04 Jan 09
Originally posted by trev33Belittle? Degrade? Take a look in the mirror, little boy.
you see SG FreakyKBH is from the 21st century style of christians, these people believe they can degrade and belittle others who lack there oh so superior beliefs and it doesn't matter how many people they invertenly hurt, mistreat or even kill because ultimately they will end up bumping uglies and sipping wine off hot angles asses with the other chosen chris ...[text shortened]... y did get around.
RIP jimmy and the millions of other deaths caused by christianity...RIP.
04 Jan 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitAgain, ill-advised application to the wrong situation. I am not being insulted and defamed; Mary is.
What do you make of this passage:27 “But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you.Was this just something Jesus was saying to only the audience back then? Do these words not apply to you?
-Luke 6:27-28 [NKJV]
Your naive use of Scripture only proves your lack of respect for the same. According to your strictures, the Lord Jesus Christ ought to have been admonished for whipping the money changers out of the Temple, as well.
04 Jan 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell, if trev33 simply raised the paternity question in the context of a disbelief in a virgin birth, I would disagree with you. (No surprise there! 🙂 )
Again, ill-advised application to the wrong situation. I am not being insulted and defamed; Mary is.
Your naive use of Scripture only proves your lack of respect for the same. According to your strictures, the Lord Jesus Christ ought to have been admonished for whipping the money changers out of the Temple, as well.
But trev’s rants seem to portray a pathological misogyny that gets high on the sexual humiliation of women. And then blaming them for the consequences. I can find no “redeeming irony” in those rants (e.g., that might lampoon just what he is expressing). They defame and insult any woman who is not wont to be a submissive sex-tool, and who refuses to have her sexual mores dictated by men.
Howya doin’, Freaky? Hope you and yours are well.
06 Jan 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI'd much prefer to err on the side of free speech rather than censorship. You spoke of reputation - I say, let the person's reputation be known by the content of their posts. Let the community read and judge for themselves without some censor trying to shelter them from all forms of offensive speech. If they are indeed offensive to so many, they will eventually find that nobody takes them seriously anymore.
My heart rate didn't increase one iota, but thanks for asking.
More to the point, a person's reputation is important in my book. Hiding behind the anonymity afforded lesser intellects here on an insignifcant internet chat site to spew pornographic hate is--- again, in my book--- an act which ought not to be tolerated.
For others to take it all in st ...[text shortened]... tive. That says an awful lot about both the format and the folks allowing the same to occur.
06 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI don't buy that for a second. Insult is largely in the eye of the beholder. Of course you feel insulted. Your passionate response shows that.
Again, ill-advised application to the wrong situation. I am not being insulted and defamed; Mary is.
Your naive use of Scripture only proves your lack of respect for the same. According to your strictures, the Lord Jesus Christ ought to have been admonished for whipping the money changers out of the Temple, as well.
I think your response completely goes against the spirit of the verse I quoted. I guess I have the answer to my question - you clearly do not believe that the commands in that passage apply to you.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 16951
06 Jan 09
Originally posted by vistesdmy story, not rant, does not sexually humiliate woman nor does it imply that they are indeed submissive sex-tools and it definitely doesn't insult any woman who is not or is a 'submissive sex-tool'.
But trev’s rants seem to portray a pathological misogyny that gets high on the sexual humiliation of women. And then blaming them for the consequences. I can find no “redeeming irony” in those rants (e.g., that might lampoon just what he is expressing). They defame and insult any woman who is not wont to be a submissive sex-tool, and who refuses to have her sexual mores dictated by men.
my story was detailing how much better life would be without religion the fact that mary was used to portray this is irrelevant and in no way was connected to the way the rest of the woman of the world act or should be treated. i was playing on the fact that most woman do get nervous the first time and if their first time is with their husband i'm sure it's not totally uncommon to have doubts and worries about satisfying there husbands the first time. whatever way they deal with that is up to them, in my story mary choose to stray, not the first nor last woman to do so but in the story she got pregnant and tried to save her marriage by telling a lie.
mary was the base of the story but she wasn't the point of the story.
06 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by trev33I understood the point about the virgin birth (which I do not believe in), and the pernicious consequences of religious dogmatism. But the language that you used in the context of sexual treatment of women was clearly misogynist:
my story, not rant, does not sexually humiliate woman nor does it imply that they are indeed submissive sex-tools and it definitely doesn't insult any woman who is not or is a 'submissive sex-tool'.
my story was detailing how much better life would be without religion the fact that mary was used to portray this is irrelevant and in no way was connected to by telling a lie.
mary was the base of the story but she wasn't the point of the story.
… insisted, no begged me to show her what to do. at first i wanted to resist but the more she persisted the more attractive she became to me in those sexy brown rags. i gave in, i did it, i showed her what a guy wants. i showed her twice, 3 times and then a forth. the girl was a natural.
The post at the bottom of the page was worse. Those are what I referred to as “rants”—although, okay, rants within a larger story. As I said, I did not see any redeeming irony there, but I am not immune from misreading. I'm no prude: I just do not like misogyny.
i was playing on the fact that most woman do get nervous the first time…
I do not know if women (statistically) are more nervous “the first time” than men; perhaps they are more honest about it… Do you take your descriptions of the sexual encounter to be to be any kind of respectful and dignified (let alone caring) attitude on part of a man in such cases?
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 16951
06 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdI understood the point about the virgin birth (which I do not believe in), and the pernicious consequences of religious dogmatism. But the language that you used in the context of sexual treatment of women was clearly misogynist:
… insisted, no begged me to show her what to do. at first i wanted to resist but the more she persisted the more attractive she became to me in those sexy brown rags. i gave in, i did it, i showed her what a guy wants. i showed her twice, 3 times and then a forth. the girl was a natural.
The post at the bottom of the page was worse. Those are what I referred to as “rants”—although, okay, rants within a larger story. As I said, I did not see any redeeming irony there, but I am not immune from misreading. I'm no prude: I just do not like misogyny.
perhaps you're not 100% sure what the word 'misogyny' means, if you are then you're 100% wrong. nothing that i said portrayed a hatred of woman that is totally ridiculous. sex is a natural thing, people enjoy it. it's not something that was used here to down grade anyone the text in which you quoted implied that mary was wrong to be scared about the first time with her husband and that when you relax sex can be an enjoyable magical experience between two people. there was no misogyny in this. the only thing in that story that you should've picked on if you wanted to go down the misogyny route is when i called mary a 'whore' by that time i was just typing words read into it what you want. the fact is that it was a fictional story and nothing in it reflected real life, not literally anyway.
i was playing on the fact that most woman do get nervous the first time…
I do not know if women (statistically) are more nervous “the first time” than men; perhaps they are more honest about it… Do you take your descriptions of the sexual encounter to be to be any kind of respectful and dignified (let alone caring) attitude on part of a man in such cases?
i wasn't comparing weather men or woman get more nervous the first time, i would take a guess at men but it would be a guess, i don't know the statistics. but of course in real life there should be a respect between the two parties before having a sexual experience regardless if it's either of there first times or not. i haven't said anything to the contrary.
06 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by trev33[/b][/i]I would treat any degrading attitude toward women as being de facto misogynist, whether or not the person doing it claims to hate or love women.
[b]I understood the point about the virgin birth (which I do not believe in), and the pernicious consequences of religious dogmatism. But the language that you used in the context of sexual treatment of women was clearly misogynist:
[i]… insisted, no begged me to show her what to do. at first i wanted to resist but the more she persisted the more f it's either of there first times or not. i haven't said anything to the contrary.
I thought that the first instance I cited was mildly degrading in its use of the “she begged for it” stereotype. The second instance (seemingly unrelated to your opening post) was egregious; I don’t know if you were going for “shock effect” or what, or what the point might’ve been.
but of course in real life there should be a respect between the two parties before having a sexual experience regardless if it's either of there first times or not. i haven't said anything to the contrary.
So, I will accept that your choice of language was simply an unfortunate one on your part, and does not reflect your attitude toward women sexually.
Just as a side note: I’m not sure how far the “it’s only fiction” argument could be validly taken. I have read some pretty raw fiction whose point seemed to be to deconstruct whatever degrading stuff it was portraying, by the very ugliness of the portrayal.
[Note: I am not in the “virginity is holier than active sexuality” camp; nor one that would be offended by the notion of Mary having an affair.]
07 Jan 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitBetween "free speech" and truth, the preference ought to go to truth. As has been evidenced, any ol' jackass can "free speech" until the cows come home and no one profits.
I'd much prefer to err on the side of free speech rather than censorship. You spoke of reputation - I say, let the person's reputation be known by the content of their posts. Let the community read and judge for themselves without some censor trying to shelter them from all forms of offensive speech. If they are indeed offensive to so many, they will eventually find that nobody takes them seriously anymore.
07 Jan 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitI'm not selling anything. He insulted the reputation of a person with a sterling reputation, a woman who epitomizes the very ideal of what a woman ought to aspire to be.
I don't buy that for a second. Insult is largely in the eye of the beholder. Of course you feel insulted. Your passionate response shows that.
I think your response completely goes against the spirit of the verse I quoted. I guess I have the answer to my question - you clearly do not believe that the commands in that passage apply to you.
What rankled me is the nerve, not the insult. He is some petty, inarticulate punk who is emboldened to throw pot shots strictly because of the anonymity afforded him by the medium. Were he face to face with anyone with an opposing view point, he wouldn't dare to spew such venom.
07 Jan 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhere are the cows presumed to have gone when one uses that figure of speech? It must be a great distance as it seems you can do quite a bit in their absence.
Between "free speech" and truth, the preference ought to go to truth. As has been evidenced, any ol' jackass can "free speech" until the cows come home and no one profits.