That's assuming that said partner is safe to begin with and neither will acquire some disease or other through other means than sex.
Orwellian use of language: mom pleads guilty in cult starvation death
- Thread starter Scott Free
- Start date
I like the process of argumentation in order to find truth. Typically I post things to find answers or out of a sense of discovery. I may seem like I already have them but what I actually have is a case. I am slow to form opinions and concrete ones are folly IMO. One thing I can always be sure of is that somewhere I am wrong. This is both the misery and joy of being human IMO.
I'll admit I sometimes (often) attack a case in a heavy handed way but that is only because I want to hear peoples best arguments not necessarily because I am so sure. In fact if I were sure I wouldn't argue at all. For example I wouldn't bother arguing about the colour of the sky with someone. Though colour is a mental construct we can agree that construct is usually called blue. Anyone who wanted to argue that will have to do so without my input.
My experience is the opposite.
I was raised in an exceedingly religious home and I don't perceive of any way I could have started to think critically on my own.
I could be held accountable for my actions within the context of the religion but to apply external normative principles would have been a waste of time. I did not live in the same world as everyone else.
So we can condemn the lady for her murder but to do so is only to make ourselves feel better. She probably never meant harm to her child and probably fully expected him to be resurrected.
She is guilty of neglect because our society blames people for their circumstance. Society once blamed people for bad luck in the same way. The guilty party IMO is the structured institution and leader that created her circumstance.
Sure, the inquisitors hand could be stayed in much the same way: give yourself to the church and you'll be saved.
No, this is the same old same old draped in freshly bloodied cloth.
I don't mean to be rude but you really do have a comprehension problem gerryh.
I said: ON MY OWN
I could no more invent critical thinking than fly to the moon.
So...are you agreeing that following Church doctorine concerning sex would basicaly put an end to the spread of AIDS?
I doubt it. I know of no religion that teaches people to be cruel to 1 yr olds. Perhaps she did think the child would be resurrected, but she chose to act against the best interest of the child. Depriving another human of a basic right and necessity is simply wrong.
Certainly not!!!
That doctrine goes against human nature. Humanity, like any species, has evolved with the sole purpose of procreating. It is absurd to think that can or should be stopped.
Trying to make people deny their humanity under threat of death, whether it's by the inquisitors hot poker or a horrible disease, is a sick perversion for control.
You didn't really give a reasion for why it wouldn't work...you just ranted. Explain WHY following Church Doctorine concerning sex would NOT stop the spread of AIDS.
A member of a devout couple acquires HIV from a dirty needle, blood transfusion with bad blood, rubs a scratch against an infected person, etc. and spreads HIV to spouse.
Well then...if sex is for the sole purpose of procreation....then that falls directly in line with Church Doctorine. No need for sex before marriage, as that is not for procreation.... no extramarital sex, as that is not for procreation.
All that can happen with the use of condoms. Plus, it would be restricted to ones own spouse only, not whomever else you are banging on the side also.
Yeah I did, I said it was absurd because it went against human nature. That sexuality couldn't and shouldn't be stopped.