h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Della I would have agreed with you, but i'm attempting to re evaluate.
I think that couples can 'use' each other in these non relationship unions.
and that feeling of having to 'buy' affection with your body, is still about lack of self esteem whatever generation is suffering from it.
I can well remember that horrible feeling that if you didn't do as you assumed a new aquaintance wanted, you'd be out and that even applied to people i didn't really like !!!!!
because i didn't want to experience rejection.
The fear of this bargaining to avoid rejection, led me to not going out with boys/men. i stuck with one person for five years. even though i didn't totally like this person, he kept me safe from any other risky relationships simply by his presence.
Stupid or what?

whatever happens between two consenting adults, that harms no one else seems to be alright with me nowaday.
although i'd still identify it on a personal level as a rather empty experience.
but perhaps we have to have a few of those to be able to recognise the good in any future relationships.
with each relationship, good or bad we learn something, then all we have to do is remember to act on the things we've learnt and not keep with the pattern of pre programming.
Obviously this French guy just wasn't good enough for you

My there's been a lot of wandering off topic. Never mind. This is how we learn about who we are.

Jordan- we can't ask the child, so you say you wouldn't like to make that decision for it.
Fairy snuff!
However... we cannot also ask the child if it wants to live. Can we? Although I doubt that many people alive now would elect to die if given the choice, some certainly would (oh, I support voluntary euthanasia too, and I'm not actually surprised that you do.) Therefore, people are being born who would prefer that they hadn't been. If you were to ask the child, and it said 'Nope, I don't want any of that' instead of what you consider to be the certain response of 'By all means, let me live' what would you then do?

He's right you know, in the past it was either a shotgun wedding (you'd have to be of sufficient means, tho') or a life in the workhouse wearing the yellow sack of shame.

There's no way to know. I have made the decision not to act based on a fictitious scenario, and this is what people do in regard to everything. (I'm not justifying it with a majority, btw.) I might as well say, "It's hugely beneficial to me to drive a car, on occasions, but I won't because there's the potential that I might kill someone."
Because we have to make the decision somewhere.

'killing the unborn child', yep, that's what it is. However I would never value my already-present life, and that of other people, for a potential one. Similarly, I will not make sacrifices now for some possible future, unless I am sufficiently sure of the benefits.

I find no problem with Toxx's 'if both partners are consenting' idea. (As a feminist, I get bothered by assumptions that women by definition don't mean it if they consent after this time. Plenty do. Plenty don't. However, generalisations aren't much use here.) If both partners are consenting, whose place is it to question their decision?

Jordan. Your argument is rather self-defeating. You argue that it is both in a child's interests and not in its interests to come into the world in less-than-ideal circumstances. You don't want them to be casually conceived, but you don't want them to be casually aborted either. I don't see how both of these views can be based on the assumed interests of a possible future child. I think you're just fooling yourself and, attemptedly, us, when what you really object to is the casualness!

I was a Christian Minister until late 2002... So, like someone in the whatnot's den, here goes...

For the purposes of this thread I will refer to all ex-observed entities(God/Angels/Devil) as male.
First you are only a Satan Worshipper if you believe in Satan and worship him. Belief in God is Theism. The two beliefs are not necessarily complimentary or opposites.

How do you believe what Hell is if you don't believe the teachings of those who defined hell in human terms? And isnt this winter cold enough to enjoy the thought of eternal heat?

Pinniped said <> That is simply the Prime Mover that existed before anything else, be it energy or matter. That triggered the 'Big Bang' if current scientific thinking is correct.

Then said <> We may not chat, but all returns into the infinity of creation as either matter or energy and is re-used

And <> No quibbles there, but that is the nature of humanity. So are theists, atheists and agnostics.

<> are people who espouse a cause that is not acceptable to the majority in their own time

<<The Western set (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) lumped together is not logical. Judaism is based on a peoples discovery of a common nationhood, Christianity on a common kinship regardless of race, and Islam has a common enemy based on ?8th century? uprising against arrogant rulers

<> ? A charlatan does something they actually know is wrong. The teachers and prophets may have been deluded but not deliberately evil.

Does the belief in a common humanity have no relevance?

<> - a limited part of a religious group

The tenet of Christianity is Love. The churches, with exceptions are at last rediscovering this. Think of the work of Anglicans in South Africa

People may delude themselves with <> because they do not study what is the basis of their religion.

Enough for now from me - if i go on much longer, no wonder my congregations fell asleep on me

Hi there kleverkloggs.

I see you came here direct from posting 19, missing out 3964 postings en route... but don't worry, reading the entire backlog isn't mandatory.

On the present slightly offtopic subject:

Without making any specific moral judgements, it seems reasonable to suppose that if couples know each other fairly well prior to having sex that the likelihood of unforeseen/unintended emotional or physical consequences is likely to be reduced.

And I think one only has to look at the statistics for abortion and teenage pregnancy in this country to come to the conclusion that a significant number of people do not behave as responsibly, sexually, as they probably should, and I think a culture of "I have a right to behave as I please" instant gratification, and the expectation that one should not be faced with any consequences, is at least partly to blame. People believe this because they want to believe it, and because they are not educated to be sceptical.

Noggin

Hi Noggin, sorry about that - my pc didnt show up the intervening blobby indicators, only for page 1 or 2. People often call me a leper - I thought it's somebody who leaps around threads so just live up to my name s.
Continuing in the controevrsy-packed vein in which the whole thread started...
Of course, the animal instinct in the male is to produce as many progeny as possible using the females who he judges to be suitable genetic carriers. Why worry about the luxury that is human feelings and emotions? Does it matter if it contravenes what is called 'civilised behaviour' Its might be better for the human race if we all ignored other people's feelings altogether and got down to creating enough overpopulation so there is enough natural overcrowding to force us into acting like rats under similar circumstances.

Well, KK. I don't think it follows from your assumption that the population would be one iota different in number. After all, the female of the species is unlikely to have more than one offspring per year. If she's up for sexual activity, what difference do the nuances make to the number of offspring?

Arguments about the value of emotions and relationships are fine if they stand of fall on their own merits. To justify such feelings on the grounds of potential overpopulation seems to me to be wrong-headed and a sure fire way to devalue them.

KK
I'm with you on you tkae on God.

More stuff from earlier...

Abortion involves 2 people, and a potential one. I'd have to say, because the latter is unable to speak for itself, you take the majority decision.
That may not be 'fair' but if we gave everyone who currently has decisions made for them a mouthpiece, then we'd have to have voting representatives of people who currently are prevented from voting.

If you are concerned about taking the life of a potential child simply for that reason, remember that every zygote is also potential child. (That to me is a more reasonable argument against *any* contraception than the ones I usually hear, i.e God said so.)

Women should therefore conserve their eggs instead of having wasteful periods, and men should not masturbate... ah, wait a minute. (Loss of vital essence! Hideous... withered... etc.)



Jordan, I am not aware of any vascectomy-equivalent operation for a woman, which is reversible. The operation would involve removing the equipment needed, and it can't be put back in like Lego. joy of Lego...

Vascectomies are not 100% efficient, anyway.

Your earlier statistics about contraception efficiency are a bit misleading... they mislead me, for instance. Sneaky ! 97% efficiency may mean a 1 in 33 chance of the contraception failing, and letting sperm get where they're not welcome, but it doesn't follow that it's a 1 in 33 chance of pregnancy occurring. I would have to write it down to do the maths, but if every 33rd time I had sex I was actually unprotected, and babies were the result, I would have... several offspring.

I don't think people should be treated by a free, national health service depending on how 'deserving' they are.

Even Einstein , one of the world's greatest scientific minds said :
"The only real certainty in life is the existance of God."

so you have to wonder.........
It seems that with that thought in mind, mankind has done nothing since but argue and fight about what God looks like and means.
When you stand back and look at the eternal wranglings to own the 'right God', .......well it's ridiculous really.
The one thing I maintain is that God never changes, so any religious theory that includes change cannot be totally representational of an unchanging thing.

Here's what happens when man decides in arrogance what he thinks God thinks;
"According to published figures, one Jordanian women is killed each week for losing her chastity, because she is a victim of rumour or rape.
However the true figure is likely to be higher because these deaths are often recorded as suicide or accidental death
In 1998 the united nations made a conservative estimate that more than 5,000 woman are killed for reasons of honour every year. - 1,000 in Pakistan, and Afghanistan, about 400 in Yemen, 50 in Lebenon,1,000 in Eygpt and approximately , 2,500 in the West Bank, Gaza and Jordan.
in Jordan anyone murdering a woman relative in a fit of rage, because of real or perceived adultary has his sentence reduced.
The mere rumour that a woman has acted 'immorally' can be enough to justify her death.
In August 2001, the Jordanian justice minister responded to a question about 'honour' killings in the case of rape with a smile and a statement, "all woman killed in honour cases are prostitutes and I believe prostitutes deserve to die."
Here's some examples of so called prostitutes.

A 15 year old girl killed by her father by having her head crushed with a rock, because he believed she was having a relationship with a neighbour.
A pregnant 25 year old woman killed by her brother because he believed that she's had sexual relations with the husband BEFORE they were married.
A 14 year old girl strangled with a telephone cable because her 13 year old brother believed she was talking to men on the phone.

If this is where chastity laws lead, I'd rather not go there and perhaps consider that the self destruction of Western youth in the search for love and commitment be the lesser of two nasty evils.

actually u were right, they are kittens, but i havent told her yet

'...in Jordan anyone murdering a woman relative in a fit of rage, because of real or perceived adultary has his sentence reduced.'



Gosh. I don't recall having anyone in me, never mind having fits of rage whilst in this, erm, position ... (Though I've been offered, in the typical fashion of the world to throw up wanted things in unwanted directions. )

Since I am using a computer that is about as fast as a speeding modem (I'm use to the super-perfect things in Uni) I'm going to leave any reply to comments (accusations? ) directed at me for tomorrow. Except I best say something to Della! I'm not American! Where did I give you that impression?

Join the smiley conga!

Oh - I'm going to look over my statistics later. I've been wondering about them. I wonder if it's possible to develop numerical morality? Hmm... Sounds like some of the earlier forms of predicate logic developed for that purpose are resurfacing...

And I best say (before I forget): every time you make a choice, you are acting on a fictional situation. It hasn't happened, so it might not. Just because it's unlikely doesn't make it right to ignore it! And thus why I won't drive a car. Ever. I'm too dangerous. I might be able to pass a driving test, who knows, but I can't concentrate. I would be taking the life of myself, my passengers, my fellow drivers and the surrounding pedestrians into my hands. Not something my conscience will allow me to do. And about the 'not wanting to be born' thing - why not let the baby work that one out? Poor kid didn't have a choice about getting conceived and now you want to take its only available option away from it!

I'm against murder. If you can say 'yes, there is a specific point right /here/ beyond which the baby is alive - but before which it isn't,' and find a way to make it /certain/ that the baby can be detected before that point, sure - have sex. It's the callousness I have a problem with, not the casualness!

I suppose I also ought to say: I /had/ no real, concrete objection against masturbation. Until recently. As a matter of fact, this week. Now, I'm not so sure that medical advice isn't just tickling people's ears. Thing is, I'm pretty certain that masturbation reduces willpower. And that, thus, it reduces moral functioning. How many rapists do you think just went out one day and raped someone? I've got evidence. However, this is just a summary conclusion. I plan to work more on the matter. Being unable to masturbate may make it slightly harder for me to appreciate the problem, but it also gives me an objective standpoint. I really have to think about it more, so don't bother commenting on it as it's only potential so far and not a definite opinion.

- Jordan

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/tv_radio/miscprogs/fournobletruths.shtml
I'm listening to this on Radio 4 at the moment.
quite interesting - about buddhism

Hi Jordan. Purely in the interests of enhancing the opinion formation process, please allow me to put the opposite case. Just as a starving person finds it difficult to think rationally about anything but food - and not very rationally about that; a person with urgent sexual urges is not going to make very wise decisions about his sexual behaviour. Masturbation gets rid of those urges for a while during which time more balanced conclusions can be reached. Hence masturbation assists the willpower.

You can't let the baby work out whether it wants to be born. It can't tell you either way. By the time it can, it's too late if the answer was 'no'. Hence we have no choice but to make the decision ourselves. The non-existent choice of the non-existent baby weighs equally on both sides; so we might as well discount it and consider our own preferences.

I have to agree with Toxx on the will power thing and I did put this case on the site you linked to Jordan, concerning this thought processing.
Repression doesn't work

aye...
indeed masturbation can be used to *increase* willpower, some use it as a home remedy for premature ejaculation.

Hi Della .

So another supporter of NewSpeak huh? There is a common belief amongst the Islington set that we can change social attitudes by monkeying around with the language. It doesn't work, it never has worked.

The only way you can change social attitudes is by:
a) altering socio-economic conditions,
b) positive education, and
c) example.

I agree that the use of the male pronoun as a generic is no longer acceptable, but this is not an excuse to introduce new words to make up for an inability to write well.

Go back over my posts if you will. I am not perfect but I try to be meticulous in the gender-neutrality of my language, without resort to such uglifications as 'sie' and 'hir'.

Only two societies have successfully altered their languages to achieve a measure of social conformity to an ideal, and neither lasted long. The first was Germany between 1933 and 1945, and the second was the USSR from 1921 to 1968.

I will continue to resist such changes to our language as they do not bring the benefits that the authors expect and only complicate an already complex tongue.

Blessings,
Matholwch the Apostate /|\.

"I'm pretty certain that masturbation reduces willpower"

No, only willypower. And you just need a bit of a rest to get that back.

'[I]ndeed masturbation can be used to *increase* willpower, some use it as a home remedy for premature ejaculation.'

Hmm... Imagine a drug user. They have drugs. They get addicted. Soon it takes more drugs to get to the same level that they were previously at.

Make a simple substitution.

And from what I can see (I need evidence here), there is a marked similarity between the physiological effects of drugs and those of sex...

I didn't come to my conclusion from this route, don't worry - my other line of reasoning hails from psychology rather than physiology.

- Jordan