Pathfinder Forums Memes that Grind Your Gears


Gamer Life General Discussion

651 to 700 of 1,247 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

It's more that if I'm already in a society that tags things like that with a shame tag as you call it (which I will readily admit I'm 100% in favor of, just irked that it doesn't seem to work), and that's already on its own still producing more than I'm comfortable tolerating, it can only get worse to go somewhere where that reaction isn't attached.

It just comes down to what some people (you apparently included) consider "prudish and repressed", others (me) consider "barely tolerable".

I'm fairly certain I'm never going to be able to wrap my head around this or put my own perspective into words well, regardless.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

@Orthos - forgive me for if I'm being presumptuous or assuming too much, but based upon your statement that sex just doesn't interest you more or less altogether, it sounds like you're asexual. Frankly, if you are, that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with you, no matter what people who don't understand that might think. There's just a chunk of people from both genders that aren't really interested in sex, and anyone who judges them negatively for that is no better than a homophobe or any other kind of person who judges someone for their sexual preferences (or lack thereof).

You don't have to understand anyone to respect their view and believe they have a right to it. I can't wrap my mind around the fact there are men attracted to men (or women who are, frankly), because I think women are the epitome of sexiness and guys are...not, frankly...but it doesn't mean I'm going to call someone names or look down on them as a person if they're into guys.

And to any of you who call someone a prude, that's exactly what you're doing - calling someone a name and looking down on them because their sexual preferences do not match your own.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh I'm quite aware I'm asexual, a friend of mine explained that bit to me a few years back. Though the thoughts are appreciated. =)

That said, I'll admit that I am quite a bit prudish, and easily irritated by the over-abundance of sexual everything in society that seems to be, the more I see and learn, only growing as time passes. I grew up in a very reserved upbringing, and even now at nearly 30 the culture clash continues in a lot of ways.

The mindset of the majority of my own culture baffles me, but I can at least understand the stigma that's placed on this sort of thing, even if it, as I said in my earlier post, doesn't seem to have much recognizable effect. Things still happen, but there's a recognizable bit of "this should be kept out of sight, out of mind" that I can follow, even if what happens "out of sight" is something I'd rather not dwell on. It's something I appreciate because with all the stuff I'm constantly being bombarded with any time I step out of a closed-off room (including getting online or even just turning on the TV), I still know there's a line that will not be crossed unless I go deliberately looking to cross it. The worst I'll have to deal with, more often than not, is listening to people boasting about their bedroom conquests or crudely propositioning others, and nine times out of ten I can simply walk away when those subjects come up.

The fact that there are societies that lack that stigma, have erased that line, is even more bizarre and quite a bit disconcerting to me.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I wish I lived in such a society, as growing up sexually repressed was a very unhealthy thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I know this is a tangent on this thread, but I feel I have to reply.

As someone who has lived in New Zealand and Japan, and has also visited a diverse range of countries including South Africa, Kenya, Australia, and the UK...sex is not any more visible in those countries than it is in ours, unless you go and look for it. It sees about a comparable use as it does in our own country for advertising and such. There are different attitudes towards sex maybe, but unless you are clubbing and hitting the night clubs, or perusing the dating scene, I doubt you will encounter them. About the only place that might pose an exception to that rule was the Akihabara district in Tokyo, which is Otaku central and has a really weird mix of shops (i.e., a store will have a huge selection of gundam toys in the front, but as you walk through it you suddenly find yourself in hardcore porn land. It's weird).

If you go out of your way or live in an area a long time, you might encounter some stuff you don't run into in the US often, but otherwise you really won't encounter anything outside what you see in an urban area in the US, especially if you are hitting up cultural/natural history/etc tourist sites.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Very few people want to have sex in public. Whatever the attitude to it, it isn't going to be a big article. The difference in a non-repressed country is that people can discuss sexual problems with their doctor or school nurse, they can get contraception without jumping through hoops, they will have sex ed worth the name and thus be able to protect themselves from complications, you could have a sensible treatment of sex offenders instead of a horror show crusade against them. People would discuss sexual matters BEFORE starting relationships (oh, if only). People with non-standard sexualities would possibly not get as vilified.

Sex is a human priority. For most people, sex is big. Making that shameful, forbidden or hidden is a) not going to work, and b) hurt a lot of people in the process. Centuries of experience more than bears this out. Countries where sex is not seen as the horror Americans see it as are, unsurprisingly, not war zones where everyone gets raped indiscriminately.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

That's all well and good, and I agree, but I still don't need to hear you describe in detail the exact motions you use during fun time.

Or for a less tasteful saying: I don't need to hear the Blow by Blow.

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I feel that way about Pathfinder combat myself.

"Why haven't you guys finished this fight yet? I want to get back to talking in silly voices again."


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like sex in our culture is presented in the same way food is. You can't go 5 minutes without being bombarded with food ads, but it is all plastic and fake and nothing like the real thing. The vast majority is processed unhealthy stuff that will make you feel like garbage, and contains nothing but empty calories. "Food" gets pushed all day, but nutrition NEVER gets a serious discussion. Sex is presented in a similar way. It is all about fake appearances and titillation, with actual truth about sex being about as common as a two dollar bill.

"Consumer culture" has a really sick take on most things, and it is sad it has such far reaching consequences.

EDIT: Wow! This thread went from the ultimate in foolishness a few pages ago, to being all serious again.


Is it weird that I have no problem with sex in public but I don't like to talk about it?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
The difference in a non-repressed country is that people can discuss sexual problems with their doctor or school nurse,

Granted I haven't been in a position to be treated by a school nurse in a good long while, but American doctors do, in fact, handle sexual problems.

Quote:
they can get contraception without jumping through hoops,

I didn't realize my occasional trip to the store counted as jumping through hoops. Or are you only counting forms of contraception that have enough chemical effect on your body that you really ought to see a doctor first? Because in that case I'd say that's good health practice, not sexual repression.

Quote:
they will have sex ed worth the name and thus be able to protect themselves from complications,

Been a while on this one too, so I couldn't really comment. (Though your protest is vague enough that I'm not sure I could comment effectively anyway.)

Quote:
you could have a sensible treatment of sex offenders instead of a horror show crusade against them.

This is another really vague comment, but it sounds like you're saying that punishment of things like rape and child molestation is more harsh than such crimes are worth. Feel free to clarify.

Quote:
People would discuss sexual matters BEFORE starting relationships (oh, if only).

Wait, like, before even a first date? Or do you just mean before it becomes, you know, a relationship? If the former, that seems cumbersome and unnecessary. If the latter, then yeah, you've got a point.

Quote:
People with non-standard sexualities would possibly not get as vilified.

Ehhh... I'm not sure that's based on a sexually-repressed culture so much as it's based on the vilification of the not-like-self. There's more psychological similarity between the vilification of atypical sexuality and the vilification of min-maxing than there is between the vilification of atypical sexuality and a shyness towards discussing one's own sexuality. The central mental theme is "My experience defines the norm of this topic, and the other is perverting it."

Quote:
Making that shameful, forbidden or hidden is a) not going to work, and b) hurt a lot of people in the process.

On this broad point I agree.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I just wish that those of us that are into things that aren't the norm would stop getting looked at like monsters. Even if you're into something completely tame like hair people will freak out, gods forbid you're into something really out there.


HyperMissingno wrote:
I just wish that those of us that are into things that aren't the norm would stop getting looked at like monsters. Even if you're into something completely tame like hair people will freak out, gods forbid you're into something really out there.

Depends what you consider "the norm". I look at things like politicians showing of their smiling families, and just want to puke. A shameful display. On the other hand, having read Dan Savage columns for a while now, I suspect that behind closed doors "the norm" includes much more then most people are conformable admitting in public. People who live in glass houses are often prolific throwers of stones.

Sczarni

Ivan Rûski wrote:
Is it weird that I have no problem with sex in public but I don't like to talk about it?

Not really. Being okay with something is one thing. People shoving it in your face is another.

Liberty's Edge

It also depends if one has a social filter. Which not everyone has imo. I have been in public where some things were better left unsaid. Such as telling me exactly what was done in the bedroom. A good example happened to myself at a dinner table. I'm having dinner with a bunch of friends. One of them asked another how the relationship with his girlfriend. His response was " I (cesnored) her brains out on a daily basis". You could just hear a pin drop. The rest of the dinner was kind of ruined with that verbal bombshell. Then he wondered why some people at the table. Espcially of the opposite sex hated his guts. It's all context. If simply hearing the word sex puts one on edge. It's not simply being a prude. It's not normal imo.

As for having sex in public you would be surprised. I think more people engage in it. My brother used to work as a waiter a a reception hall. One of the other waiters caught a couple going at it in the parking lot. The manager was kind of cruel and found all the off duty waiters he could and they all began cheering. The couple made a speedy exit out of there.

I can respect someone for not wanting to hear about certain subjects. At the same time I tend to avoid socializing with such people as well. Not because I'm a jerk. I want to be relaxed when i'm with friends.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:


I look at things like politicians showing of their smiling families, and just want to puke. A shameful display.

Ow. You've go to warn someone if you're going to leave something with that kind of edge lying around.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not responding to a post in hopes of letting a thread derail die really grinds my gears.


I once player DMed to a girl that fantasized with her character being captured by the BBEG and then raped and humiliated...it was weird to say the least.

Dark Archive

thejeff wrote:
Not responding to a post in hopes of letting a thread derail die really grinds my gears.

So are your gears are being grinded because you are not answering a post (so the thread can die) in another, different thread?

Or - are your gears being grinded because someone else is ignoring a post you made, in hoping that a thread derail may die? The latter assumes that maybe it's because thejeff is winning an internet argument (never against me mind you) and the villain has decided to avoid post-sparring with you? Thus, thusly - grinding your gears?

Or, do you want this sex-thread derail to die already, and you are posting in a passive way (fake ignore) in a effort to move that along?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The only way to kill one derail is with another, greater derail.

I posit that rogues are excellent characters, and that if you do not like them, you do not play the game properly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Delayed Blast Threadlock wrote:

The only way to kill one derail is with another, greater derail.

I posit that rogues are excellent characters, and that if you do not like them, you do not play the game properly.

You monster.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Delayed Blast Threadlock wrote:

The only way to kill one derail is with another, greater derail.

I posit that rogues are excellent characters, and that if you do not like them, you do not play the game properly.

I don't see what this has to do with Paladins and our modern world view of Good and Evil (or lack therof).

Also, if a Paladin falls in the woods, and no one is around to see it - does he need to Atone?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:
Delayed Blast Threadlock wrote:

The only way to kill one derail is with another, greater derail.

I posit that rogues are excellent characters, and that if you do not like them, you do not play the game properly.

I don't see what this has to do with Paladins and our modern world view of Good and Evil (or lack therof).

Also, if a Paladin falls in the woods, and no one is around to see it - does he need to Atone?

Is cannibalism evil, in of itself?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Delayed Blast Threadlock wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Delayed Blast Threadlock wrote:

The only way to kill one derail is with another, greater derail.

I posit that rogues are excellent characters, and that if you do not like them, you do not play the game properly.

I don't see what this has to do with Paladins and our modern world view of Good and Evil (or lack therof).

Also, if a Paladin falls in the woods, and no one is around to see it - does he need to Atone?

Is cannibalism evil, in of itself?

In - of itself, as in auto-cannibalism?

I cannot comprehend how biting one's nails could constitute an evil act - but it certainly breaks etiquette, so maybe CN?

I have around a 1000 questions relating to the CN alignment, let me know when you guys want me to start a thread.....

for each one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Delayed Blast Threadlock wrote:

The only way to kill one derail is with another, greater derail.

I posit that rogues are excellent characters, and that if you do not like them, you do not play the game properly.

Why yes, investigators are a blast to play! Not sure about slayers though since I haven't played one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why do people keep thinking that the goblin babies impaled on racks in dwarven restaurants are shameful and demeaning!? Goblins are lower life forms among the dwarven race, and as such, are food!

Speaking of, anyone wanna buy a rack of baby?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Crazy Eddie wrote:

Why do people keep thinking that the goblin babies impaled on racks in dwarven restaurants are shameful and demeaning!? Goblins are lower life forms among the dwarven race, and as such, are food!

Speaking of, anyone wanna buy a rack of baby?

Caged, or free range? Free range has more protein, but caged has that fall off the bone deliciousness you just can't get in most goblin, unless it's aged (but we all know how hard aged goblin is to find).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If dwarves are to be believed, everything is a lower form of life among the dwarven race.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vincent Takeda wrote:
If dwarves are to be believed, everything is a lower form of life among the dwarven race.

That's a dirty lie!

Earth elementals are respectable members of the community.


Sex!

EDIT: Smurf Sex!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

SMURF!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

INITIATING PESTICIDE APPLICATION.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Granted I haven't been in a position to be treated by a school nurse in a good long while, but American doctors do, in fact, handle sexual problems.

I am sure they do. I am also very sure people think several times before telling their doctor anything out of the ordinary about their sex lives. Just as an example, there at least used to be lists of doctors where BDSM-interested people could go for treatment without fear of getting reported and such. Was a while ago, but I doubt there has been a tolerance revolution about it since. Gods forbid a teenager talks about a nonstandard sexuality with their school nurse, and heaven help people in various places that need a day after pill, or an abortion.

Jiggy wrote:
I didn't realize my occasional trip to the store counted as jumping through hoops. Or are you only counting forms of contraception that have enough chemical effect on your body that you really ought to see a doctor first? Because in that case I'd say that's good health practice, not sexual repression.

In how many states in the US can a twelve-year old girl get contraceptives without issue? I may be wrong on this, but I don't imagine it is anywhere near universal.

Jiggy wrote:
Been a while on this one too, so I couldn't really comment. (Though your protest is vague enough that I'm not sure I could comment effectively anyway.)

How are the abstinence-only programs working out for America so far?

Jiggy wrote:
This is another really vague comment, but it sounds like you're saying that punishment of things like rape and child molestation is more harsh than such crimes are worth. Feel free to clarify.

Getting registered as a sex offender, having to tell your entire neighbourhood you are one when moving somewhere, not being allowed to live within x distance of a place with children (with crusaders capitalising on this to build more daycare centers strategically), and so on and so forth. These are people that HAVE been punished already. People who should be trying to reintegrate into society. Contrary to what many Americans believe, sex offenders have a pretty good record of non-recurrence, which is what we see in other countries. There is no reason to treat them this way, and doing so actually worsens their prognosis. And this is without discussing cases like a seventeen year old girl getting sex offender status because she had photos of HERSELF in her mobile phone. Sex offenders have become a state sanctioned bogeyman, but the reality doesn't match the media image. Sure, some of them do, but there are other systems to deal with when someone shouldn't be let out and so on. It is a poor thing for any culture to demonize anyone, and has serious consequences by itself.

Jiggy wrote:
Wait, like, before even a first date? Or do you just mean before it becomes, you know, a relationship? If the former, that seems cumbersome and unnecessary. If the latter, then yeah, you've got a point.

The second, of course. One thing dating SHOULD be for is to begin finding out if you are sexually compatible. No sex until after marriage needs to die in a fire. It leads to unhappy people, ruined lives and shattered families, whether due to separation, unfaithfulness or other.

Quote:
Ehhh... I'm not sure that's based on a sexually-repressed culture so much as it's based on the vilification of the not-like-self. There's more psychological similarity between the vilification of atypical sexuality and the vilification of min-maxing than there is between the vilification of atypical sexuality and a shyness towards discussing one's own sexuality. The...

Damn board system swallows the rest, but: If sex is something people respect and can even talk about seriously, then someone else's sexuality will more easily fall under the live and let live doctrine. If only just because it gets easier to understand.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
No sex until after marriage needs to die in a fire

It is entire possible to state one's opinion without attacking another person's beliefs (be they religious based or what have you).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Digitalelf wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
No sex until after marriage needs to die in a fire
It is entire possible to state one's opinion without attacking another's religious beliefs.

They didn't state any religion (though it tends to encompass most) and it is entirely possible to have this particular taboo without attaching it to dogma.

Grand Lodge

TarkXT wrote:
They didn't state any religion (though it tends to encompass most) and it is entirely possible to have this particular taboo without attaching it to dogma.

You're right, so I changed my post to better reflect that...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Religious beliefs have my respect. Religious behaviours are just as possible to criticize as any other sort of behaviour. And this, of course, applies to any sort of moral rule someone tries to spread to anyone else, especially but not limited to when it happens by force or by laws. Behaviours and ideas need to be judged at least in part by their consequences, and in the case of "no sex before marriage", I consider the consequences dire and obvious.

I also find it interesting that claiming "no sex before marriage needs to die in a fire" is an attack... While "no sex before marriage" itself is not. It is a claim to the right to judge someone else's views of sexuality.

To further clarify, it is the general meme I find repugnant, the societal movement to spread this as the norm. What one or two people decide for themselves is entirely up to them.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I personally think all beliefs and behaviors can be criticized. Everyone has the right to believe whatever they want, but they shouldn't be free of criticism just because they slap a tag on it.

No one should be punished for their beliefs, (although they can and should be punished by their actions, which may have been motivated by a certain belief). But norhing should be free of crticism. No belief, opinion or behavior.


Sissyl, this forum does not let me fave your posts several times over. I apologize.

That said, I'm going to have to spread Sissyl's general meme for my rage and apply it to any religion, philosophy, or any other such thing trying to force themselves on other people as "The One True Way". Then again, I fall so deep into the "Live and let live" idea that it's surprising I'm not an anarchist. If I choose to have a thing for tubby women in form-fitting leather with stiletto heels that should be registered as deadly weapons and let them walk all over me, then by damn it let me have it. B&@$* only when I start goin' on about it and you don't wanna hear it, but don't you dare try and take away any right I have to talk about it with like-minded folk, and any doctor I need to visit because she tripped and punctured my spleen.

(For the record, I'm something of a pain wimp for certain kinds of pain, so, no deadly needle stilettos for me, just an example :p).

But that's more a general societal meme than a Pathfinder Forum meme. I could go on about religion's horrors about trying to force their views on people, about as long as I could go on about Scientology, but this aint the thread for those.

Hmmm.. Pathfinder forum memes... Pathfinder forum... Ah! "Keep your sci-fi out of my fantasy!" when it comes to musketeers. Annoying, and grinds my gro-gears. Ahem...

Back to sleep for me!

Edit: Also, what Lemmy said... I had that in mind to say, but went off on a tangent again... Really need to get more sleep before I post on these boards, seriously.... That or chug an espresso or something.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

I personally think all beliefs and behaviors can be criticized. Everyone has the right to believe whatever they want, but they shouldn't be free of criticism just because they slap a tag on it.

No one should be punished for their beliefs, (although they can and should be punished by their actions, which may have been motivated by a certain belief). But norhing should be free of crticism. No belief, opinion or behavior.

I've met many people who say that.

I've met very, very few people who truly believe it. Which is a shame.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The idea that believers of a religion who's very foundational texts claim mutual exclusivity from any and all other forms of belief should somehow claim to not belive themselves to be the one true way is completely counterintuitive to the very bedrock of what makes that set of beliefs what it is. Asking a monotheist who's religion's holy texts literally claims their deity not only is the only one, but the only correct representation of one to simply accept that there might be another path to the divine is not only condescending, but ignorant of the cornerstone building block of the three major Abrahamic faiths.

It's like telling a Hindu to eat a cow anyway, because they need to open their mind to the concept that people might not reincarnate into them. It's insulting and contrary to the very root foundations of what defines that group of beliefs.

Now does that mean they should force that on others? In general, no, but there is an exception, whether those differing in belief approve or not, and that is one's own children of minor age. Until age of consent, adults are given responsibility to raise their children, nurture them, and instill moral and ethical values on them, both as society requires and as they themselves (the parents) understand those subjects to be. And while you cannot literally force belief, you most assuredly can force behavior associated with said group of beliefs. In fact, it is even the prerogative of many parents to continue to enforce those behaviors into adulthood, provided said parents are still supplying food and shelter to their adult children. It may seem unfair, but after age of consent, those same children are no longer bound by law to remain where they have food and shelter given to them.

If you want 12-year olds to be capable of buying contraception without parental input, you have stated that such a responsibility for moral and ethical upbringing vis-a-vis sexual conduct is no longer the responsibility or even allowed domain of the parents. I'm sorry, but I don't think that's right any more than allowing a 12-year old to buy a gun, or an international plane ticket without parental input. If the parents of that individual wanted to allow such behavior, they would participate in the activity. If "well they'll do it anyway" is sufficient motivation for you that such should be allowed, then I think your quarrel is not with disallowing kids to purchase such products, but rather the current age of consent for ALL things in the United States, because the same equally motivated individuals will find a means to disobey their parents in any and all other conflicts they might personally disagree with. Preteens, for all their lack in wisdom, are incredibly crafty when properly motivated, after all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marco Polaris wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

I personally think all beliefs and behaviors can be criticized. Everyone has the right to believe whatever they want, but they shouldn't be free of criticism just because they slap a tag on it.

No one should be punished for their beliefs, (although they can and should be punished by their actions, which may have been motivated by a certain belief). But norhing should be free of crticism. No belief, opinion or behavior.

I've met many people who say that.

I've met very, very few people who truly believe it. Which is a shame.

There will always be those who are willing to impose their beliefs on othera and act as if their beliefs (and only theirs) should be free of criticism.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And on a separate note - belief without action isn't truly belief at all. If you truly believe something, you will at least try to make your actions line up with it. You may fail, due to circumstances or lack of personal willpower, but you will try.

So, the idea of accepting belief without accepting action is kind of moot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@greenteagamer

There is a difference between believing you're correct and trying to impose your view on others... If you think your deity of choice doesn't want you to eat hamburgers, then don't eat hamburgers. You can even talk about it with others and try to convince them to not eat hamburgers either... Just don't try to forcefully forbid others from doing it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:

The idea that believers of a religion who's very foundational texts claim mutual exclusivity from any and all other forms of belief should somehow claim to not belive themselves to be the one true way is completely counterintuitive to the very bedrock of what makes that set of beliefs what it is. Asking a monotheist who's religion's holy texts literally claims their deity not only is the only one, but the only correct representation of one to simply accept that there might be another path to the divine is not only condescending, but ignorant of the cornerstone building block of the three major Abrahamic faiths.

It's like telling a Hindu to eat a cow anyway, because they need to open their mind to the concept that people might not reincarnate into them. It's insulting and contrary to the very root foundations of what defines that group of beliefs.

Now does that mean they should force that on others? In general, no, but there is an exception, whether those differing in belief approve or not, and that is one's own children of minor age. Until age of consent, adults are given responsibility to raise their children, nurture them, and instill moral and ethical values on them, both as society requires and as they themselves (the parents) understand those subjects to be. And while you cannot literally force belief, you most assuredly can force behavior associated with said group of beliefs. In fact, it is even the prerogative of many parents to continue to enforce those behaviors into adulthood, provided said parents are still supplying food and shelter to their adult children. It may seem unfair, but after age of consent, those same children are no longer bound by law to remain where they have food and shelter given to them.

If you want 12-year olds to be capable of buying contraception without parental input, you have stated that such a responsibility for moral and ethical upbringing vis-a-vis sexual conduct is no longer the responsibility or even allowed domain of the parents. I'm sorry, but I don't think that's right any more than allowing a 12-year old to buy a gun, or an international plane ticket without parental input. If the parents of that individual wanted to allow such behavior, they would participate in the activity. If "well they'll do it anyway" is sufficient motivation for you that such should be allowed, then I think your quarrel is not with disallowing kids to purchase such products, but rather the current age of consent for ALL things in the United States, because the same equally motivated individuals will find a means to disobey their parents in any and all other conflicts they might personally disagree with. Preteens, for all their lack in wisdom, are incredibly crafty when properly motivated, after all.

1) It's quite possible and reasonable for people to believe that their holy text shows the one true way, but to also accept that their understanding of that text may not be complete.

2) There is no "current age of consent for all things in the US". If there are different ages for consensual sex, pornography, alcohol, driving, work, voting, guns and the draft, I don't see any fundamental reason why the age for purchasing contraception can't be set separately given some compelling state interest in it - which obviously exists, given that access to contraception (along with sex education) is by far the best way to reduce both teen pregnancy and STDs. (Not as effective as abstinence, but far more than just telling children not to have sex.)

Your basic premise is wrong. There is no single age at which kids suddenly get all the rights of adults and parents are no longer responsible to provide food and shelter. It's a gradual process.


thegreenteagamer wrote:

And on a separate note - belief without action isn't truly belief at all. If you truly believe something, you will at least try to make your actions line up with it. You may fail, due to circumstances or lack of personal willpower, but you will try.

So, the idea of accepting belief without accepting action is kind of moot.

But we can't (and shouldn't) police each other's thoughts... Therefore, we can't punish each other for believing something (although we can judge them based on said beliefs). You can think whatever you want. As long as you don't act on said thoughts, you didn't harm anyone and therefore shouldn't be punished... At the moment where you do act, however, it affects other people and therefore, you can be punished for your actions (assuming your actions deserve punishment, of course).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

@greenteagamer

There is a difference between believing you're correct and trying to kmpose your view on others... If think your deiry of choice doesn't want you to eat hamburgers, then don't eat hamburgers. You can even talk about it with others and try to convince them to not eat hamburgers either... Just don't try to forcefully forbid others from doing it.

And make it illegal to sell hamburgers to minor children without parental consent to allow parents to raise their children as they see fit.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:

The idea that believers of a religion who's very foundational texts claim mutual exclusivity from any and all other forms of belief should somehow claim to not belive themselves to be the one true way is completely counterintuitive to the very bedrock of what makes that set of beliefs what it is. Asking a monotheist who's religion's holy texts literally claims their deity not only is the only one, but the only correct representation of one to simply accept that there might be another path to the divine is not only condescending, but ignorant of the cornerstone building block of the three major Abrahamic faiths.

It's like telling a Hindu to eat a cow anyway, because they need to open their mind to the concept that people might not reincarnate into them. It's insulting and contrary to the very root foundations of what defines that group of beliefs.

Now does that mean they should force that on others? In general, no, but there is an exception, whether those differing in belief approve or not, and that is one's own children of minor age. Until age of consent, adults are given responsibility to raise their children, nurture them, and instill moral and ethical values on them, both as society requires and as they themselves (the parents) understand those subjects to be. And while you cannot literally force belief, you most assuredly can force behavior associated with said group of beliefs. In fact, it is even the prerogative of many parents to continue to enforce those behaviors into adulthood, provided said parents are still supplying food and shelter to their adult children. It may seem unfair, but after age of consent, those same children are no longer bound by law to remain where they have food and shelter given to them.

If you want 12-year olds to be capable of buying contraception without parental input, you have stated that such a responsibility for moral and ethical upbringing vis-a-vis sexual conduct is no longer the responsibility or even allowed domain of the parents. I'm...

If you wish, as a parent, to enforce extra rules above and beyond the law of the land upon your children that's your parental right. But please don't ask others to change the laws to conform to your particular religious belief. There are also places where parental rights end - denying your child needed medical care because you believe in faith healing is simply child abuse.

To take religion out of it, it's legal for me to show a five year old how to shoot a gun. That's doesn't mean I think it's necessarily a good idea to do so, but I also don't want laws forbidding parents from doing it just because I don't want to. Having a thing be legal doesn't mean all parents have to be okay with it.

By the way, a strict authoritarian upbringing seems to be the best way to ensure a hedonistic party explosion out of a child once they finally get away. In college no one was a party animal like the kid with the strict religious parents.

And we're not asking you to believe your religion isn't "the one true way." All we're asking is that you realize, form an outside point of view, that we see thousands of different "one true ways," all with apparently equal validity. Just believe that there are others who do not believe as you do.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Thank you guys for the support. Sometimes it seems I hit the mark. =)

Regarding contraceptives for 12-year-olds: I would prefer if they didn't start having sex at 12. It is, however, not something that I, or anyone else for that matter, can control. It also behooves us to be careful before denying someone the right to do something. Still, my main argument is NOT "they are going to do it anyway", but "when they do it anyway, if they have contraceptives, there will at least not be a teenage pregnancy, and with condoms, we can hope for less STD transmission".

We as adults have a MASSIVE responsibility to steer society in a direction that promotes health, even sexual such whenever they have started having sex, for our children. Shaming them, punishing and threatening is THE best way to get rebellious teens to break the rules we set up for them. Why? Because we did not have the right priorities when we set up those rules. Most parents get something panicky in their eyes when they think about their children having sex - but they have a sexuality whatever we think. It is, according to the studies that do exist, better to respect them, teach them what sex is, and give them the tools they need to protect themselves from complications.

Really, the other solutions are pretty dismal: Abstinence-only programs have been instrumental in increasing teenage pregnancies and STD spread. IN Africa, where the US under Bush mandated it in exchange for international donations, it has raised the spread of HIV even worse than before. Purity rings (where a young girl marries her dad and promises to stay pure for him) seem to come with an even more significantly raised risk of teenage pregnancy.

Our children are competent enough to handle the rather simple conditions for having safe sex. If they are not, it's the adults that have not done their jobs. Such as by not telling them what they need to know.


Sissyl wrote:
I also find it interesting that claiming "no sex before marriage needs to die in a fire" is an attack... While "no sex before marriage" itself is not. It is a claim to the right to judge someone else's views of sexuality.

While I agree with your general assessment, Sissyl, I do want to point something out:

"No sex before marriage" is an attack, one that has ruined (I'm gonna say) millions of lives, and resulted in probably that many deaths.

Hyperbolic "die in a fire" statements are offensive, but in the context they were here delivered (how can a statement die?) it's just silly.

So, while some may be offended, I think it is by far the lesser offense in this case.

651 to 700 of 1,247 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Pathfinder Forums Memes that Grind Your Gears All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.