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

As far as I'm concerned if a medical treatment relies on taking someone for a ride and conning them, it shouldn't be used. To work it will have to have the name of a drug written on the packet, that will be untrue, otherwise any half wit will know its not bona fide. A trusted doctor will be prescribing you a sugar pill after spending time with you, understanding your sufferring, building a relationship with you. You trust him, but you know he understands the hard chemical rationale behind your illness; he's a doctor after all, he spent years at med school studying hard science.

The whole concept stinks to me, from top to bottom.

I can't argue with that in principle but I can't say that something which works shouldn't be used.

Ach. There are times I wish evolution had never happened and I didn't end up thinking about things like this.

Back to the mud!

Effers, Gif asked me what had been said about God in Hospital as i said I'd be only too glad to forget about it, on the following matter however I have a problem.

Gif, I don't know whether you did it intentionally but you've just accused me of irrational thinking, which is a precursor to psychosis for a schizophrenic and what has wound me up is that I don't think it's irrational thinking at all.
In your lib dems analogy in parliament, I think that it would be absolutely rational, logical not to mention correct for me to assume that it is acceptable practice in parliament to allow lib dems to stand. To assume that all were lib dems would be something like racism or of a similar vein, that is not what I said. Your reasoning is why Political correctness is mad in this country. Or were you being deliberately obtuse?

doc I've been around these type of threads for a good long time now and I can say with hand on heart that Gif is one of the fairest and straightforward posters around here.

>Gif, I don't know whether you did it intentionally but you've just accused me of irrational thinking<

I don't recall Gif doing that. You should give quotes where you think Gif has done that otherwise it just gets to be a complicated guessing game in this fast moving thread. It doesn't sound like the Gif I know.

Why don't you start up a personal message thread on his space with him, trust me he's a lovely guy and you might be able to better sort out the problem there. Just a thought.

Hi Effers

re Gif whipping me

I am not at all interested in debating the merits of corporal punishment vs. what is deemed by the majority to be " humane " view of discipline. I am only attempting to outline what the Bible commmands and to do so, one must quote Scripture.

I get the impression from some of the ad hominem comments that have appeared on this thread, that a few naysayers think we Christians take great delight in whipping our children. It should be understood that Christian parents do use alternatives such as clarifying the wrong behaviour and issuing warnings, taking away privileges etc. I cannot speak for other Christians but among those I do know, the use of the belt, strap, wooden spoon is generally a last resort when a firm defiance of parental authority is evident and where the other means of correction have obviously failed. Christians believe the next downward step after defying the rule and order of the home is to defy the rule and order of the civic law and so we apply the biblical method of correction as outline in Proverbs.

RC

I have just done something silly and shaved my hair off in a No2 razor cut like Britney spears.
It isn't the hair lenght as have had short crops before, it is that I couldn't stop myself doing something I have been fighting for days as had no idea how to do it safely.
.
I now know how Britney felt after, sad I couldn't control myself like I would have done in past. Perhaps another low point milestone sadly.

>> I am not at all interested in debating the merits of corporal punishment vs. what is deemed by the majority to be " humane " view of discipline.

Possibly because you'd loose?

>>I am only attempting to outline what the Bible commands.<<

and is it too bold to suggest that here is the reason why?

>>I get the impression from some of the ad hominem comments that have appeared on this thread, that a few naysayers think we Christians take great delight in whipping our children [...] we apply the biblical method of correction as outline in Proverbs.<<

Dead. Horse. A. Flogging. (rearrange)

I think there's been extended to you and Warner plenty of opportunity to retract your comments advocating what is, as Anhaga I think established the illegal beating of children, which I don't think has any reasonable defence. Ironically my christian mother asked me about this very issue tonight and I said the conversation had moved on. She still thinks it's metaphorical and you defend the literal reading and enacting of Proverbs. So I'm kind of amazed you bothered mentioning it again. You do yourselves no favours you realise in this continued defence of the indefensible?

Clive
RC and I were raised in a different society to you. I would say that majority opinion some 40 years ago was definitely in favour of corporal punishment. There has been a lot of change in the world in a short space of time, and if you look into the history of 2nd. world war and immediately after, the Christian religion was important to the vast majority.

I understand you've been brought up in a different age/viewpoint, but that in no way makes your view more valid than ours. It's not a question of "progress" is ALWAYS progress. We would be foolish to think that somehow mankind in the 21st. century overall, have a higher IQ than those in the 19th or 20th, for example.

>>We would be foolish to think that somehow mankind in the 21st. century overall, have a higher IQ than those in the 19th or 20th, for example.<<

Actually, average IQ increases as a society develops. Kids born in 2000 probably will have a higher IQ than their 19th century compatriots. They'll be taller too.

>>I would say that majority opinion some 40 years ago was definitely in favour of corporal punishment.<<

40 years ago the majority opinion was that it was okay to discriminate against black people, to deny women equal rights and to beat up homosexuals. Majority is often a bad thing to invoke when talking about morality or knowledge.

>*I am not at all interested in debating* the merits of corporal punishment vs. what is deemed by the majority to be " humane " view of discipline.< RC

(My starred emphasis)

I think this says more clearly than anything where people such as yourself are coming from. You rigidly hold onto what you think some thousands year old text is saying as a guide to behaviour, in preference to debate with your contemporaries about what sort of society we could build.

So why come to h2g2? Judging by the evidence I have seen on this thread it appears *some theists* come here merely to preach.

I can personally testify that corporal punishment can have a positive effect. When, as a child, I questioned some of the churchs more absurd doctrines the nuns first warnered me, then beat me.

It then became impossible to believe that those nuns were in any way inspired by god. So I was saved from religion.

warner v. To reply to an honest query with a scriptural quote so obscure that it is impossible to tell if it is a non sequitur.

>>Majority is often a bad thing to invoke when talking about morality or knowledge.<<
Oh, so you don't believe in democracy, then!

And you talk about morality. I'm sure you know that TV is a relatively modern invention. I expect that if you watch some of the films and entertainment from say, the first 10 years, you will probably find it childish and boring because it was illegal to swear or show naked bodies or promote violence etc. It's easy to say that morality and human rights have improved, but I would say that that is very questionable. We hear about torture in Gautama Bay, and sexual deviance forced upon Iraqi prisoners and much, much more.

>>average IQ increases as a society develops<<
Hmph, I suppose there might be an improvement since they took the lead out of petrol.

Ah yes the good old days. I think HI has effectively dealt with that. If you want to evoke the moral standards of a generation ago and overlook the rampant discrimination and repressive attitudes that prevailed at that time as some kind of aspirational standard, you may of course, but and this leads into my second point: whilst there is nothing to say two people cannot holding differing or contrary opinions this is not the same as saying all views and attitudes are equal, defensible, valid or true.

It is well within our right and power to pass judgement on the laws of slavery in the the 19th century, the dictates of apartheid in the 20th and to comment and critique the uses and abuses of Proverbs in the 21st is equally permissible.

Appeals to the equal validity of all opinions is disingenuous. for while we cannot and possibly even should not deny the right to have your views on punishment and discipline heard and debated, this is a far cry from agreeing that the abhorrence of child abuse is equally valid with it's active endorsement.

>>Oh, so you don't believe in democracy, then!<<

My opinion of democracy is based on subtlety and careful consideration - two things you've not shown any evidence of.

>>I expect that if you watch some of the films and entertainment from say, the first 10 years, you will probably find it childish and boring<<

I quite enjoy old films. Buster Keaton is one of my favourite film stars. If you're gonna attack me, at least make your attacks relevant and accurate.

>>We hear about torture in Gautama Bay, and sexual deviance forced upon Iraqi prisoners and much, much more.<<

Yeah, it was much better in the good old days when we tested nuclear and biological weapons on National Service kids and didn't tell them we were doing it. Or when we massacred whole tribes with weapons centuries in advance of anything they had.

If I were you I'd be reluctant to mention sexual deviance, especially after you quoted Lot offering up his daughters o be raped by some strangers and claim it was moral thing.

>>Hmph, I suppose there might be an improvement since they took the lead out of petrol.<<

Yeah, the Victorians had so much trouble with leaded petrol and all the cars. Please think before you post mate.

'RC and I were raised in a different society to you.'

forgive me warner, but I was under the impression that you and royalcrompton and clive and I, to name a few, are pretty much of the same generation, although, I'll grant that I grew up in a different society from all of you, except maybe royalcrompton, depending on when his time in Canada was (which would mean he was raised in a different society from you). Are you guys really that much older than us? I thought the four of us were scattered about the 50 mark. Am I wrong? Or do you mean something different by 'society' to what I mean by the word?

>>the abhorrence of child abuse<<
I think you're just crying wolf! There is a problem with youth today, that's for sure. Teenagers killing each other. And that's increased IQ?
You well know that RC and I are not in favour of child abuse. You know that Almighty God and all of His Apostles, particularly love/loved children and would defend them to the hilt.

The problem with society today is the distribution of population and wealth, making it harder and harder for families to cope and remain patient and level-headed. There is an increase in disease and mental health problems. This is one of the major reasons why society fears child abuse, and it is on the increase.

The subject of corporal punishment is a separate issue, and UK society has not as yet agreed to a total ban on "smacking" within reason, to the best of my knowledge.

Possibly I come across older than my age. I'm only 28.

I like your posts Clive.
Good night!

Oh! You were raised in a different society from me.

> There is an increase in disease and mental health problems.<

I love the way warner throws around his wild claims. I bet he reads other tabloid sized publications other than the bible and the Koran