Have I been stood up?

[Halon451]

How about if I tell you to enjoy it frequently.

Well now... that's different. And appreciated.

 

[Halon451]

Now married couples need a doctor's permission to "want kids?" By extension, does this apply also to having sexual relations, and bearing children?

Scary prospect isn't it? Governmental control of your own basic human rights and liberties as a married couple behind closed doors? What else would you expect from a hardcore liberal with absolutely no connection with reality?

1) So the Church's moral stance is "arbitrary" and has "no valid reason" for being? (I write of the Christian Church...and more specifically, the Catholic Church).
2) Rape would end by legalizing it?
3) Married couples now need a doctor's permission slip to "want kids" (and have sex and children)?

Wow. WOW!!! The only thing I'm truly confused about is what kind of drugs you're taking?

I think what Joe was trying to imply here was not the legalization of rape, but legalization of prostitution as a means of minimizing rape occurences (supposedly b/c the sex could be easily paid for without having to force an unwilling participant into it?). Either way, it's hogwash - sickos that commit rape do so because of the thrill they get from taking it and violating their victims. Legalizing prostitution would have ZERO effect on this.

Joe my friend, you really really really need to touch base with reality one of these days...

 

[Joe Schmoe]

1) So the Church's moral stance is "arbitrary" and has "no valid reason" for being? (I write of the Christian Church...and more specifically, the Catholic Church).
2) Rape would end by legalizing it?
3) Married couples now need a doctor's permission slip to "want kids" (and have sex and children)?

You are confused by your own misinterpretation, not by anything I said.
1) Yes. No ambiguity here. Some religious edicts do reflect things that are genuinely wrong, but many are arbitrary. (Also, why should I care about "God's plan" when there is no God, much less a plan?)
2) Of course rape would not end, but it would be reduced because sexual frustration is frequently a motive for it (or anger over having a sexual advance rejected.)
3) What I meant here, which really should be obvious, is that the couple should be checked to make sure neither has an STD that they could transmit to the other. Even then, a condom is always a worthwhile and harmless precaution to take unless the couple want kids, which it would prevent.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

I think that Joe could find some success if he were to leave the smoking issue on the table, but be compliant on the all the other issues. This isn't mission impossible. There is somebody for everybody.

It is physically impossible for me to be attracted to a smoker. The putrid smell makes me gag when a smoker is merely standing too close to me. Intimate contact would be out of the question.

 

[Johnd]

You are confused by your own misinterpretation, not by anything I said.

No, I am not. That's your problem. Firstly, you've said nothing, at least that I can hear. You've written it, or stated it here, but you cannot say it here. That is not a "misinterpretation" of mine. Rather, it is your poor use of English.

1) Yes. No ambiguity here. Some religious edicts do reflect things that are genuinely wrong, but many are arbitrary. (Also, why should I care about "God's plan" when there is no God, much less a plan?)

Well, again, I write of Catholicism. If you wish to impune "some religious edicts" please do so with specificity. I was specific...you still are not. Thus, score another non-"misinterpretation" for Mr. Zero.

2) Of course rape would not end, but it would be reduced because sexual frustration is frequently a motive for it (or anger over having a sexual advance rejected.)

Again, that is not what you wrote. You wrote that it would end. Yet another score for non-"misinterpratation" for Mr. Zero.

3) What I meant here, which really should be obvious, is that the couple should be checked to make sure neither has an STD that they could transmit to the other. Even then, a condom is always a worthwhile and harmless precaution to take unless the couple want kids, which it would prevent.

What you "meant" and what you stated are not the same. You simply wrote "unless they are married and want kids (and then only if they have a doctor's OK." Pretty plain. That's the problem with run on setences. Score yet another non-"misinterpretation" for Mr. Zero.

I win. If this were a baseball game Joe, you'd be seated in the dugout.

BTW, I fondly (occasionally) refer to myself as "Mr. Zero" for reasons I will not elaborate on here. Not a jab at you Joe.

 

[Halon451]

2) Of course rape would not end, but it would be reduced because sexual frustration is frequently a motive for it (or anger over having a sexual advance rejected.).

Wrong - so by this logic you are saying that you are ready to commit such a heinous act, as you have proven all throughout this post that you are indeed sexually frustrated? Am I getting through here (knock knock)? Hell, I've been rejected, I've been frustrated, but I got the f*** over it and moved on. Those who commit rape are born with a serious malfunction in their brains, and they lack the will to resist their sick, perverted urges, plain and simple. Jesus, listen to yourself sometimes...

3) What I meant here, which really should be obvious, is that the couple should be checked to make sure neither has an STD that they could transmit to the other. Even then, a condom is always a worthwhile and harmless precaution to take unless the couple want kids, which it would prevent.

That's all fine and good - if THEY are the ones who choose this path. NOT for the government to dictate. Period.

 

[Davemcc]

It is physically impossible for me to be attracted to a smoker. The putrid smell makes me gag when a smoker is merely standing too close to me. Intimate contact would be out of the question.

I was actually suggesting that you continue to look for a non-smoker, i.e. leave the issue on the table. No problem with that. I find it a disgusting habit, yet I can't find the willpower to quit. But pretty much everything else should be open to compromise. But then again, this is only relevant if you have actually found a woman to agree to go someplace or do something with you. How much effort have you put into meeting a woman in the two weeks since this thread began? How many have you asked to go for coffee?

 

[Davemcc]

BTW, I fondly (occasionally) refer to myself as "Mr. Zero" for reasons I will not elaborate on here.

Teary-eyed and nostalgic for your ex-girlfriends, are ya??? You old softie...(pun intended).

 

[Johnd]

Wrong - so by this logic...

LOL. And by that logic, if we were to open all the bank vaults (in every sense of the phrase...first a metaphor and a reverse syllogism as it were ), we would eradicate bank roberry. Err, excuse me..."lessened" it.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

No, I am not. That's your problem. Firstly, you've said nothing, at least that I can hear. You've written it, or stated it here, but you cannot say it here. That is not a "misinterpretation" of mine. Rather, it is your poor use of English.

Applying "say" to writing is common. If you are really that nitpicky, I must conclude that you are one of those humorless, excessively literal English teachers.

 

[Johnd]

Applying "say" to writing is common. If you are really that nitpicky, I must conclude that you are one of those humorless, excessively literal English teachers.

Well...I've been called worse Joe. Common? Perhaps in some circles. However, my post alluded not only to your improper use of the word "say". I also alluded to:
- your use of the word "end," which you later stated "that was not what was meant."
- and your desire for a doctor's permission slip for marital want of offspring. To wit: you again state you did not mean that.
- and your obtuse use of the phrase "religious edicts," wherein you impuned most, or all religion, yet aver any specificity of which religion, and which edict. I contained my discussion to Catholicism.

With specific and intentional deliberateness.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

With specific and intentional deliberateness.

If you seriously expect me (or anyone) to spell out everything that I mean in excruciating detail, with no possibility of misinterpretation, then be prepared for posts 20-30X as long as my current ones, and a lot more boring as well.

As for religious edicts, I neither know or care enough about any religion to be able to cite more than a couple of specific ones without research. I am merely certain that there are many, and that the majority are arbitrary. One specific example (Catholic to boot) that I can think of is the edict against the use of birth control. Besides the fact that using birth control is not inherently wrong in any possible way, not using it is actively harmful (overpopulation being one of humanity's biggest and most serious problems.)

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Well...I've been called worse Joe.

I don't doubt that! (I was leaning towards using the phrase "IQ challenged".)

 

[Johnd]

If you seriously expect me (or anyone) to spell out everything that I mean in excruciating detail, with no possibility of misinterpretation, then be prepared for posts 20-30X as long as my current ones, and a lot more boring as well.

It's really not that dificult, is it Joe? "Say" vs "state." Two additional letters. Yeah, I "see" what you mean.

As for religious edicts, I neither know or care enough about any religion to be able to cite more than a couple of specific ones without research. I am merely certain that there are many, and that the majority are arbitrary. One specific example (Catholic to boot) that I can think of is the edict against the use of birth control. Besides the fact that using birth control is not inherently wrong in any possible way, not using it is actively harmful (overpopulation being one of humanity's biggest and most serious problems.)

Well, you're just wrong Joe. The Catholic Church's position on birth control is not remotely "arbitrary." It is for good, well-founded reason.

 

[Halon451]

Applying "say" to writing is common. If you are really that nitpicky, I must conclude that you are one of those humorless, excessively literal English teachers.

I would dare say he's merely being grammatically and verbally correct in his use of the English language, an art form that is sadly forsaken these days. It is'nt splitting hairs, it's being technially accurate - isn't that one of the big themes for us Audioholics in the first place?

 

[Johnd]

I would dare say he's merely being grammatically and verbally correct in his use of the English language, an art form that is sadly forsaken these days. It is'nt splitting hairs, it's being technially accurate - isn't that one of the big themes for us Audioholics in the first place?

I would agree with you Halon if I were "nitpicking" on just that one term. However, my post alluded to four separate such obfuscations and plainly written English statements, which Joe now accuses me of "misinterpreting."

 

[Johnd]

I don't doubt that! (I was leaning towards using the phrase "IQ challenged".)

Hmmmm. There you go again Joe.

 

[Halon451]

...not using [birth control] is actively harmful

That depends entirely on how you view it Joe - that's a hell of a statement to make. I actually do agree with you that overpopulation in this world is a huge concern, and on a more localized note - people who are popping out countless babies here in our own country if only for the sake of a bigger welfare check, that is meanwhile causing greater problems down the road - yeah, that's a whole different topic, don't even get me started. BUT, to say that one's personal choice to not use birth control is harmful is ignorant, and does not allow for the myriad of variables that surround such an issue.

Man, these liberals...

 

[trnqk7]

Abandon the thread and stop feeding the liberal if you don't like his views. He will stop if you ignore him...I can't believe this thread has gone on for so long! It does have some entertaining sections, but it seems to be sliding downhill.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Well, you're just wrong Joe. The Catholic Church's position on birth control is not remotely "arbitrary." It is for good, well-founded reason.

Good in what way? Well-founded on what?
Are you referring, perhaps, to the phrase "be fruitful and multiply" in an ancient work of fiction? Maybe you are thinking of the ridiculous concept that birth control will make people more promiscuous (as though they won't be anyway)?