted
diseases that are known are very slow to kill those who are infected.
If there were such diseases, they would be endemic, not epidemic.
For you to think that those others could have sex
with animals and multiple partners without disease is about an
unscientific of an assumption as you can get.
Actually, what is unscientific is to hypothesize that there was
disease resulting from those actions without any particular evidence.
You can't name the diseases, and you can't provide any evidence that
they were transmitted by sex.
Actually, Bob, I shouldn't be so hard on you. You suffer from the same
blindness most do on your side. You think that if you can't see
something, it doesn't exist, even if your own scientific rules require
it to be so. A dead body with a gunshot doesn't mean someone had a gun
or pulled a trigger if there is no gun present. A baby on the side of
the road in the middle of nowhere doesn't mean there was either a
mother or a car to bring it there, since there is no car present.
We know that diseases spread by sexual contact, but you cannot conclude
sexual diseases would spread faster among the sexually active than they
would among those that have only had one parter, who has also only had
one partner. It's logically true, but your side is very bad at logic.
Ken Clifton
http://www.live365.com/stations/poetsoul
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Teach an Ape philosophy |
02 Sep 2005 11:25:56 AM |
|
|
"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
For you to think that those others could have sex
with animals and multiple partners without disease is about an
unscientific of an assumption as you can get.
Actually, what is unscientific is to hypothesize that there was
disease resulting from those actions without any particular evidence.
You can't name the diseases, and you can't provide any evidence that
they were transmitted by sex.
Actually, Bob, I shouldn't be so hard on you. You suffer from the same
blindness most do on your side. You think that if you can't see
something, it doesn't exist, even if your own scientific rules require
it to be so.
Actually, science doesn't require anyone to "see" it. Science
requires that there be independently verifiable evidence of some sort.
We know that diseases spread by sexual contact,
They spread by lots of means, with sexual conduct being one of the
less common.
but you cannot conclude
sexual diseases would spread faster among the sexually active than they
would among those that have only had one parter, who has also only had
one partner.
Of course they would spread faster. But "faster" is relative. And
none of the STDs is as rapidly spreading as cholera or polio or any of
a number of other diseases that have no sexual component.
Logic would tell you why, also. Even the sexually active aren't
having sex continuously, and really sick people tend not to have sex.
If an STD killed quickly, then the STD wouldn't transmit because the
people who caught it would die before they passed it on. The major
killing STDs: AIDs, syphilis, gonorrhea, take years to kill their
victims, so that they have a chance to pass it on before the victims
die.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Teach an Ape philosophy |
02 Sep 2005 10:57:23 AM |
|
|
In article <1125675392.555934.301440@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
Well, in that case, I'd say it's anything but a foolish question
to ask you exactly which fatal veneral diseases the Hebrews and early
Christians avoided by hewing to God's dicta.
After all, this it your thesis, not mine; I'm just looking
to explore it a bit.
Paul's discouraging of marriage would certainly have cut
down the death toll -- quite significant back then -- from
the venerially-induced medical condition known as
"pregnancy", but that's the only one I can think of.
And I'm going to guess that's not really what you
had in mind.
So, what sexual diseases were the people of The Book
dying for thousands of years before they understood what disease
was?
Are you actually telling me that when the Egyptians and others were
having sex with animals that you don't think diseases were formed?
Disease isn't "formed". It is transmitted?
What diseases were transmitted by sexual relations with animals in
Egypt and the Middle East?
You're telling me that when those that were having sex with animals had
sex with multiple human partners that the disesases didn't spread?
There is no particular reason to believe that those particular actions
caused any particular disease to spread, and there were plenty of
other vectors for disease.
I mean, if the laws were really given by God to protect from disease,
why isn't it God's Law to wash your hands, or to cover your mouth when
coughing, or to drain standing water (that might breed mosquitoes)?
I
think it's likely that many of the "plagues" of the olden days were
sexual in nature.
And your evidence of such diseases, that have not been detected by
archaeologists, is?
One thing to note is that pretty much all of the sexually transmitted
diseases that are known are very slow to kill those who are infected.
If there were such diseases, they would be endemic, not epidemic.
For you to think that those others could have sex
with animals and multiple partners without disease is about an
unscientific of an assumption as you can get.
Actually, what is unscientific is to hypothesize that there was
disease resulting from those actions without any particular evidence.
You can't name the diseases, and you can't provide any evidence that
they were transmitted by sex.
Actually, Bob, I shouldn't be so hard on you. You suffer from the same
blindness most do on your side.
Christians are blind?
Bob is a Christian, you know.
You think that if you can't see
something, it doesn't exist, even if your own scientific rules require
it to be so. A dead body with a gunshot doesn't mean someone had a gun
or pulled a trigger if there is no gun present. A baby on the side of
the road in the middle of nowhere doesn't mean there was either a
mother or a car to bring it there, since there is no car present.
Actually, I would agree that there is sufficent evidence for both
of those hypotheses. I rather imagine Bob will too.
But there's a world of difference between accepting strong circumstantial
evidence, such as your two examples, and accepting your claim that sexual
fidelity protected the faithful against the various lethal sexual diseases --
when you cannot pinpoint even a single such disease as having been present
at the time and in that place.
My question was not frivolous -- I asked it because off the top of
my head, I could not think of a single deadly veneral disease
in that region at that time. Can you?
We know that diseases spread by sexual contact, but you cannot conclude
sexual diseases would spread faster among the sexually active than they
would among those that have only had one parter, who has also only had
one partner. It's logically true, but your side is very bad at logic.
You are logically correct -- but only if such diseases are present
in the population. I cannnot name any which were, not back then.
Can you?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Teach an Ape philosophy and a Religionist Rationality |
10 Sep 2005 03:31:40 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 10:57:23 -0500, Cary Kittrell wrote
(in article <df9sp3$1qd$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>):
In article <1125675392.555934.301440@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
Well, in that case, I'd say it's anything but a foolish question
to ask you exactly which fatal veneral diseases the Hebrews and early
Christians avoided by hewing to God's dicta.
After all, this it your thesis, not mine; I'm just looking
to explore it a bit.
Paul's discouraging of marriage would certainly have cut
down the death toll -- quite significant back then -- from
the venerially-induced medical condition known as
"pregnancy", but that's the only one I can think of.
And I'm going to guess that's not really what you
had in mind.
So, what sexual diseases were the people of The Book
dying for thousands of years before they understood what disease
was?
Are you actually telling me that when the Egyptians and others were
having sex with animals that you don't think diseases were formed?
Disease isn't "formed". It is transmitted?
What diseases were transmitted by sexual relations with animals in
Egypt and the Middle East?
You're telling me that when those that were having sex with animals had
sex with multiple human partners that the disesases didn't spread?
There is no particular reason to believe that those particular actions
caused any particular disease to spread, and there were plenty of
other vectors for disease.
I mean, if the laws were really given by God to protect from disease,
why isn't it God's Law to wash your hands, or to cover your mouth when
coughing, or to drain standing water (that might breed mosquitoes)?
I
think it's likely that many of the "plagues" of the olden days were
sexual in nature.
And your evidence of such diseases, that have not been detected by
archaeologists, is?
One thing to note is that pretty much all of the sexually transmitted
diseases that are known are very slow to kill those who are infected.
If there were such diseases, they would be endemic, not epidemic.
For you to think that those others could have sex
with animals and multiple partners without disease is about an
unscientific of an assumption as you can get.
Actually, what is unscientific is to hypothesize that there was
disease resulting from those actions without any particular evidence.
You can't name the diseases, and you can't provide any evidence that
they were transmitted by sex.
Actually, Bob, I shouldn't be so hard on you. You suffer from the same
blindness most do on your side.
Christians are blind?
Bob is a Christian, you know.
Bob's religion has not been approved by Pat Robertson, the Ku Klux Klan, John
Knight, Ever "Sins of the Flesh" Fresh, Antonin Scalia, Michael Brown, Robert
Louis Stevenson or any of the aforementioned partridges in pear trees.
Remember, many people think that Thomas Jefferson was a Christian because he
owned slaves.
Gray Shockley
---------------------------------------
Yes but only in Her case.
You think that if you can't see
something, it doesn't exist, even if your own scientific rules require
it to be so. A dead body with a gunshot doesn't mean someone had a gun
or pulled a trigger if there is no gun present. A baby on the side of
the road in the middle of nowhere doesn't mean there was either a
mother or a car to bring it there, since there is no car present.
Actually, I would agree that there is sufficent evidence for both
of those hypotheses. I rather imagine Bob will too.
But there's a world of difference between accepting strong circumstantial
evidence, such as your two examples, and accepting your claim that sexual
fidelity protected the faithful against the various lethal sexual diseases --
when you cannot pinpoint even a single such disease as having been present
at the time and in that place.
My question was not frivolous -- I asked it because off the top of
my head, I could not think of a single deadly veneral disease
in that region at that time. Can you?
We know that diseases spread by sexual contact, but you cannot conclude
sexual diseases would spread faster among the sexually active than they
would among those that have only had one parter, who has also only had
one partner. It's logically true, but your side is very bad at logic.
You are logically correct -- but only if such diseases are present
in the population. I cannnot name any which were, not back then.
Can you?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: What qualifications to be an authoritarian pompous *****? [was:Teach an Ape philosophy] |
12 Sep 2005 10:12:42 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 10:36:32 -0500, Everfresh wrote:
Actually, Bob, I shouldn't be so hard on you. You suffer from the same
blindness most do on your side. You think that if you can't see
something, it doesn't exist, even if your own scientific rules require
it to be so.
And what qualifications do you have, Ken Clifford, that allow you to be such
a pompous, authoritative *****?
Is your IQ higher ("GT" score is pretty close to one's IQ) than the people to
whom you talk down?
Do you have more education than the people to whom you are trying to act
superior?
Have you had life experiences that are more significant than mehums?
Have you been a success in everything you hve tried?
It's just always interesting what background pompous asses such as you and
John ScatBoy Knight have and what you have in common.
Gray Shockley
---------------------------------------
If someone knows the answer before
knowing the question, this has nothing
to do with rationality and everything
to do with religion.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Everfresh" |
|
| Title: Re: Teach an Ape philosophy |
02 Sep 2005 09:29:48 AM |
|
|
Everfresh wrote:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1125669814.532013.111930@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
Dave Thompson wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:df87up$cct$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <1125604562.400180.291760@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
Have you ever tried to teach an animal higher philosophy? Try it.
Explain to your dog that he shouldn't poop on the sidewalk as way of
following society's conventions and to protect others from disease.
It will look at your with a smile as if to say, "Let's go play ball."
The point? It won't have a clue what you are saying. The same can be
said for early aged children. They, also, won't have a clue what you
are talking about.
So, what do you do to protect them from danger? You say, "Don't," or
"NO," or such. If they do, you punish them and show them the right
way.
What is my point? People died from sexual disease for thousands of
years before they understood what disease was. However, the godly were
protected by following the system of DON'Ts and NOs that God had set
up.
Really?
Tell me: what fatal sexual diseases existed in the Middle East
before, let us say, the fifteenth century?
I don't know if you've figured out the latest Everfresh douchebag trend, but
he doesn't respond to unbelievers anymore.
Evidently god has made him a martyr and there's no need anymore to address
the challenges.
Dave, I've personally responded to you many times in the past month,
but you keep saying that. The rule I use, however, it to not respond
to fools. If I have ignored you in the past, I figured your own words
made you look more foolish than any reply by me would have.
Well, in that case, I'd say it's anything but a foolish question
to ask you exactly which fatal veneral diseases the Hebrews and early
Christians avoided by hewing to God's dicta.
After all, this it your thesis, not mine; I'm just looking
to explore it a bit.
Paul's discouraging of marriage would certainly have cut
down the death toll -- quite significant back then -- from
the venerially-induced medical condition known as
"pregnancy", but that's the only one I can think of.
And I'm going to guess that's not really what you
had in mind.
So, what sexual diseases were the people of The Book
dying for thousands of years before they understood what disease
was?
Are you actually telling me that when the Egyptians and others were
having sex with animals that you don't think diseases were formed?
You're telling me that when those that were having sex with animals had
sex with multiple human partners that the disesases didn't spread? I
think it's likely that many of the "plagues" of the olden days were
sexual in nature. For you to think that those others could have sex
with animals and multiple partners without disease is about an
unscientific of an assumption as you can get.
Another example. When brothers and sisters have sex, it reduces the
gene pool and disease and deformity can occur, yet they didn't know
that. Many other regions were having sex in the families, while the
righteous were protected by their faith. Why don't you address the
rest of the point of the post. Do you really have such an ego that you
expect to understand all things now enough to know more than God? Do
you know what the sociological and emotional toll will be of some of
the current immoral norms will be? Can you explain to me how divorce
(accepted in our current day) is not harmful on children?
Ken Clifton
http://www.live365.com/stations/poetsoul
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Teach an Ape philosophy |
02 Sep 2005 10:04:07 AM |
|
|
"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com>
Everfresh wrote:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1125669814.532013.111930@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
Dave Thompson wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:df87up$cct$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <1125604562.400180.291760@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
Have you ever tried to teach an animal higher philosophy? Try it.
Explain to your dog that he shouldn't poop on the sidewalk as way of
following society's conventions and to protect others from disease.
It will look at your with a smile as if to say, "Let's go play ball."
The point? It won't have a clue what you are saying. The same can be
said for early aged children. They, also, won't have a clue what you
are talking about.
So, what do you do to protect them from danger? You say, "Don't," or
"NO," or such. If they do, you punish them and show them the right
way.
What is my point? People died from sexual disease for thousands of
years before they understood what disease was. However, the godly were
protected by following the system of DON'Ts and NOs that God had set
up.
Really?
Tell me: what fatal sexual diseases existed in the Middle East
before, let us say, the fifteenth century?
I don't know if you've figured out the latest Everfresh douchebag trend, but
he doesn't respond to unbelievers anymore.
Evidently god has made him a martyr and there's no need anymore to address
the challenges.
Dave, I've personally responded to you many times in the past month,
but you keep saying that. The rule I use, however, it to not respond
to fools. If I have ignored you in the past, I figured your own words
made you look more foolish than any reply by me would have.
Well, in that case, I'd say it's anything but a foolish question
to ask you exactly which fatal veneral diseases the Hebrews and early
Christians avoided by hewing to God's dicta.
After all, this it your thesis, not mine; I'm just looking
to explore it a bit.
Paul's discouraging of marriage would certainly have cut
down the death toll -- quite significant back then -- from
the venerially-induced medical condition known as
"pregnancy", but that's the only one I can think of.
And I'm going to guess that's not really what you
had in mind.
So, what sexual diseases were the people of The Book
dying for thousands of years before they understood what disease
was?
Are you actually telling me that when the Egyptians and others were
having sex with animals that you don't think diseases were formed?
You're telling me that when those that were having sex with animals had
sex with multiple human partners that the disesases didn't spread? I
think it's likely that many of the "plagues" of the olden days were
sexual in nature. For you to think that those others could have sex
with animals and multiple partners without disease is about an
unscientific of an assumption as you can get.
Another example. When brothers and sisters have sex, it reduces the
gene pool and disease and deformity can occur, yet they didn't know
that.
We do in fact know that: it's in our wiring. And my evidence for that
statement is the fact that every culture has incest taboos.
The definition of who is forbidden varies wildly, but every
culture forbids marriage between the most closely genetically-
related family members (with occasional exceptions for political reasons)
So, by your argument, all the gods which man has worshipped
are real, and are wiser than you and me, because all cultures,
whatever their gods, forbid interbreeding.
Many other regions were having sex in the families, while the
righteous were protected by their faith.
Now that smacks of propaganda. Please provide me with a few
credible -- and that means non-political, and non-mythological
as well -- credible sources which speak of religions in which getting
pregnang by your father or your brother was encouraged.
Why don't you address the
rest of the point of the post. Do you really have such an ego that you
expect to understand all things now enough to know more than God?
Of course, that very same argument can be made for the wisdom of Vishnu,
or Wotan, or Susano-no-Moto.
Do
you know what the sociological and emotional toll will be of some of
the current immoral norms will be?
Which "immoral norms" do you have in mind?
Can you explain to me how divorce
(accepted in our current day) is not harmful on children?
Oh, I agree that divorce is bad (except in those cases where
the alternative is worse).
And of course I cannot resist noting that the Bible
Belt has the highest rate of divorce in this country.
But that last's just me being snarky; it doesn't mitigate against
your argument against divorce.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Everfresh" |
|
| Title: Re: Teach an Ape philosophy |
02 Sep 2005 10:27:22 AM |
|
|
So, basically, you agree that the religious were protected from
sociological and emotional damage and disease by following their
religious laws. It was a simple, obvious statement, but apparently I
have to explain every simple concept to you before you will agree.
Ken Clifton
http://www.live365.com/stations/poetsoul
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Teach an Ape philosophy |
02 Sep 2005 11:35:23 AM |
|
|
"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
So, basically, you agree that the religious were protected from
sociological and emotional damage and disease by following their
religious laws.
In some cases, the laws protected the people. But those weren't laws
from "God" since they also showed up in other cultures that did not
worship that God, and they all pertained to disease causes that could
be easily recognized by unscientific observation, and they all
included some laws that are clearly rooted in superstition.
We don't see any evidence of laws from God that provided protections
from things that human beings had no understanding of at all. Things
like basic hygiene, avoidance of mosquitos and rats, etc.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Teach an Ape philosophy |
02 Sep 2005 10:44:19 AM |
|
|
In article <1125674842.905506.49040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> "Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
So, basically, you agree that the religious were protected from
sociological and emotional damage and disease by following their
religious laws. It was a simple, obvious statement, but apparently I
have to explain every simple concept to you before you will agree.
Well, it'd be real helpful if I knew which part of my
rambling reply you're referring to here, but assuming
that you mean the portion regarding incest: what I said
was that our species comes equipped with a hard-wired aversion
to incest, just as do many other mammals and birds (and
many do not)
And when we invent our gods, we often put this innate
knowledge into their mouths.
If that description is compatible your concept of what
it means to be of "the religious", well then
I suppose we do agree.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Teach an Ape philosophy |
02 Sep 2005 10:38:34 AM |
|
|
"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Another example. When brothers and sisters have sex, it reduces the
gene pool and disease and deformity can occur, yet they didn't know
that.
Of course they did. Such things could be observed in breeding
animals, which had been done for millennia, not to mention people.
Many other regions were having sex in the families,
Which regions?
while the
righteous were protected by their faith. Why don't you address the
rest of the point of the post. Do you really have such an ego that you
expect to understand all things now enough to know more than God?
I think the point is that what you call "God's Laws" were not from God
at all, but were laws invented *by men*, based on their observations
of what happened in real life, some based on superstition and some
based on practical experience. Most of them can be made sense of in
terms of the culture and knowledge of the time.
Do
you know what the sociological and emotional toll will be of some of
the current immoral norms will be?
Do you? (No, you don't)
Can you explain to me how divorce
(accepted in our current day) is not harmful on children?
The question is whether it is or is not *more* harmful than two people
remaining together in a less than harmonious relationship. There ARE
worse things than being raised in a single parent household.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Teach an Ape philosophy |
02 Sep 2005 09:51:10 AM |
|
|
In article <1125671038.221707.23090@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> "Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1125669814.532013.111930@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
Dave Thompson wrote:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:df87up$cct$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <1125604562.400180.291760@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
"Everfresh" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
Have you ever tried to teach an animal higher philosophy? Try it.
Explain to your dog that he shouldn't poop on the sidewalk as way of
following society's conventions and to protect others from disease.
It will look at your with a smile as if to say, "Let's go play ball."
The point? It won't have a clue what you are saying. The same can be
said for early aged children. They, also, won't have a clue what you
are talking about.
So, what do you do to protect them from danger? You say, "Don't," or
"NO," or such. If they do, you punish them and show them the right
way.
What is my point? People died from sexual disease for thousands of
years before they understood what disease was. However, the godly were
protected by following the system of DON'Ts and NOs that God had set
up.
Really?
Tell me: what fatal sexual diseases existed in the Middle East
before, let us say, the fifteenth century?
I don't know if you've figured out the latest Everfresh douchebag trend, but
he doesn't respond to unbelievers anymore.
Evidently god has made him a martyr and there's no need anymore to address
the challenges.
Dave, I've personally responded to you many times in the past month,
but you keep saying that. The rule I use, however, it to not respond
to fools. If I have ignored you in the past, I figured your own words
made you look more foolish than any reply by me would have.
Well, in that case, I'd say it's anything but a foolish question
to ask you exactly which fatal veneral diseases the Hebrews and early
Christians avoided by hewing to God's dicta.
After all, this it your thesis, not mine; I'm just looking
to explore it a bit.
Paul's discouraging of marriage would certainly have cut
down the death toll -- quite significant back then -- from
the venerially-induced medical condition known as
"pregnancy", but that's the only one I can think of.
And I'm going to guess that's not really what you
had in mind.
So, what sexual diseases were the people of The Book
dying for thousands of years before they understood what disease
was?
Are you actually telling me that when the Egyptians and others were
having sex with animals that you don't think diseases were formed?
You're telling me that when those that were having sex with animals had
sex with multiple human partners that the disesases didn't spread?
You know, you are far more likely to get sick from kissing
your wife than you are from kissing your dog. Humans carry
many more of the diseases which afflict humans than other
animals do. "Eeeuw, animals are icky!" is an understandable
emotional reaction, but it's lousy microbiology.
So if it's a life of wanton and indiscriminate sex someone desires,
purely from consideratsion of avoiding disease they'd be better
off screwing animals than humans.
And to be really safe, keep it out of the apes and the monkeys, as
well. The further you get from the primates, the safer you'll be.
What're you going to get from sheep, venearal scrapie?
I think it's likely that many of the "plagues" of the olden days were
sexual in nature. For you to think that those others could have sex
with animals and multiple partners without disease is about an
unscientific of an assumption as you can get.
"Scientific" means being able to back up your hypothesis
with some plausible specifics. Making grandiose and sweeping
ideas without at least a few credible examples isn't
scientific hypothesizing, it's blue-skying, or bull-shitting,
or, sometimes, cosmology.
Interestingly, you're the first person who's ever told me that the
Egyptians were leading lives of wanton and poly-specific
debauchary.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Teach an Ape philosophy |
02 Sep 2005 11:14:41 AM |
|
|
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
"Scientific" means being able to back up your hypothesis
with some plausible specifics. Making grandiose and sweeping
ideas without at least a few credible examples isn't
scientific hypothesizing, it's blue-skying, or bull-shitting,
or, sometimes, cosmology.
Interestingly, you're the first person who's ever told me that the
Egyptians were leading lives of wanton and poly-specific
debauchary.
Actually, the later Pharaohs were among the *few* cultures to practice
incest as a virtue rather than a taboo - gotta keep that godly blood
intact. I'm not sure if that was the case in the time of Moses,
however, but it probably qualifies under Everdumb's definitions as
"wanton".
It is plausible that the animal heads of the various gods indicate
some sort of prehistoric animal worship that may have involved sex
with animals by the priests, but I doubt if it was a culture-wide
phenomenon, or even applied to all the animals - how does one have sex
with an alligator?
On the other hand the Irish did OK, and I was reading yesterday
(fiction, but apparently based on research), that their high kings had
to have sex with a white mare as proof of their worthiness for office.
Haven't heard anything about plagues affecting the Irish (though it is
one more tidbit to check out for when the nincompoop tries to claim
that the Celts were the Israelites in drag and kept God's Laws).
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Teach an Ape philosophy |
02 Sep 2005 11:21:34 AM |
|
|
In article <a6tgh1hv6cgv5uob7hl8knbd4dcq44h87k@4ax.com> Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> writes:
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
"Scientific" means being able to back up your hypothesis
with some plausible specifics. Making grandiose and sweeping
ideas without at least a few credible examples isn't
scientific hypothesizing, it's blue-skying, or bull-shitting,
or, sometimes, cosmology.
Interestingly, you're the first person who's ever told me that the
Egyptians were leading lives of wanton and poly-specific
debauchary.
Actually, the later Pharaohs were among the *few* cultures to practice
incest as a virtue rather than a taboo - gotta keep that godly blood
intact. I'm not sure if that was the case in the time of Moses,
however, but it probably qualifies under Everdumb's definitions as
"wanton".
In fact that example is why I put in that caerful disclaimer
about occasional exceptions for political reasons.
And then there's the Hapsburgs...
It is plausible that the animal heads of the various gods indicate
some sort of prehistoric animal worship that may have involved sex
with animals by the priests, but I doubt if it was a culture-wide
phenomenon, or even applied to all the animals - how does one have sex
with an alligator?
On the other hand the Irish did OK, and I was reading yesterday
(fiction, but apparently based on research), that their high kings had
to have sex with a white mare as proof of their worthiness for office.
Haven't heard anything about plagues affecting the Irish (though it is
one more tidbit to check out for when the nincompoop tries to claim
that the Celts were the Israelites in drag and kept God's Laws).
Heh.
Hmmmm... maybe the sex-with-a-mare proviso was put there to
discourage potential ursupers. Hey, it works for me.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
