Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 5,537 - 5,548 of 6,170
What if the baby is possessed by demons and will rain down the fires of hell upon you. That's not possession, that is what babies do. It's grandparents revenge.
disapprove of every war since the invention of bombs and artillery
NO DUH! Life would be much better if young men could stop killing young men, and old men try to die in glory by destroying cities.
averse to doctors. some need mental health evaluations, if you ask me.
what about poverty and pollution
YEP! EVIL.
CelibacyCelibacy is much better than a lousy relationship.
Posts 5,537 - 5,548 of 6,170
The Clerk wrote:
...they ask what birth control am I on and I say, none, I don't need any, they always do a pregnancy test.
That's terrible!
What does "TMI" mean?
I don't think there's anything wrong with celibacy.
What does "TMI" mean?
I don't think there's anything wrong with celibacy.
Clerk, there is nothing freaky about your choices. People have a right to not do as much as to do. I admire you for making choices most people around you may not make.
If it makes you feel better, in other times an unmarried woman would be expected to be celibate, and those who chose otherwise would be considered social outcasts. Now it seems what was once so strictly denied is shoved down our throats. You have every right to not have sex, and it's nobody's business but yours. There is nothing freaky but the situation where people judge you for such a normal and personal decision.
If your local ER does routine pregnancy tests without your consent even when you tell them you are not sexually active, I would think they are courting a lawsuit. No doubt they missed a pregnancy at one point and were sued for that, making them overcompensate (why can't administrators get the idea of case by case judgment instead of one set of rules for everyone even though everyone is not the same?). Unless you are mentally questionable (and who isn't?) I think they should take your word on it, and maybe make you sign a paper that you have no risk of pregnancy.
I don't use the pill either as my hormones are wacky enough on their own and condoms can help prevent STDs. If some doctor started doing pregnancy tests without my consent because I don't follow what they think women should all do, everyone in that ER would get an earful at the least. Expectations are strange things, no? I hope this doesn't insult you, but try getting some religious symbol (cross, star, pentagram--whatever) because for some reason people will allow you to choose more freedom not to have sex or to have less sex if you invoke a god or two. Anyhow, you are not a freak--some people are just idiots.
If it makes you feel better, in other times an unmarried woman would be expected to be celibate, and those who chose otherwise would be considered social outcasts. Now it seems what was once so strictly denied is shoved down our throats. You have every right to not have sex, and it's nobody's business but yours. There is nothing freaky but the situation where people judge you for such a normal and personal decision.
If your local ER does routine pregnancy tests without your consent even when you tell them you are not sexually active, I would think they are courting a lawsuit. No doubt they missed a pregnancy at one point and were sued for that, making them overcompensate (why can't administrators get the idea of case by case judgment instead of one set of rules for everyone even though everyone is not the same?). Unless you are mentally questionable (and who isn't?) I think they should take your word on it, and maybe make you sign a paper that you have no risk of pregnancy.
I don't use the pill either as my hormones are wacky enough on their own and condoms can help prevent STDs. If some doctor started doing pregnancy tests without my consent because I don't follow what they think women should all do, everyone in that ER would get an earful at the least. Expectations are strange things, no? I hope this doesn't insult you, but try getting some religious symbol (cross, star, pentagram--whatever) because for some reason people will allow you to choose more freedom not to have sex or to have less sex if you invoke a god or two. Anyhow, you are not a freak--some people are just idiots.
Bev, thanks. I had a really nasty doctor interaction yesterday, which probably explains my rant on a bot forum.
Cerk, Wait, we need a reason to rant now? (Yeah, you can tell I've been bored the last few days and here a lot more than I should be too).
Irina, now you are the peace maker and I am blatantly looking for debates. I didn't mean to troll. Sometimes I am just in a mood and this is one of the few forums that doesn't answer an argument with "STFU!" or the like. (That's a generalization about other Internet sites but I am convinced my generalizations are warranted at some level all the same). I think I and scaring the new people though. I will try to back off the attack mode and update the silly bots.
LoL @ Prob123. So are babies born evil then? Or is the evil only their parents' karma?
LoL @ Prob123. So are babies born evil then? Or is the evil only their parents' karma?
YES, we are born evil, and it is fully refined in the two year old. We spend the rest of our lives trying to do the right thing but still succumb to the seductive call of a hot fudge sundae.
I was going to answer the call of Cthulhu, but the machine picked it up, and evil never leaves a number where it can be reached. Honestly, I respect evil, Prob, especially the pure ego evil of a toddler. It's the luke-warm "I'm not really evil" evil or the "lesser of two evils" evil that I object to . Nothing worse than evil that does not know it's place. Once evil admits it's evil, I can accept it and move on to the cake.
Bev, I agree that "a change in our understanding of physics [neither] proves [nor] disproves a philosophical position", and I do not think "math and science are the most basic of philosophies". Maths & science can be considered a philosophical disciplines, or perhaps, tools. The "original" scientist was a natural philosopher. Newton's principal work is titled Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica - Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. For those people, science was a method, and math was a language, not a philosophy, or a worldview. The way they understood it, science examines and studies God's World, as it were. The questions such as the world's origin and ultimate purpose were outside the domain of science, and the scientists were perfectly happy with it. These issues were discussed by, you guessed it - philosophers, theologians, mystics... and the scientists, being natural philosophers, added their particular insight about the physical properties of the world, gained through their new art (of science). I may add that many scientists today take an agnostic view on metaphysical questions, rather than claiming that science has, or ever will provide all the answers.
When it comes to reductionist materialism, there is nothing philosophical about it at all, but rather, it is a 20th century cultural dogma, an ill-conceived attempt to provide science with its own (quasi)philosophical framework. This is, of course, my view only, and the argument here largely concerns history and, specially, politics of science, and not so much methodology, or a (lack of) philosophical position.
Now, I agree that "the spooky effect, uncertainty principal and the like" don't "prove or disprove anything mystical or metaphysical", but I do think they show, i.e. demonstrate that reductionist materialism is a way to simplistic a rendering of the world that cannot accommodate not even more mundane quantum physics postulates, never mind the "mysteries". Again, I'm talking specifically about "reductionist materialism", a doctrine, and not about materialist worldview and philosophies as such. These have a long history, and are a legitimate part of (philosophical) discussion, although I would bet my money on a position that transcends any either - or (mind - matter, body - soul/ spirit, good - bad, black - white...) dualism.
I can also agree with the idea that we may never be able to exactly pinpoint THE TRUTH, but will only ever be able to just approximate it slightly... even stronger, I would not bet a cent on any Theory of Everything.
When it comes to reductionist materialism, there is nothing philosophical about it at all, but rather, it is a 20th century cultural dogma, an ill-conceived attempt to provide science with its own (quasi)philosophical framework. This is, of course, my view only, and the argument here largely concerns history and, specially, politics of science, and not so much methodology, or a (lack of) philosophical position.
Now, I agree that "the spooky effect, uncertainty principal and the like" don't "prove or disprove anything mystical or metaphysical", but I do think they show, i.e. demonstrate that reductionist materialism is a way to simplistic a rendering of the world that cannot accommodate not even more mundane quantum physics postulates, never mind the "mysteries". Again, I'm talking specifically about "reductionist materialism", a doctrine, and not about materialist worldview and philosophies as such. These have a long history, and are a legitimate part of (philosophical) discussion, although I would bet my money on a position that transcends any either - or (mind - matter, body - soul/ spirit, good - bad, black - white...) dualism.
I can also agree with the idea that we may never be able to exactly pinpoint THE TRUTH, but will only ever be able to just approximate it slightly... even stronger, I would not bet a cent on any Theory of Everything.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar