4 of 4
4
Muslim Women and Virginity
Posted: 18 July 2008 03:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2927
Joined  2006-12-17

Not to hijack the thread too much, but I guess Jack and
his fellow believers (frankr, etc.) are doomed to remain
earthbound.  I recently saw a news story to the effect
that on long space missions (such as 3 year flights to
Mars) the astronauts would be best off forming temporary
sexual partnerships to relieve stress.  The thought
leads to all sorts of wild speculations,  It would be
especially interesting if there were no women on board.  LOL
Just imagine the furor that would erupt.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 July 2008 03:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1639
Joined  2007-12-20

author=“burt” date=“1216433870”

It would be
especially interesting if there were no women on board.  LOL

...or no men.

Just imagine the furor that would erupt.


It would almost be worth it. grin

 Signature 

“Every war is a war against children.”
Howard Zinn

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 July 2008 03:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3765
Joined  2007-03-11
burt - 18 July 2008 07:17 PM

I recently saw a news story to the effect that on long space missions (such as 3 year flights to Mars) the astronauts would be best off forming temporary sexual partnerships to relieve stress.  The thought
leads to all sorts of wild speculations,  It would be
especially interesting if there were no women on board.  LOL
Just imagine the furor that would erupt.

Visions of weightless sex dance in my head. But lots of married couples go three years without sex (or so I hear), so it shouldn’t be a big deal for the a’nauts. Besides, anyone who would volunteer to sit in a space ship for three years can’t have a very exciting life.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 July 2008 07:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  885
Joined  2008-01-23

Jack Shooter said:

lindajean,

Regrettably, you are making gross errors in confusing various human behaviours with others on the basis of harm.  Remember the saying, “no pain, no gain”?  Well, actually this adage reflects an ancient wisdom or truth that religion often emphasizes (i.e. patience, sacrifice, etc.).  More importantly, this understanding is rightly applied to things such as marriage and child bearing, and even eating animals (i.e. need for certain specific protein).

lindajean said:

It is ‘rightly applied” only in your terms because it is what you believe to be true.

Nutritionally you can get all the protein you need in a non-meat diet….....etc…...

Note that just because it is possible to meet nutritional requirements through a vegetarian diet does not make it immoral to eat meat, fish, poultry, etc. More importantly, that it is possible to acheive nutritional requirments through a vegetarian diet does not mean that meat is not necessary for the many people who do not have access to the plants that would provide them with the required nutrition.  For sure, one could rightly argue that eating meat excessively is immoral for various reasons, or even that being an extreme vegetarian/vegan is immoral for various reasons, but not that eating meat or abstaining from it is immoral in and of itself.  That position would be unsupportable.

What I have been saying regarding morality here I know to be true insofar as I have come to these conclusions based on the use of my intellect.  I am sure that if you would use your intellect instead of emotion, you would find what I have said to be true as well.

Jack Shooter said:

However, “no pain, no gain” CANNOT be applied to sodomy, and pornography, and other prohibited matters for there is ONLY loss in such things.  Health problems from sodomy are clear (refer to the health reports I posted on this), and the ill consequences of pornography are clear (i.e. objectification/comodification of women (and men, but mostly women), correlation to addiction and increasing need for more and more ‘hardcore’ forms of sex including violent sex acts, and other things, there is ample evidence).

lindajean said:

There is loss in all kinds of human experiences but that is not a precondition for abstaining from them nor is it a moral one.

Some losses are an inevitable part of life (and indeed there are often benefits in those losses), others are not.  Only a fool would not avoid the latter type.  Likewise, to engage in something in which there may be only a fleeting pleasure while suffering overarching loss is certainly immoral.  Compare marriage and fornication or adultrey.  The former, while enjoyable also includes much suffering, but the suffering is of a different type, one that often leads to growth and even more joy when put into context.  Conversely, the latter behaviors are immoral because while it may entail a pleasure, it necessarily results in the demise of individual and family well being, as well as creates a burden for society at large.  The latter group of behaviors are simply unsustainable.

Again, most religions are clear on these matters, but Islam provides the best (i.e. most accurate, complete, and reliable) articulation of these things.

lindajean said:

Again, these are your subjective beliefs that you have an unrelenting desire to bear truth.

No, these are facts that you have not bothered to look at or that you know but for some reason would say anything to deny.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 July 2008 04:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1639
Joined  2007-12-20

Jack shooter

Note that just because it is possible to meet nutritional requirements through a vegetarian diet does not make it immoral to eat meat, fish, poultry, etc.

Here you are contradicting yourself.  Earlier you claim that there is a “need for certain specific protein” in regards to eating meat and now you are claiming it is “possible to meet nutritional requirements through a vegetarian diet….”

I have never claimed that eating meat (for others) is “immoral”.  Only wrong for myself.  My statement was :

Some of the moral “absolutes” that I believe in no doubt are held by the majority of humans and I would describe them as universal.  And others——this is where the vast majority of differences in “morals” comes to light—are simply personal beliefs that I have, you have, and others have.  For example:  One of my personal morals is that it is wrong to kill or harm sentient beings.  Therefore I do not eat animal flesh (meat).  Others (billions of others) do not agree that it is wrong to kill animals and eat them. I don’t expect others to agree with me on this, and I do accept that I cannot push my own moral beliefs onto them.

 

Jack

What I have been saying regarding morality here I know to be true insofar as I have come to these conclusions based on the use of my intellect.  I am sure that if you would use your intellect instead of emotion, you would find what I have said to be true as well.

Coming to conclusions based on intellect does not necessarily make them “truths”.

No, these are facts that you have not bothered to look at or that you know but for some reason would say anything to deny.

These are ideas we disagree on. No need to make it more than that.

 Signature 

“Every war is a war against children.”
Howard Zinn

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 July 2008 11:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2927
Joined  2006-12-17
Bruce Burleson - 18 July 2008 07:23 PM
burt - 18 July 2008 07:17 PM

I recently saw a news story to the effect that on long space missions (such as 3 year flights to Mars) the astronauts would be best off forming temporary sexual partnerships to relieve stress.  The thought
leads to all sorts of wild speculations,  It would be
especially interesting if there were no women on board.  LOL
Just imagine the furor that would erupt.

Visions of weightless sex dance in my head. But lots of married couples go three years without sex (or so I hear), so it shouldn’t be a big deal for the a’nauts. Besides, anyone who would volunteer to sit in a space ship for three years can’t have a very exciting life.

Once there was a small village in Russia where the locals had a cow that gave good milk.  Then the cow died.  The villagers gathered their savings and looked for a new cow.  The found one for sale in Moscow for 2000 rubles, but another in Minsk for only 1000 rubles so that is the one they bought.  It turned out to be an excellent cow, giving enough milk that they could sell the extra and make some money on the side.  After a year the villagers decided to buy a bull and breed the cow so they could get more excellent cattle.  They got the bull, but the cow didn’t seem interested.  Every time the bull approached it, it backed away.  Finally, in desperation the villagers consulted the local rabbi.  Rabbi, they said, we have this excellent cow that gives fantastic amounts of milk.  We bought a bull to breed her, but every time the bull approaches, she backs away.  What is the matter?  The rabbi thought for a few minutes, then asked: “Was this cow from Minsk?”  The villagers replied “yes, how did you know?”  In a sad and knowing voice the rabbi said: “My wife is from Minsk.”

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 4
4
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed