Wesley

Just a quick poll I made. Feel free to look at the results and/or vote. Feel free to add you own comments or justifications below. http://strawpoll.me/1781053

Yea.... disguise any apparent verbal aggression for 10x the amount of passive aggression. It sounds like just a way to frustrate and it sounds exceedingly annoying.

God created this situation. Therefore he is punishing us for the sins of past generations. If God creates physics, he is not morally exempt from these threats and consequences (not that your idea of corrupted DNA or "original sin") has anything to do with science, physics, or biology. I have no interest in continuing this conversation.

The concept that I should go to jail because my father may have killed someone is so completely absurd and unjust an idea as to be laughed at if presented as a good punishment in an elementary school classroom. Let alone who knows how many generations back Adam and Eve was (if the myth even would have any truth to it, which there is not a lot of evidence for). This is also illustrating how threats are used against me when I did nothing wrong, but rather some possible ancestor thousands or millions of years ago may have done something they were not told to, which in itself is quite an absurd story.

I would love to see different Meetup groups in neighboring cities plan events together or meetup halfway in the middle, share ideas for what the best meetups are, and help to educate people on how to start meetups in their own cities. This could be a great resource.

If you were the one who poisoned the bottle, then I would be forced to obey you under the threat of dreadful death. Then, that would be something akin to duress. The Christian God also hardly demands us "not to drink from a bottle" but has many positive obligations for how we must behave to not face eternal torture and punishment which any positive obligation is infinitely more limiting in nature than not doing a handful of things. Your "changes" don't change anything. Poisoning my drink or threatening to poison my drink in order to force me to obey you is not free choice, but duress. Saying that you agree on the definition and then apply it in totally different ways makes no sense. If I am going to define a word and then you are going to use it in opposite or irrelevant examples anyway, then the point of defining words seems to have been lost on you. EDIT: Just in case you were wondering, God did create hell and thus, in your example, God was the one who poisoned my drink in order to demand my obedience. Feel free to look it up, there are plenty of resources confirming this.

Working out, eating well, sleeping well, and regular journaling is the best stuff to do and should be planned out and scheduled into the daily/weekly schedule. When I was focusing more on self-help stuff we also had a small group together to discuss psychology, self-help, personal issues and other things like that 1-2 times a week and I was seeing a therapist once a week.

I am very interested as to why you think honesty is antagonistic to common sense in this example (at least evidenced for how you titled this thread).

You are perfectly free as long as you do exactly as I say, and if you don't you will spent eternity in burning torture of the worst imaginable. Not exactly my definition of freedom. In fact, I think it fits the definition of duress rather precisely: du·ress d(y)o͝oˈres/ noun noun: duress threats, violence, constraints, or other action brought to bear on someone to do something against their will or better judgment.

@Dylan, I know the ideas are irrational and emotionally troubling to say the least, thus I have no particular desire to defend them against criticism. @dsayers, I appreciate the sympathy.

It is the option of submission to violence. So if I enter someone's house and give them the option to leave the house or give me all their money or else I will shoot them, then it is ok because I can avoid the violence by leaving the house. At the time, I didn't exactly use the best argumentation because of my emotional reaction to what was going on and how disgusting it was to me.

In that particular instance, I asked if she would advocate violence against me for disagreeing with her. She said no. I then pointed out that if you think that the state can have laws and taxes and you advocate those things, then it is advocating use of violence. (Delay several moments with stupid arguments to let the point sink in). Then my mother decides that since I have the option to leave, then violence can be used against me. Nevermind that I would justly own my land, have family and friends and stuff. Since I decide to be in the country, then violence is acceptable. I tried to express my horror, but I could not and my mother did not understand. I then was horrified and went up to my room for I had no idea what to say. Silly me to assume that my mother would never have advocated such things against me.

I have had people say yes to me when responding to similar questions, including my own mother.

Basically, I see 3 options. 1. People who are uncomfortable with the idea of parents kissing children on the lips normalized their experiences of minimal affection and thus, they would need to work through their feelings and issues. 2. People who are comfortable with the idea of parents kissing children on the lips normalized their experiences of sexual abuse and thus, they would need to work through their feelings and issues. 3. Whether parents kiss children is of no relative importance and up to the individuals involved, and that both sides are introducing childhood issues into the pot and that children on average should have more affection shown to them than #1 experienced and less than #2 experienced. I have no idea how to determine which option it is or if it is a mix of options or something. I also have no idea how to determine what the proper level of affection is between two individuals. We all can agree that there is a point of sexual abuse and child rape, and we all can agree that a parent who ignores their child and has no interaction with them emotionally is also harming their child through neglect rather than abuse. There certainly leaves an area in the middle of the acceptable ranges of affection, but I am not sure where the line is. I would tend to leave mouth kissing up to the children and parents in question, but it does seem a bit odd to me that the practice would be stopped at a certain age when it becomes not acceptable (like when puberty is reached). However, parents bathing children, breastfeeding children, and helping them go to the bathroom are other things that become rather inappropriate at older ages, so I am very not sure.

People are allowed to say "I don't know and I don't care". However, when they specifically advocate the use of violence through a variety of policies, then it show that they do care as their advocacy proves that they do. Anyone who asserts the positive statement "I think X policy should be implemented in Y way" cannot then claim that they do not care when faced with the consequences of that proposition except to weasel out of the consequences of their words and continue to be able to assert bullshit without thought. If they truly do not care or do not know, then they should not be asserting that they do care and that they do know.

Because the statement means absolutely nothing and only implants the idea of "rapist" or "blind sheep" into the minds of people who might not be as philosophically rigorous. I would say that if someone was throwing around those terms in a conversation with me, I would get very frustrated very quickland not want to talk with them anymore. If you supposedly know that it means nothing, then I do not know why you would post it, except to do something along the lines of what Slavik posted.

Several things. I presented a definition for a word, you may agree with it or disagree with it. Yes, there are multiple definitions for a word which describe the DIFFERENT ways in which the word may be used. This is exactly why discussing definitions of words in a debate are useful to do. The debate is meaningless if half of the words have different definitions to either side. If you agree, then we can move on as if it is settled. If you disagree, I was specifically asking you to present a new word or a new definition as to describe what was going on. Dsyars did this, and presented the definition to be affection. I also explicitly said that my attempt with defining the time was to separate kissing on the lips from sexuality. I provided several examples where friends have done it in a non-sexual way. I also provided an anthropological theory that claims that kissing on the lips originated from parents mouth feeding children. I (and I think dsayers) were simply asking for you to recognize that a definition had been presented and to address it by either agreeing with it and then moving on as if it were true, presenting your own definition, or presenting a new word that you think more accurately describes what is going on. Now, the resorting to personal attacks in an attempt to shame and have someone self-attack for contributing to the boards and community and showing vulnerability in other threads makes me feel disgusted and I am pretty sure actually violates several board guidelines. If half of what you are saying is somehow true and not you venting and projecting your own rage, then the method you have chosen to go about this is entirely not helpful. I don't know what is going on, and this may be an emotional topic for you, but calling someone "BLIND" saying someone would be thought of as a pedophile (spelled out in bold red, mind you) and then railing on someone for living with a parent when you aren't even sure if it is true or not makes me feel very angry.

To Markus and to Thomas, you both have used to word intimate to describe kissing as if children being intimate with parents is a bad thing. That is why I specifically defined intimacy so as to avoid confusion. in·ti·ma·cy ˈintəməsē/ noun noun: intimacy close familiarity or friendship; closeness. Affection was also proposed as a term to use that was better than intimate: af·fec·tion əˈfekSHən/ noun noun: affection; plural noun: affections 1. a gentle feeling of fondness or liking. If you would like to propose a new word or definition as to what kissing resembles, then that is fine. However, I think intimacy and affection are great things that parents and children should have in their relationships and I would not consider kissing (which you say is intimate) to therefore be something bad for children. I also have done some research and there are many anthropologists who think that kissing originated as a way of mouth feeding food to babies and toddlers before manufactured and processed baby food was invented. This would have been somewhat common for certain foods in the transition between breat milk and solid food. Thus, kissing would be much more for children than for coulples in its origins and meaning and then the feeling of affection was translated to adults and romantic relationships later. I don't know enough to know what is true and wat isn't, but if that is true, it would seem that as far as evolution is concerned, kissing is meant for children and the improper use is when romantic partners kiss.

OK, all fixed on my end so nothing to worry about any more. Thanks for the quick fix!

That might be a fine clarification. I am not particularly wed to the word intimacy and think that you would be free to replace it with affection. My only intent was to differentiate kissing on the lips from sexuality or lust or other terms like that.

I think the question is more along the lines of asking if these are some form of child sexual molestation: I am one to say they are not is they are slight pecks on the cheek and they are not enforced by parents or other authorities. If they are forced to kiss on the lips when they don't want to, I would consider that something closer to sexual abuse. I have seen friends and such kiss on the lips before in a friendly manner. So the act in itself is not sexual necessarily. I think it is simply a sign of intimacy and I think you may not have even been truly intimate with anyone who you were not having sex with, which might be where the confusion arises. in·ti·ma·cy ˈintəməsē/ noun noun: intimacy close familiarity or friendship; closeness. Of course, I might always be missing something based on my childhood, so let me know if I am off-base with how I am looking at this.

Hm, now whenever I click the "Chat" link in the top right, I am redirected to the homepage. This seems to be specific to me but I am not sure why it is happening.

This is some guess work, but I have had trouble entering chat today and have noticed minimal people in there, so I think this issue is going on with others. I noticed that the boards have switched over to an https://. Firefox will take content that is not secure (when viewing a secure page) and block it by default. I think that it may be doing this with the chat elements as they are not secure, but the site is. I was able to manually unblock it and then spend some quality time in chat by myself today, somewhat wondering where everyone was until I developed this theory. Maybe others have no problems and I am just seeing weird stuff on my end that I need to figure out, but I think that might be something to check out or else the chat might not be very usable by the average person. If anyone else is having issues too and can reply with what they see (even that everything is working fine for them) it would likely be helpful for diagnosis.

Well, no. I think that atheist provide a null hypothesis for their belief, which in general subjecting a belief to the scientific method renders it to not be "complete trust or confidence" as it can always be proven wrong. Religions do not submit their beliefs to science or propose a null hypothesis. In fact, they profess complete confidence often in complete opposition to the evidence, but always without adequate proof. An atheist or scientist could be proven wrong tomorrow, but a person who believes something on faith can never be proven wrong for the believe their conclusion completely. At least that is how I interpreted the definition, but feel free to correct me if I am wrong. I only googled to search for the definition, so of course there could be better ones available to go by, though I think that to some extent it is a bit squirrelly to reject a definition because it does not fit the point you are trying to make (even though there are a ton of poorly-defined words out there, somewhat of a no-win if the definition you find is a bad one).

faith fāTH/ noun noun: faith 1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something. 2.strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.