Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,612
|
Post by Tennesseer on Nov 14, 2015 11:58:31 GMT -5
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 14, 2015 12:39:13 GMT -5
Beats playing cribbage all day.
|
|
Tired Tess
Well-Known Member
I'm so ready to wrap it up.
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 8:47:41 GMT -5
Posts: 1,313
|
Post by Tired Tess on Nov 15, 2015 9:16:24 GMT -5
I have fought, gently, with my kids for years not to get tats. My biggest fear was in their youth they would pick the most ridiculous one they could find and then regret it years later.
I'm not a fan but I am glad I got my point across with my kids. Two of the three have tats. I understand the meanings behind them. They checked out the parlor first for cleanliness and asked around for good artists.
Now my concern is hoping they know when to stop.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 15, 2015 10:49:32 GMT -5
That's an irrational reason to be against them, by the way. Religious belief isn't rational. Says you. You're totally ignoring my writings about what "rational" does and doesn't mean re tattoos. You also seem to be confused about what " rational" means generally. Just because something is based on emotion doesn't make it irrational. Finally, I specifically didn't mention scripture in the OP or anywhere else until compelled to answer posters' questions. I know there's nothing the board hates more than scripture, and I don't want to argue about it, so why don't you take the hint and keep the debate purely in the domain of worldly concerns. That's where it started and where everyone here believes it ought to be debated anyway. So, you don't cut your beard or the hair on the sides of your head, either? Not that this is in any way relevant to the thread topic, but Leviticus contains two statutes regarding beards. The one you're talking about pertained to members of the Levitical priesthood. Arc concluded.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2015 19:45:06 GMT -5
That's an irrational reason to be against them, by the way. Religious belief isn't rational. Says you.You're totally ignoring my writings about what "rational" does and doesn't mean re tattoos. You also seem to be confused about what " rational" means generally. Just because something is based on emotion doesn't make it irrational.Finally, I specifically didn't mention scripture in the OP or anywhere else until compelled to answer posters' questions. I know there's nothing the board hates more than scripture, and I don't want to argue about it, so why don't you take the hint and keep the debate purely in the domain of worldly concerns. That's where it started and where everyone here believes it ought to be debated anyway. First bolded: Actually no, not "says [me]". Religion is based on faith without proof. By definition, that's not rational. "reason or logic"... notice the definition didn't say "faith"? Second bolded: You must have missed where I said (paraphrased) "they were rational if emotion is included" Third bolded: I didn't bring scripture into my argument either (remember, my "argument" was all about non-tattoo things that were also not rational choices... like choices in hair cuts/styles/color)... Until you included it. The I was just rebutting your inclusion of scripture in your list of "rational" reasons... and stating why it didn't apply.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Nov 15, 2015 19:50:22 GMT -5
That's an irrational reason to be against them, by the way. Religious belief isn't rational. Says you. U You're totally ignoring my writings about what "rational" does and doesn't mean re tattoos. You also seem to be confused about what " rational" means generally. Just because something is based on emotion doesn't make it irrational. Finally, I specifically didn't mention scripture in the OP or anywhere else until compelled to answer posters' questions. I know there's nothing the board hates more than scripture, and I don't want to argue about it, so why don't you take the hint and keep the debate purely in the domain of worldly concerns. That's where it started and where everyone here believes it ought to be debated anyway. So, you don't cut your beard or the hair on the sides of your head, either? Not that this is in any way relevant to the thread topic, but Leviticus contains two statutes regarding beards. The one you're talking about pertained to members of the Levitical priesthood. Arc concluded. I don't hate scripture. I think it is beautiful historic writing, culturally important and relevant, and has important lessons. I just don't base my life on it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2015 21:05:45 GMT -5
Says you. U You're totally ignoring my writings about what "rational" does and doesn't mean re tattoos. You also seem to be confused about what " rational" means generally. Just because something is based on emotion doesn't make it irrational. Finally, I specifically didn't mention scripture in the OP or anywhere else until compelled to answer posters' questions. I know there's nothing the board hates more than scripture, and I don't want to argue about it, so why don't you take the hint and keep the debate purely in the domain of worldly concerns. That's where it started and where everyone here believes it ought to be debated anyway. Not that this is in any way relevant to the thread topic, but Leviticus contains two statutes regarding beards. The one you're talking about pertained to members of the Levitical priesthood. Arc concluded. I don't hate scripture. I think it is beautiful historic writing, culturally important and relevant, and has important lessons. I just don't base my life on it. That too.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 15, 2015 21:28:19 GMT -5
No, you're not. I can't stand them. Tattoos are bad enough. Don't like them on men. REALLY don't like them on women, to the point that I would not date someone with visible tattoos. The more visible they are, the worse they are. And full sleeves (or backs), piercings or implants...? Hate 'em. Hate, hate, HATE 'em.
That all being said, it's their body to do whatever they want. I'll respect their choice to do it to themselves, as I assume they will respect my choice to silently consider it disgustingly unattractive....
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 16, 2015 8:25:56 GMT -5
First bolded: Actually no, not "says [me]". Religion is based on faith without proof. By definition, that's not rational. Blind faith is irrational. I'm not a proponent of blind faith. "Faith" as defined by the Bible is a very reasoned quantity. It requires stepping out with a bold hypothesis and then confirming (proving) the hypothesis to an increasing degree by the mechanisms described in scripture--and only these mechanisms, because God will not be arbitrarily tested. Scripture calls this "building faith", in the same way that one builds faith in the correctness of a physical model by patiently, methodically advancing it into new domains and observing affirmative results. Building faith requires a great deal of patience, intellectual humility, sacrifice, and self-examination. It also requires living by the whole Law of God, which is no small commitment. As faith grows, God becomes more real, His interventions become more frequent and impactful, and the process is reinforced. None of this is irrational. It's not blind faith. It's not apophenia. It's not "my parents believed it, hence I'll believe it". It's a careful, rational process. I'm a scientist and engineer by trade because I look at the world in terms of laws, rules, logic and reason. I assure you that I apply the same standard to my religious faith. That's not to say that all (or even most) religious individuals take the same approach, but to categorically state that faith is in opposition to reason is a lie. It's simply not true. I didn't bring scripture into my argument either (remember, my "argument" was all about non-tattoo things that were also not rational choices... like choices in hair cuts/styles/color)... Until you included it. The I was just rebutting your inclusion of scripture in your list of "rational" reasons... and stating why it didn't apply. Notwithstanding what I said above, even presuming my religious beliefs are irrational, acting in accordance with my religious beliefs is not. Irrational is saying "Oh, I believe every word in the Bible." and then getting tattooed anyway in direct contravention of scripture. I don't hate scripture. I think it is beautiful historic writing, culturally important and relevant, and has important lessons. I just don't base my life on it. Semantics. Many people on the board hate the fact that some people do base their lives on it. To me, that's no different from hating the doctrines themselves. When I say "the board", I don't mean every single individual on the board, obviously. If you've never torn into anyone for their dedication to foolish, ossified scriptural beliefs or their refusal to adopt the enlightened views of the 21st Century, then the characterization doesn't apply to you.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Nov 16, 2015 10:29:35 GMT -5
Semantics. They don't hate the fact that you base your life on it. They hate the fact that you think those that don't live as you do are lesser people
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 16, 2015 17:09:59 GMT -5
Semantics. They don't hate the fact that you base your life on it. They hate the fact that you think those that don't live as you do are lesser people When have I ever said that people who don't live as I do are lesser people? When have I ever said that people who modify their bodies are lesser people? Do I think body modification is a good idea? No. I've explained why. I'm not alone. That doesn't mean I shun people who modify their bodies. I don't go out of my way to express my disapproval of their decisions, except in forums for academic debate such as this thread. I've said that Bruce Jenner is delusional. I believe that. I'd believe it regardless of whether scripture prohibited transvestism or not. Is he a lesser person? No. He's a sick, confused old man, but he's still a fellow human being. I'd like to think that if I saw a train heading toward him, I'd risk my life to push him out of the way. What you want is for me (social conservatives in general) to say that certain lifestyles and certain behaviours are every bit as good, acceptable, and healthy as the lifestyles and behaviours outlined in scripture, and there I can't help you. I don't go out of my way to condemn these lifestyles, but if they come up as a topic of discussion, I will not call what is not good "good". I do nobody any favours by lying for sake of sparing people's feelings. You yourself are familiar with the concept. You don't go around waving placards about FGM, for example, but if you involve yourself in a discussion on FGM, and face opponents who consider the act necessary, socially profitable, and good (and many people do), you boldly make your views known. No, this is not an acceptable act. No, it's not just as good as the alternative. No, you don't condone it and you never will. It's evil. You don't give a toot what their culture thinks. I could give you many more examples. The Quiverfull movement, for keeping women perpetually pregnant. The anti-vaccine movement, for insisting that natural treatments are just as effective as vaccines. Sovereign Citizens, who refuse to recognize government and pay taxes. Are all these lesser people to you? You wouldn't share a bus seat with them? You'd spit on them as they walked by? Or are they simply people whose behaviours and lifestyles are not good? I've never accused you of thinking of all of these as lesser people, hence why not extend the same courtesy to me?
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Nov 16, 2015 18:13:23 GMT -5
Believe it or not you come across as haughty and believe yourself to be better than nonbelievers.
I would not spit on anyone. I also would not refuse to share a bus seat with anyone. Unless they stink.
I do think those that practice something like FGM are lesser because it hurts someone. I'm not hurting anyone by living with my boyfriend. If moved a guy in after knowing him a week and i have kids it's wrong. Not becoae sex is wrong but because it's not good for the kids to have such instability in their lives.
Quiverfull Hurts women Slavery. Hurts slaves. See the difference.
I do try to live by the golden rule. Not because God said so. But because I want to be treated s certain way and I can't expect to be treated well if I don't do it to others.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2015 18:23:26 GMT -5
No, you're not. I can't stand them. Tattoos are bad enough. Don't like them on men. REALLY don't like them on women, to the point that I would not date someone with visible tattoos. The more visible they are, the worse they are. And full sleeves (or backs), piercings or implants...? Hate 'em. Hate, hate, HATE 'em.
That all being said, it's their body to do whatever they want. I'll respect their choice to do it to themselves, as I assume they will respect my choice to silently consider it disgustingly unattractive....
I don't care for body mods or tatts.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 16, 2015 20:43:09 GMT -5
Believe it or not you come across as haughty and believe yourself to be better than nonbelievers. I would not spit on anyone. I also would not refuse to share a bus seat with anyone. Unless they stink. I do think those that practice something like FGM are lesser because it hurts someone. I'm not hurting anyone by living with my boyfriend. If moved a guy in after knowing him a week and i have kids it's wrong. Not becoae sex is wrong but because it's not good for the kids to have such instability in their lives. Quiverfull Hurts women Slavery. Hurts slaves. See the difference. I do try to live by the golden rule. Not because God said so. But because I want to be treated s certain way and I can't expect to be treated well if I don't do it to others. Your justification boils down to "I condemn these things because I believe they hurt people, and I don't condemn these other things because I don't believe they hurt people". And fine. We're not going to agree on what does and doesn't hurt people and society in general. But your grievance clearly isn't with thinking of others as "lesser people", which you appear to be more at ease with than I am. Your grievance is that you don't agree with the standard by which I judge the morality of an action. You have your own standard, and our standards conflict. Hence we've come full circle back to my original argument: what you fundamentally dislike, possibly even hate, is the doctrines of scripture and the fact that some people take them seriously. For the doctrines that happen to agree with your own moral code, such as condemnation of greed, murder, hypocrisy, etc., you have no problem with those acts being condemned. There are people--moral relativists--who believe that man ought not criticize any act. Excepting a few of the most heinous acts (e.g. cold-blooded murder), they believe any moral criticism is presumptuous and unjustifiable. If you were a moral relativist, then your argument in Reply #159 would tread water. But you're not a moral relativist. The kernel of truth in #159 is that your resentment for counter-cultural Biblical doctrines is (I'm assuming) only stirred up when people assert them publicly. If they were part of some defunct, forgotten philosophy you could ignore, I believe you that you wouldn't "hate the fact that [people] base [their lives] on it".
|
|