Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Field Researcher
#51 Old 27th Sep 2010 at 12:00 PM
The pope is not a state representative as such (does the Vatican really count as an actual state? I'd argue against that), and I do not think a secular state should sponsor visits from religious leaders. That said, my knowledge of this case is pretty superficial.

Quote: Originally posted by Element Leaf
Ribbed and lubricated is all I'm going to say.

It is my understanding that such gimmicks are usually employed for the sake of the receptive partner and thus wouldn't necessarily encourage already disinclined men to use a condom. If someone doesn't care about whether or not they are exposing their partner to health risks, I don't think they would care about any additional sensation.

Quote: Originally posted by Wojtek
5. I think abortion should only be legal when a pregnant woman's life is threatened or an embryo is damaged. The raped women should also have right to abortion.

Why so? If this is about killing unborn babies, surely rape does not make it a more acceptable practice. But that's probably material for a different thread.

One S, two As.
Advertisement
Scholar
#52 Old 27th Sep 2010 at 1:21 PM
Please do. There was an abortion topic somewhere around here.

EDIT: "1. I think everyone has right to express his/her opinions freely and not to be afraid of being criticized or ridiculed."

I can get ridiculed. But criticized? That's going a bit far there, isn't it? Or do you mean criticizing the person rather than the statement? Even then, I still see it as going a bit far, though.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Theorist
#53 Old 27th Sep 2010 at 2:25 PM
Quote: Originally posted by unalisaa
The pope is not a state representative as such (does the Vatican really count as an actual state? I'd argue against that), and I do not think a secular state should sponsor visits from religious leaders. That said, my knowledge of this case is pretty superficial.

Vatican City is actually a State, and the Pope is the actual head of State of Vatican City. You can argue against that all you like, but it's a fact and you'd be wrong. Seriously: You can have an opinion on other things here today, but this really isn't open for discussion unless you think your personal opinion matters whatsoever in how a foreign country picks their governance and provenance.
Scholar
#54 Old 27th Sep 2010 at 3:16 PM
Aren't they technically a city-state? Not that it makes a difference.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Field Researcher
#55 Old 27th Sep 2010 at 3:37 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Mistermook
Vatican City is actually a State, and the Pope is the actual head of State of Vatican City. You can argue against that all you like, but it's a fact and you'd be wrong. Seriously: You can have an opinion on other things here today, but this really isn't open for discussion unless you think your personal opinion matters whatsoever in how a foreign country picks their governance and provenance.

Oh, didn't mean to say it wasn't in a legal sense. I'm just saying that it does not have any permanent residents, and despite its status as an actual sovereign state, it does not qualify as a state with which one can have any purely diplomatic connections - only religiously tainted ones.

One S, two As.
Field Researcher
#56 Old 27th Sep 2010 at 6:55 PM
Clearly, I did not phrase what I was trying to say in a manner that makes sense; I apologise.
I do not think the Vatican should be considered "a country just like any other", despite its actual legal status as a country just like any other. It is extraordinary (it is not just a non-secular state, it actually exists for religious purposes only) and in my opinion should be treated as such.
My opinion might be stupid, but I am, however ignorant I may have come off as being, reasonably well-informed about the state of the Vatican (ha ha, see what I did there? "The state of the Vatican"? I'll be here all week, folks!).

One S, two As.
Scholar
#57 Old 27th Sep 2010 at 6:59 PM
"and in my opinion should be treated as such."

I don't quite follow with this, though. What kind of treatment are you referring to? If you were a country, how would you treat it?

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Scholar
Original Poster
#58 Old 28th Sep 2010 at 5:18 PM
Quote: Originally posted by supersimoholic
Yes. In my opinion religion is a way of controlling people, stopping them from thinking for themselves.
In stead of teaching children, "do do this because it's wrong" it's "don't do this because you'll go to hell"


Okay, so by that logic the laws which our country state we have to abide by are evil because they're telling us that we have to "do this or you'll go to jail". Sorry, but the church giving moral guidence isn't evil. Please explain to me what is wrong about teaching children that they should not steal, disrespect their parents, or murder.

Quote:
It makes people believe that they are weak, like every time they accomplish something themselves that they wouldn't have been able to do it without "god" so when they something bad happens, they are completely shattered because they feel abandoned.


I don't feel weak. As a religious I feel strong knowing that God is watching over me. Clearly you don't know a lot about religion if it makes people feel weak! It makes people feel stronger knowing that someone is watching over them. When something bad happens, it's either just because... something bad happened (evil/badness etc does exist as well otherwise there would be no such thing as good) or because you just decide via opinion that its bad. You might think its bad that that guy said no to going out with you, but its unfair to blame that on God.

Quote:
they wouldn't feel abandoned if they didn't believe there was something there in the first place. I think it's cruel to give people such false hope. But, like I said, that's just my opinion, and that's why I think it's wrong.


95-99% of the world's population believe in a God according to current census/exstimates etc (got that from a school textbook dated 2008). Clearly there must be something to it.


As for the Pope abuse scandal topic thing - yes, I was trying to say that the Pope who was in office during the time the scandal happened was not the Pope that we have today. Also, to say that Priests shouldn't be celibate just because a few are evil paedophiles (at about the same rate in the general population) then that's a bit like saying people who can't produce children shouldn't have sex at all because it's not going to "work".

I'm supporting the Optimist Camp for the Sims 4.




.
Scholar
#59 Old 28th Sep 2010 at 6:14 PM
No. No it's not. One is simply not having children through some form of biological problem, natural or otherwise. There's still artificial insemination, there's still adoption.

The other. It ruins lives. It destroys their innocence, it can take years for them to recover from, if ever. More than one have committed suicide over it. It can never be undone. It is not the fault of the children. It is the fault of those priests who have took advantage of their positions, sometimes of years. It is one of the most vile crimes I can imagine.

They are NOTHING alike. And if it would put an end, if it would stop even just once case, then let those priests have marriages, let them be able to have sex.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
The other one
#60 Old 28th Sep 2010 at 6:18 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Wojtek
Coming back to the real purpose of the debate I think the British people shouldn't have whined about how they were supposed to pay for the visit because their Prime Minister and other representatives of their country also visit other countries and are paid for that. It is a routine.


So the Queen and PMs go on all those foreign visits because they get money from ....who? Do you mean the countries in question pay for their security? Does this money that they get paid come back to the British tax payer? I'm genuinely asking, it's not something I have a lot of knowledge of but you seem to know quite a bit.

Also, I don't recall at any point in history (though I never was any good at history ) the British tax payers petitioning Downing Street to send more people on jollies half way around the world 'on us'. Or to bring more foreign representatives to us. Diplomats tend to just do these things without consulting us then forcing us to foot the bill. Most of the visits to us happen in and around London and maybe a couple of other major cities like Manchester anyway so the rest of the country doesn't even get to say they saw so and so, they just pay for it with taxes. Perhaps that's why some people whine about it.

I'm not saying all foreign visits (to and from us) are unnecessary but I bet at least a quarter of the reasons for them could be dealt with by conference calling. I know for a fact that when given the choice of staying in cold, rainy Britain to make a bunch of long phonecalls or going off to some exotic land to have a natter with some foreign blokes (and blokettes) while someone else foots the bill most senior execs will find an excuse for why they must choose the latter because it's a perk of the job. Britains leaders aren't above a bit of wheeling and dealing, they proved that fairly recently. So I haven't whined about it (untill now) but yes, I am pissed off about the amount of jollies we end up paying for.

Guys, rules are good! Rules help control the fun. ~ Monica E. Geller
Scholar
Original Poster
#61 Old 28th Sep 2010 at 7:32 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Nekowolf
No. No it's not. One is simply not having children through some form of biological problem, natural or otherwise. There's still artificial insemination, there's still adoption.

The other. It ruins lives. It destroys their innocence, it can take years for them to recover from, if ever. More than one have committed suicide over it. It can never be undone. It is not the fault of the children. It is the fault of those priests who have took advantage of their positions, sometimes of years. It is one of the most vile crimes I can imagine.

They are NOTHING alike. And if it would put an end, if it would stop even just once case, then let those priests have marriages, let them be able to have sex.


I think you're missing my point. I wasn't comparing paedophiles to people who can't have children, I was comparing stopping priests from being celibate just because a few are paedophiles is like stopping sterile people from having sex just because they cannot physically have biological children. The whole point was that they were different. Don't go off on a rant. Read my posts. Make love, not war.

I'm supporting the Optimist Camp for the Sims 4.




.
Scholar
#62 Old 28th Sep 2010 at 7:56 PM
Look, I found your analogy abhorrent, but I apologize to you, though it does not change my mind as I still find it very, just, no.

However, I still disagree with you. I do not see them as comparable in general. First of all, you're comparing complete opposites. One is a restriction, the other is not. Celibacy is, if I am correct, a requirement for the position. That is an in-place restriction (they're not allowed to have sex).

There is no such restriction for couples who cannot produce offspring (they can have sex).

You're essentially comparing that, giving priests the right to have sex, is just like barring those who cannot reproduce from having sex. They are complete opposites.

I understand your point. You can't hold against a group, a few deviants. I agree. However, celibacy is not a group, nor is it a person. It's a concept, it's a policy. We CAN hold a few cases against it, especially if it promotes, even unintentionally, such a disgusting crime and abuse of power and position.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Inventor
#63 Old 28th Sep 2010 at 8:16 PM
Nekowolf, the reason her comparison seems odd is because it's following your odd connection. You assume that not being married (i.e. having someone to have sex with on a regular basis?) turns people into pedophiles. This connection is incorrect, therefore any conclusions derived from it will be invalid.
Scholar
#64 Old 28th Sep 2010 at 8:25 PM
Ehhh? Where did you get that from?

No. Sex is part of human nature. It's like violence. It will never be completely distilled from a person without some form of medical alteration. Sure, you can suppress it, and train yourself to do away with it, but people are different. They are not all at the same capacity for it.

So now you have a repression of natural sexual desire. And it's a requirement for the position of a Catholic priest, as far as I know. So if they want to enter priesthood, they have to abide by this celibatory policy.

Now they're in a position of power. It may not be high power, it may be low in the ranks, but it doesn't matter, because there is someone below them.

You mix all that together, and what do you get? I don't think I need to answer that.

Marriage has nothing to do with pedophilia. Requiring people to abstain from sex, and giving them the ability of domination over another. THAT is what leads to problems, because not everyone can suppress themselves as well as others.

EDIT: I'm not saying not having sex is the problem either. Even in that case, even if you choose to stay abstinence, you still have the freedom to have sex anyway, e.g. Bristol Palin. As a priest, you are required not to have sex. Making it an absolute requirement is what does it.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Inventor
#65 Old 28th Sep 2010 at 8:30 PM
So yeah, you are saying what I thought you were. Lack of sex=pedophilia. And I disagree.
Scholar
#66 Old 28th Sep 2010 at 8:36 PM
Noooo, I'm not saying that. I'm saying repression of natural instinct, mixed with the psychology of being in a position of dominance, causes people to do things that otherwise they would not do.

This can be applied to other situations as well. Such as prison abuse. By having guards who are surrounded by criminals, people who they obviously have contempt for, mixed with the domination of being a guard, can lead to said guard declining into an abusive relationship with inmates.

It's a matter of psychology and sociology.

EDIT: What you are suggesting that I am saying is a gross simplification.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Scholar
Original Poster
#67 Old 28th Sep 2010 at 9:11 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Purity4
Nekowolf, the reason her comparison seems odd is because it's following your odd connection. You assume that not being married (i.e. having someone to have sex with on a regular basis?) turns people into pedophiles. This connection is incorrect, therefore any conclusions derived from it will be invalid.


Thank you! That is definately what you seemed to be implying Nekowolf.

I'm supporting the Optimist Camp for the Sims 4.




.
Inventor
#68 Old 28th Sep 2010 at 9:21 PM
Okay, Neko, so what you're saying is a person not having sex regularly, put in a position of authority becomes a pedophile. Again, I disagree. I really am not trying to pick on you, I just don't agree with that conclusion. I'd be inclined to say a pedophile seeks a position of authority, was already a pedophile to being with.
Scholar
#69 Old 28th Sep 2010 at 9:58 PM
Not always. It's a possibility. It can sometimes happen. Hell, I'd be willing to say it does not happen more often that not (I got that right, right?).

But you're not exactly wrong, either. It's more like, some may seek such a position, yes. But some may be pushed into it thanks to the need of sexual release because, again, they cannot control it as easily as others might. Like an ex-alcoholic around, well, alcohol. They may have trouble control the impulses to drink. In this case, they may have trouble controlling the desire of some form of sexual release.

EDIT: It's not the lack of sex that's the problem. It's that lust is seen as something evil. It's a sin! It's something you can be condemned for! The problem is the negative view of sex, sexual desire, and sexual release, in general!

Going back to the example of the prison guard. It's not that they may necessarily be violent. But rather, they are put into a position where personal morals are clashing with the ability of power. Some people have trouble controlling the outcome, and that power can usurps their personal morals. And they could possibly go as far as to somehow justify to themselves that what their doing is, at least, not as bad as it seems, or something else to lessen the burden of guilt.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Scholar
Original Poster
#70 Old 28th Sep 2010 at 10:04 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Nekowolf
Not always. It's a possibility. It can sometimes happen. Hell, I'd be willing to say it does not happen more often that not (I got that right, right?).

But you're not exactly wrong, either. It's more like, some may seek such a position, yes. But some may be pushed into it thanks to the need of sexual release because, again, they cannot control it as easily as others might. Like an ex-alcoholic around, well, alcohol. They may have trouble control the impulses to drink. In this case, they may have trouble controlling the desire of some form of sexual release.

EDIT: It's not the lack of sex that's the problem. It's that lust is seen as something evil. It's a sin! It's something you can be condemned for! The problem is the negative view of sex, sexual desire, and sexual release, in general!

Going back to the example of the prison guard. It's not that they may necessarily be violent. But rather, they are put into a position where personal morals are clashing with the ability of power. Some people have trouble controlling the outcome, and that power can usurps their personal morals. And they could possibly go as far as to somehow justify to themselves that what their doing is, at least, not as bad as it seems, or something else to lessen the burden of guilt.


It's kinda getting to the point now where you have to prove that celibacy can lead to paedophilia (because you're implying that it can sometimes happen) or just back off :S

Lust outside of marriage is bad in the Catholic Church, no matter what. The reason why? Well you could argue that its a social issue because removing pre-marital and extra-marital sex could help improve social reputations/community disagreements etc (no accusations of affairs, people being used for sex etc) or because it's spiritually damaging - sex supposed to be about love, etc. Only mating with one mate exists in nature.

I'm supporting the Optimist Camp for the Sims 4.




.
Inventor
#71 Old 28th Sep 2010 at 10:15 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Nekowolf
But some may be pushed into it thanks to the need of sexual release because, again, they cannot control it as easily as others might.


If by 'it' you mean being a pedophile, I don't think someone is pushed into it, or that it's caused by some weakness of wills or by pent up sexual tension. I think it's simply caused by someone being evil, plain and simple. They are making the choice to sexually assault an innocent child and there is never any excuse for it or any situation to blame other than themselves for.
Scholar
#72 Old 28th Sep 2010 at 10:19 PM
It's psychological. It's sociological. I've already explained it.

And the thing is, though, for them, it is an absolute requirement for the practice of priesthood. It's not a requirement as a Catholic; or even if it is, it could be damaging, yes, depending on your family, background, etc. But it's not a requirement for your livelihood.

Quote:
- sex supposed to be about love, etc. Only mating with one mate exists in nature.

Is this an actual argument, or an opinion, or just an example?

EDIT: "It" means anything in regards to similar situations. Pedophilia. Abuse of inmates. Abuse of employees. Abuse of family. Corporate theft (like embezzlement). Etc.

EDIT2: As far as I know, and granted, it's rather basic, but there is no "evil" in psychology. There's usually some cause into what makes people do stuff. Not just "because their evil!"

EDIT3 (wow, damn): And yes. It's a choice. But it's not as conscious as some every activity. It builds up over time. It's not like deciding what to wear today, it's something much more subtle, more slow in its making.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Inventor
#73 Old 28th Sep 2010 at 10:28 PM
Actually, no, you didn't explain anything. You simply stated 'It's a matter of psychology and sociolology.'

What you have said is that abstinence from sex + authority over others = pedophilia and I say no, it does not.
Scholar
#74 Old 28th Sep 2010 at 10:50 PM
Yes, I did. Authority can lead into a conflict of personal morality via the concept of power and control. Basically they are in a position of domination over an individual. When you are put into such an position, you can lose your in that domination. "Don't let the power go to your head." The idea of authority can be a powerful concept to a person. It can, in a way, change people, especially when there is a lack of oversight.

Then you have repression of natural sexual desires. These are natural. We are biologically hardwired for sex. This is in every single species that can have sex. Some are better at coping than others. The requirements for priesthood is to have no sex or sexual relief; it's all sin. And bad. The reasons are irrelevant; only that the fact is, they are not supposed to have sex, masturbate, or any other form of sexual release, as it's all sin.

So you put them in a position of power, where they have domination over someone who is in a lesser position. Then you have them fighting off, trying to cope, with sexual urge. After a while, it builds up. It eats away at them. It becomes overpowering. They have the position of control. They have the motives. And as the motivation builds up, it becomes harder to control, until they finally cannot.

I cannot make this any clearer. This is the same reason why you have sex abuse in prisons. Someone who is stronger than someone else, puts themselves in a dominate position of another person, for sexual relief.

That is my explanation, take it or leave it.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Inventor
#75 Old 28th Sep 2010 at 10:56 PM
I cannot make this any clearer, all your excuses given are a bunch of bull. There is no excuse. Abstinence is not a cause of sexual assault. Being in a role of power in and of itself does not cause sexual assualt. This is all their own choice, their own prior inclination, their own nature to prey upon children and sexually abuse others. This is who they are, they are evil, and nothing made them that way other than themselves.
 
Page 3 of 4
Back to top