A woman's place is at the kitchen page 7

TheBSG

FWW & :Religion has been used countless times to control other people. That means religion is evil.

I gave up reading the rest of your comment after seeing that you just make up shit. I never said religion is evil. Don’t twist words, it’s a disgusting thing to do. I never said anything like what you are trying to pin on me. It shows that you have not been paying attention. You’ve made up in your head what argument you want to fight, and are trying to turn what I say to fit your ‘debate’. Well that’s a shitty thing to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape

I was going to say “in most cases”, but decided against it. I am aware there are inherently bad actions that are still legal or were legal in the past. Let’s just say I’m not talking about those countries right now so we don’t have to make a problem out of it.

The moral Good and Evil are always subjective and the same goes for rape. While i would and will personally agree that its something Bad. I know that this is due to my subjective moral code(closely tied to the UN human rights) and that many people disagree with this code, see for example above about martial rape.

Rape is defined to be bad. If these people want to argue it isn’t in all cases, then they should redefine it in a concept such as “marital sex without question”, arguing that in a traditional family the husband is the one making the money, so the wife is the one having to pay something in return. Something you agree upon when marrying, but something which you may not always like at the point it is being asked. At that point, it is no longer rape, but an actual contract between people. The wife is no longer unwilling at the point of signing the contract. Maybe this is what already happens, but if so, they should redefine it to no longer be called “rape”, as that is by definition upon an unwilling person.

But any way, not sure if this is necessary to be discussed.

Omega, we are entirely aware this is your opinion. I think BSG mostly agrees, but tries to correct you at certain points in order to improve your opinion. I’m mostly worried about your usage of words, and not so just to play semantics (as you quickly seem to claim). To me, you’re making this all seem much worse than it really is. Nobody disagrees religion can be used for evil. Nobody disagrees there are religious people abusing a lot of power. And nobody disagrees that religion is constructed in a way that allows a powerhungry person to more easily convert stupid masses into doing things.

lol. i don’t see then why you would disagree with me at all. if you agree with that, why make up these excuses for religion based on semantics?

if you agree with all that, don’t you also agree that this is an inherent problem of religion? don’t you then also agree that for this reason, religion in itself is at least a very risky idea, if not outright bad, and would have to probably be avoided and protested, or treaded with great care if at all?

if so, that’s all i was saying anyway, and i don’t see the problem with the semantics – a bad idea which inescapebly is going to have such bad consequences as it has seems like an evil to me, and protesting that for semantics seems a dangerous way to excuse an evil – but we’ll settle out of court. if that goes to far for you, somehow, then all i wanted to hear is why.

No, no, I’m not saying I agree with you, I’m saying you agree with me. Religion isn’t inherently bad. It’s a type of justification for bad people to do bad things.

well, ok. lets agree to disagree then, because really, you’re not getting my point if you think i’m agreeing with you. my entire point is that religion itself is bad, for the reasons i gave. you disagree with those reasons being a problem of religion, and put the blame solely on those people that would exploit religion in such a way.

this is the crux of our disagreement. we do not agree.

then you said i was factually wrong and accused me of using fallacies, based on semantics, which i tried to counter with analogies which than got thrown back at me, and i responded in my brash way i get when my patience runs out.

i think it’s pretty dangerous to defend bad things that way.

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape

I was going to say “in most cases”, but decided against it. I am aware there are inherently bad actions that are still legal or were legal in the past. Let’s just say I’m not talking about those countries right now so we don’t have to make a problem out of it.

The moral Good and Evil are always subjective and the same goes for rape. While i would and will personally agree that its something Bad. I know that this is due to my subjective moral code(closely tied to the UN human rights) and that many people disagree with this code, see for example above about martial rape.

Rape is defined to be bad. If these people want to argue it isn’t in all cases, then they should redefine it in a concept such as “marital sex without question”, arguing that in a traditional family the husband is the one making the money, so the wife is the one having to pay something in return. Something you agree upon when marrying, but something which you may not always like at the point it is being asked. At that point, it is no longer rape, but an actual contract between people. The wife is no longer unwilling at the point of signing the contract. Maybe this is what already happens, but if so, they should redefine it to no longer be called “rape”, as that is by definition upon an unwilling person.

But any way, not sure if this is necessary to be discussed.

1. I think that its a great part of the communication Problem going on in this thread.
2. As said all morals are subjective, Martial rape is just one example. Its happening in all countries that i know of and its not just happening as some kind of marriage prostitution either. But in fact against unwilling persons (as you put it), both when the marriage contract was made and when the rape occurred. Claiming that its irrelevant when talking about the moral classification of rape is rather ignorant.

It’s not irrelevant, but it’s purely about the definition. To my knowledge, and what I found, the definitions of rape include concepts that all point towards the inherent negativity of the concept. It isn’t rape if it isn’t unwilling. A contract for “always having to comply with the husband’s need for sex” shows willingness, so I can’t define it as rape.

i think it’s pretty dangerous to defend bad things that way.

I’m not defending the bad things of this neutral concept, but I’m going to agree to disagree as well. We’re not getting anywhere.

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

It’s not irrelevant, but it’s purely about the definition. To my knowledge, and what I found, the definitions of rape include concepts that all point towards the inherent negativity of the concept. It isn’t rape if it isn’t unwilling. A contract for “always having to comply with the husband’s need for sex” shows willingness, so I can’t define it as rape.

1. And as i said but you so blatantly ignore i am not talking about contracts for “always having to comply with the husband’s need for sex”.
I am talking about versions of marriage rape, where the partner is not only unwilling at the time of the rape but also at the time of the contract. With the contract not even including formally or informally this “right to rape”.
2. Your belief that the definitions include concepts that point towards the inherent negativity of the concept are not objective. Subjectively i would agree, because of my personal morals. But thats clearly not the point your making. Your claiming Rape is inherently evil by Definition, so objectively which is not the case.
Not for any generally accepted Definition of rape i know nor for the words generally used in the Definitions. And i looked them up in Miriam Webster before posting the last post above.

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

No, no, I’m not saying I agree with you, I’m saying you agree with me. Religion isn’t inherently bad. It’s a type of justification for bad people to do bad things.

Or a motivation for good people to do bad things(and bad people to do good).

I’m not defending the bad things of this neutral concept

you are. you’re defending it by not holding it accountable, by restricting all culpability to those abusing it. which is a horrible cop out.

but i should shut up now, we settled.

And as i said but you so blatantly ignore i am not talking about contracts for “always having to comply with the husband’s need for sex”.
I am talking about versions of marriage rape, where the partner is not only unwilling at the time of the rape but also at the time of the contract. With the contract not even including formally or informally this “right to rape”.

Not including those contracts only helps my case.

Your belief that the definitions include concepts that point towards the inherent negativity of the concept are not objective. Subjectively i would agree, because of my personal morals. But thats clearly not the point your making. Your claiming Rape is inherently evil by Definition, so objectively which is not the case.

I covered that. Unless you support inequality (which is inherently bad in itself), it is inherently bad. You are suggesting that some people deserve rape, while others do not. You are suggesting that some force is capable of choosing these targets. Nobody likes to be raped, because rape is defined to be unwilling for the receiving end. Some people like to rape, but it is defined to be on the unwilling. Rape never only includes one person, always at least two. And it always includes at least one person that is unwilling. Unwilling is defined as negative. I’m not sure how much more I have to explicitly show.

Or a motivation for good people to do bad things

I can’t be sure about that.

and bad people to do good

That’s the other side of the medal, I guess.

you are. you’re defending it by not holding it accountable, by restricting all culpability to those abusing it. which is a horrible cop out.

Let’s lock up this “religion” person, because obviously it has done some horrendous things.

Honestly, you can’t put the blame on religion, because it is a concept. But every time I explain this you start screaming at me with “semantics”. Only sentient beings rationally should be blamed. Religion is the justification. You can’t remove the concept. So, you hold on to the next possible solution: blaming those that justify their bad actions with religion. Do I agree that some people are generally worse through religion than otherwise? Sure. Does that mean all people become worse through religion? No. Does this mean there are no people that become better through religion? No. Is it inherently evil? No.

If we’re done, then we’re done, as long as you understand my viewpoint is different from what you’re portraying.

ok, then i blame those sentient people that propagate religion. see? this really is mere semantics.

i have no problem with disagreement, but this is a cop out.

it’s a bad system, and your whole “it can’t hold any blame” is semantics. then the blame goes to those that propagate it, of course, but that’s just semantics.

it’s still a bad system.

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

And as i said but you so blatantly ignore i am not talking about contracts for “always having to comply with the husband’s need for sex”.
I am talking about versions of marriage rape, where the partner is not only unwilling at the time of the rape but also at the time of the contract. With the contract not even including formally or informally this “right to rape”.

Not including those contracts only helps my case.

??? You were the one saying such Marriage Rape under such contracts don´t count as Rape because by YOUR definition the consent at the time of the making of the contract implies willingness. Since you seem to be in semantic battle mode i don´t care to argue if your claim about thats true, not when the obvious undeniable unconstented marriage rape is still happening across the world including in modern countries like the USA, GB, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and etc.

Your belief that the definitions include concepts that point towards the inherent negativity of the concept are not objective. Subjectively i would agree, because of my personal morals. But thats clearly not the point your making. Your claiming Rape is inherently evil by Definition, so objectively which is not the case.

I covered that. Unless you support inequality (which is inherently bad in itself), it is inherently bad. You are suggesting that some people deserve rape, while others do not. You are suggesting that some force is capable of choosing these targets. Nobody likes to be raped, because rape is defined to be unwilling for the receiving end. Some people like to rape, but it is defined to be on the unwilling. Rape never only includes one person, always at least two. And it always includes at least one person that is unwilling. Unwilling is defined as negative. I’m not sure how much more I have to explicitly show.

1. Please stop making claims about what you believe i am suggesting. It seems you are incapable of understanding me and make up bullshit instead. You even quote me saying “Subjectively i would agree, because of my personal morals. But thats clearly not the point your making.” and then sprout this crap about me suggesting that some people deserve rape. Which clearly i am not.
2. I am just trying to make clear to you that your morals are in not objective. Your tries above at making your morals seem objective rely on Axioms. (inequality is bad, unwillingness is bad) And these Axioms are not objective. I truly wish they where since i share at least to a great extent many of your Axioms personally, but they aren´t.

then the blame goes to those that propagate it, of course, but that’s just semantics.

No, I agree with that.

it’s still a bad system.

It’s certainly used in bad ways. I guess the argument remaining, which BSG and I have been stating all along, is that you won’t suddenly have bad people turning good when you take religion away from them. Some, that were on the edge, might. Most probably won’t. But if religion is defined rather loosely, there’s no way you can remove religion any way.

You were the one saying such Marriage Rape under such contracts don´t count as Rape because by YOUR definition the consent at the time of the making of the contract implies willingness.

Look, there’s rape, and there’s sex. There’s a contract in which you willingly agree to have sex with your husband whenever he wants. And there’s your husband legally taking his wife for sex, but which is still rape. Rape is on the unwilling. That’s all.

Please stop making claims about what you believe i am suggesting. It seems you are incapable of understanding me and make up bullshit instead. You even quote me saying “Subjectively i would agree, because of my personal morals. But thats clearly not the point your making.” and then sprout this crap about me suggesting that some people deserve rape. Which clearly i am not.

You’re not. Subjectively. But you are claiming it is not objective, which is something I’m trying to show is incorrect.

I am just trying to make clear to you that your morals are in not objective.

I’m not advocating that.

Your tries above at making your morals seem objective rely on Axioms. (inequality is bad, unwillingness is bad) And these Axioms are not objective. I truly wish they where since i share at least to a great extent many of your Axioms personally, but they aren´t.

I’m glad we subjectively agree. I’m simply showing to you that if concepts are defined as something, then it objectively is that something. But as you stated, this is semantics, and we’re not getting anywhere. Neither does it prove anything, or significantly help the world understand something more than we really need.

I think I tend to agree with JohnnyBeGood here, but I think that the subjectivity of rape to a society or individual is only further evidence that a concept itself is not a gendered, sentient thing. While some people think this is a copout, it’s actually just a much more sound argument that’s incredibly difficult to refute.

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Your tries above at making your morals seem objective rely on Axioms. (inequality is bad, unwillingness is bad) And these Axioms are not objective. I truly wish they where since i share at least to a great extent many of your Axioms personally, but they aren´t.

I’m glad we subjectively agree. I’m simply showing to you that if concepts are defined as something, then it objectively is that something. But as you stated, this is semantics, and we’re not getting anywhere. Neither does it prove anything, or significantly help the world understand something more than we really need.

You are not showing it! Your claiming it!!!! A great difference. Showing would include giving sources to generally excepted definitions of rape, inequality and etc. that show that your definition is correct.
As i said i checked several major online dictionaries and i could not find the inherent evil definitions neither for rape nor the words(like unwillingness/non consent/against the will) used to define rape.

is that you won’t suddenly have bad people turning good when you take religion away from them

deprogramming takes time. but what’s this about bad people, anyway? mostly, it’s actions that are bad or good. and taking religion away from people might lead to less bad actions.

less inquisition; less devisiveness; less wilful ignorance; less bigorty and protectorism; less bad traditionalism for the sake of traditionalism as per the original topic of this thread; less intolerance etc.

Originally posted by BoxBeat:

I’m not persecuting any group because of a single person. My comment was made with the assumption that everyone knew of all the atrocities religion made. You don’t know? Here:
(Long-ass obnoxious picture BoxBeat posted on the first page)

that picture is incredibly Biased
and so are you

its not your or anybodys job to decide what people in the world should think or believe
no matter how bad it is.
Religion itself is not what makes people do bad things
its the people themselves.
“Religion” isn’t responsible for doing anything.

Saying that religion is responsible for making people make bad decisions is pretty much the same as saying “Guns kill people”

This is probably the most racist tread ever!

When will people learn exceptance?

^edit:

I meant acceptance not exceptance

just another of my thousands of typos! :)

I don’t really want to continue this discussion, Johnny, since I feel we’re far from done here, but unless you feel like putting a stop on this, I’ll just reply any way:

Any way, I’m surprised you didn’t find any of those concepts. The definitions mostly are about forcing a person, so against their will. You’ll also find “unlawful” in there, so couldn’t include marriage rape. Rape always includes at least two people. Rape always includes at least one person who is unwilling. That doesn’t mean the person who commits the act thinks it’s a bad thing, but that overall the act itself will always be bad due to there being an unwilling person. We can then move on to the concept and definition of “bad”, and show examples of “evil”, “unpleasant” and “unfavourable”. Which I’m pretty sure is implied by being “unwilling”. So, to disagree with me is to disagree on:

1. Rape always including at least one unwilling person.
2. A subjective label can be objectively defined.
3. Bad is unpleasant or unfavourable.
4. Unwilling is always a bad thing for the unwilling.
5. Rape has no significant positive effects for the victim.
6. Rape is significantly unpleasant or unfavourable for the victim and insignificantly pleasant (can’t call it rape if it isn’t this way).
7. Rape is bad.

I’m sure I could more properly throw down the observations and conclusions, but you might get my point. We will end up in semantics, and this is off-topic, but it’s your call. You could also make a topic about it or give me a shout/whisper. I think it’s philosophically interesting to talk about.

but what’s this about bad people, anyway? mostly, it’s actions that are bad or good. and taking religion away from people might lead to less bad actions.

It might, but at the same time, it might not. Consider the extreme example, removing the human species. Some would say humans do more bad than good, so removing it would be better than keeping it, right? I would say unless something is insignificantly good or not at all (such as murder), it’s valid to try and remove it. Undoubdtedly there are things about religion some find good which you don’t, but at the same time there are things you must give credit for. Even if you don’t, you’d be one of the few. But again, even if some people start agreeing it’s the core of all evil, there is nothing we could even do to remove it from society. We could make it illegal, but that would just start up more sinister churches in dungeons and such.

I really don’t think we disagree, though.

Mom: “So what do you do on the internet?”
DarkRuler: “Debate about the inherent morality of rape, and the potential perspective a rapist may have when benefiting from it.”
Mom: “…. oh. Okay.”

Oh Serious Discussion.

^lol!

I would say unless something is insignificantly good or not at all (such as murder), it’s valid to try and remove it.

“valid”? don’t you mean “unwarranted” or something like that?

and anyway, i realise we can’t simply remove religion, and i almost never support making anything outright illegal. but we can still try to lessen the problem; we can still resist, we can still object, and we can still protest. which should knock some wind out of it’s sail.

of course, this requires we recognise it’s inherent problem (because the ugly parts of religion are not incidental, but an inherent product of religion). by refusing to consider an inherent problem with a system, you’re blocking this.

oh and, i hope you realise just because something is a dictionary definition, that doesn’t mean it’s all of a sudden objective and not subjective. dictionaries aren’t written by God any more than the Bible.

Oh Serious Discussion.

Sorry, I’ll go back to discussing why it’s a good thing we can kill off a fetus, if guys can hold hands, that we shouldn’t own tanks, D&D’s timestop spell is illogical, the difference between two completely separate concepts and, last but not least, what these damn women are doing outside the kitchen.

“valid”? don’t you mean “unwarranted” or something like that?

Well, I did mess up the negatives. I don’t think it’s a valid belief to try and remove something that has produced a significant amount of good things, regardless of the bad things it has done.

but we can still try to lessen the problem; we can still resist, we can still object, and we can still protest. which should knock some wind out of it’s sail.

That’s what we do. We try to get homosexual marriage and abortion legal, argue that you should rather have rational, logical beliefs than irrational ones, and question whether a religion built on receiving donations is anything beyond laughable.

of course, this requires we recognise it’s inherent problem (because the ugly parts of religion are not incidental, but an inherent product of religion). by refusing to consider an inherent problem with a system, you’re blocking this.

That’s because we disagree it’s an inherent problem (that is, you’ll always see it sneak in when it’s inherent, and it won’t always appear when it isn’t). Maybe exceptions can’t immediately deny the rule, but those exceptions prove that it’s something being abused instead of something that asks for abuse. Silly solution, let’s have people vote for which person gets to be a priest, a bishop, or the pope. This would allow for less corruption, as letting the religious leaders themselves choose for such “ranks” risks much more problems. This solution wouldn’t change the inherent qualities of religion, rather those of the leaders.

oh and, i hope you realise just because something is a dictionary definition, that doesn’t mean it’s all of a sudden objective and not subjective.

I’m a fervent supporter of clear definitions without the possibility of movement. Many times in a discussion I’m stopped purely because of a “difference in definitions”. Unacceptable, in my opinion.

Once we have a single definition (but even now between the few definitions existing for a single concept), you can’t argue the definition is subjective. This means you’re talking about a new concept, or perhaps a different one which already exists. The definition stands as it is, so it is objectively defined as that. How can you even disagree on a definition? A concept has a definition which describes a certain something in this world. You can’t disagree on those definitions, you can disagree on something being labelled as a certain concept. Any way, that more has to do with the off-topic discussion Johnny and I had. I could use it to show that religion isn’t defined as being bad and that perhaps you have the opinion that some of the features of religion are subjectively bad. For example, ignorance. Is that objectively bad? Not necessarily. More knowledge may lead to a higher chance of survival, but not every person ends up in a situation which requires knowledge.

well we’ve been off topic throughout almost the whole thread anyway, so…

i disagree you can’t disagree on a definition. TheFreeDictionary for instance, defines atheism as “belief in the non-existence of God”, which almost any atheist will tell you is wrong.

like, you say that “rape” is inherently wrong because the dictionary mentions “unlawful”, but that just refers to a legal situation which is essentially foreign and incedental to the word “rape”. in fact, it isn’t even illegal in all parts of the world, and certainly hasn’t always been. so clearly, this is subjective, not objective.
“unwilling” is slightly better, but it is still our subjective interpretation that unwilling is bad.

but i really don’t see how any of that shows that religion as a concept can’t be bad, when we can agree that rape as a concept is bad (even if this is our human judgement).

i’d say rape is bad not because of what words a dictionary uses to define it, but because of the grief it causes. similarly, we could say religion causes grief and is therefor bad. we can disagree on it, but i don’t see how any dictionary is going to prove this impossible.

Any way, that more has to do with the off-topic discussion Johnny and I had.

lol. we had it first. heh.

Sorry, I’ll go back to discussing why it’s a good thing we can kill off a fetus, if guys can hold hands, that we shouldn’t own tanks, D&D’s timestop spell is illogical, the difference between two completely separate concepts and, last but not least, what these damn women are doing outside the kitchen.

good point.

Maybe exceptions can’t immediately deny the rule, but those exceptions prove that it’s something being abused instead of something that asks for abuse.

it’s both. kids walking into a strangers house at the promise of candy isn’t always gonna end up abused, and the abuser would be the prime culprit for abusing it; but it’s still a bad idea, which is why we teach children not to do something like that.

Silly solution, let’s have people vote for which person gets to be a priest, a bishop, or the pope.

not too silly.