I don't believe you

[+Desertrat56]

2 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

But still, with no real life experience behind them.

Please don't get me wrong. I am not saying that AGE = WISDOM, there are plenty of 60 y/o's I wouldn't trust to look after a houseplant!

To me, it stinks of arrogance that any religion would send forth children to try to convince people that they have the right knowledge about life.

 

In another lifetime, when I was male, my finance wanted an RC church wedding. She wanted all the bells and whistles, and I was OK with it. We had to attend 2 Pre-Caana classes, to prove that we were worthy to be married in a church.

Well, the first class was almost the last class. A freshly minted priest, right out of seminary school addressed an audience of about 70 couples. I forget the most of his 'lesson', but what almost made me walk out was when he extolled us to "Have as many children as we could. Don't worry about how you will feed them, because GAWD will provide." 

The above is NOT an exaggeration, my ex-wife can corroborate it.  This zit-faced youth, who would be provided shelter, clothing, food and all the necessities of life, who had NO F-k-ing clue about making a living, was telling an auditorium full of people to basically guarantee they would be living in poverty, all because he had ZERO knowledge of the real world. All in order to satisfy what he believed, was a righteous, godly life. 

 

I agree with you about sending any group of any age to knock on doors and prothelesize or attempt to convert random people is arraogant. 

My brother went through something similar to what you describe except he did not do the classes.  He was not catholic so he was told he had to take the classes, but instead he had an appointment with the priest.   He got into a debate with the priest in the interview and it turns out my brother is more hard core than the priest was so he was allowed to marry my sister in law in the church.  And I have had encounters with my brother about religion that I consider abuse.  I had such a hard time with the word "christian" until I figured out that I need to disarm my trigger words.  That was the first one I picked because it was the hardest.

[Mr Walker]

15 hours ago, Sherapy said:

I agree and would say this includes pedophilia, marrying 12 year olds to 50 year old men. It is not acceptable to the young girls or wider society especially when they child is given no right to consent as far as being exposed to the harm. 

It isn’t excusable or justifiable because it went on in ancient cultures either. 

It is not justifiable in our own modern western countries, but not only was it once justifiable it was absolutely essential for the  survival of those societies. 

Personally i cant see a justification for a sexual relationship below the age of puberty  but even i might be blinded by modern values

12 was the legal and common age for marriage  for centuries  You cannot, simply, from your modern perspective declare it wrong or evil. 

Generally only girls married that young because their role was to have children and the y did not need to have wealth or a job.

Men married much later because the y had to have wealth and income sufficient to care for and support the wife and children,   and this took years to establish

The idea of consent is also modern

Until the 1960s a woman could not refuse consent to her husband because legally it was established that the act of marraige conferred ongoing consent to sex 

Until quite recently historically, women were the property or legal ward of a man, and could do nothing without the permission of that man (father grandfather uncle older brother or husband )  

Times attitudes and laws change as economic and social realities change, and so those two things don't occur in western counties but are still common in Islamic ones

But again, you  cant say they were morally wrong in their times. You don't get to decide what was right or wrong in the past, just as the future cant judge your beliefs attitudes and values.   

Do you have any moral objection to the marriage of people  with considerable age differences, if the y are both consenting adults  eg an 18 year old girl/boy and a 60 year old  man woman? (hetero or  homo sexual included)  If so, ask yourself why, and what values or beliefs of yours it upsets.

[Mr Walker]

2 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

OMG! Is he trying to justify bad behavior because "It used to be OK"?

I shouldn't be surprised, since he defended biblical slavery because "it was different then".

Shere, baby, you would be better off ignoring that one. He isn't good for your psyche. He will just poison your peace of mind.

It was different then And this is the hard thing for people not educated in history to appreciate; just HOW different everything was. 

We CANNOT impose the values of our warm, safe, and comfortable existence, on people who died young, suffered pain most of their life, and worked long hard hours trying to survive, and yet still died from birth,  hunger,  disease,  natural disaster  or war 

This does not justify such behaviour in a modern western state but it does justify and explain it in historical times.

[Jodie.Lynne]

7 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Do you have any moral objection to the marriage of people  with considerable age differences, if the y are both consenting adults 

Consenting... Adults.

Consenting, meaning both parties agree to the proposition at hand.

Adults, meaning they are cognizant of their actions.

 

Say it all together now:

CONSENTING ADULTS.

 

Why don't you stop, just for once, trying to prove you are right all the time.

Just. Once.

[Habitat]

1 minute ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Say it all together now:

CONSENTING ADULTS.

You said yourself, 60 year olds can be incompetent to manage simple matters.

[Jodie.Lynne]

9 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

It was different then

Slavery is slavery. It doesn't matter if it was then, or now.

Any "god" worthy of the title should be able to teach its subjects that OWNING another human being is wrong; morally, ethically, or any other way.

It doesn't matter if the owner is 'nice' or a walking, talking POS. Anyone who can condone the act of owning another human as property is morally bankrupt, and is not fit to mingle with society.

[Mr Walker]

5 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Consenting... Adults.

Consenting, meaning both parties agree to the proposition at hand.

Adults, meaning they are cognizant of their actions.

 

Say it all together now:

CONSENTING ADULTS.

 

Why don't you stop, just for once, trying to prove you are right all the time.

Just. Once.

HUH?

You dont answer the question and try to make  it seem as if it was a poor one. 

I suspect sherapy has a problem, not just with young marriage but with marriage between two  people of great age difference and i was trying to find out how she felt about it

Ie suppose both parties male/female are consenting adults   How do you FEEL about an 18 year old marrying a 60 year old and why do you feel like tha t?

How does it connect with your philosophical understanding of the nature and purpose of marriage , of sexuality as part of a marriage and of whit is important in a marriage and what the role of marriage id for peole and society ?

So what is YOUR response 

In fact i was not trying to prove how right i was (no need) but trying to establish the thinking and rationale behind different opinions .

[Jodie.Lynne]

2 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

How do you FEEL about an 18 year old marrying a 60 year old and why do you feel like tha t?

Re-read my answer cupcake. IF both parties are consenting adults, both are mentally and physically capable of understanding what they are agreeing to, then what is the problem?

60 y/o man & 21 y/o woman?

So what.

60 y/o woman and 21 y/o man?

So what?

As long as both parties consent, who cares?

 

Who the hell are you, or anyone else, to determine if it is a 'proper' relationship, as long as the above criteria are met.

 

[Mr Walker]

1 minute ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Slavery is slavery. It doesn't matter if it was then, or now.

Any "god" worthy of the title should be able to teach its subjects that OWNING another human being is wrong; morally, ethically, or any other way.

It doesn't matter if the owner is 'nice' or a walking, talking POS. Anyone who can condone the act of owning another human as property is morally bankrupt, and is not fit to mingle with society.

Not only was slavery not always slavery  as we know and understand  it today, but it was just as "normal "  as owning a cat or a dog is seen to be today.

Sure maybe a few radicals had concerns about one person owning another,   as some animal liberationists do today  about humans owning animals, but for the society and its people, slavery was just a fact of life

Likewise women were  almost always the property or ward of a man   

it is our understandings values and attitudes which have evolved over time.

The y did not exist then So you cannot judge older societies by your standards values , moralities or beliefs 

Your last statement is true in a modern society but untrue for many past societies and their people 

Imagine someone in 200 years reading about you and   calling you morally bankrupt  and not fit for human society  because you eat meat, wear  the skins of animals  or keep a pet as a slave. 

Such a person might use only renewable energy and call you barbaric because you used fossil fueled energy and contributed to destroying the environment. What  would your excuse/defence, be? 

[Jodie.Lynne]

3 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Not only was slavery not always slavery 

Ya know what?

I was going to debate this with you, but I decided not to waste my energy.

You do you, believe what you want. At this point, based on my prior statement RE: slavery, you know what I think of you.

 

[Mr Walker]

1 minute ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Re-read my answer cupcake. IF both parties are consenting adults, both are mentally and physically capable of understanding what they are agreeing to, then what is the problem?

60 y/o man & 21 y/o woman?

So what.

60 y/o woman and 21 y/o man?

So what?

As long as both parties consent, who cares?

 

Who the hell are you, or anyone else, to determine if it is a 'proper' relationship, as long as the above criteria are met.

 

Listen sugar pie, your response didn't GIVE an answer .  it just repeated the conditions i had given for the thought experiment, and never said what you thought.

True, the tone suggested that you were happy if the y were consenting adults but it avoided giving an answer  So i appreciate your  unequivocal reply 

Its not ME who is deciding what is a "proper " relationship" it is those seeking to impose their own values on others from  the past 

There ARE modern rules about who you can marry and at what age etc., which i find a bit restrictive, but can live with as a part of living in a modern age. 

In some countries you can marry as close as a first cousin, in other countries you cannot. 

Some countries allow gay marriage, Others do not 

Some recognise the inviolate  rights of intersex people to determine their own gender/ sexuality etc., as consenting adults  under the Malta convention and ban early medical intevention of any kind  Others find that too offensive to contemplate. 

[Habitat]

I'm getting the picture, when something "bad" is allowed to happen in the world, the atheist crazies tell you its this darn God's fault, but when something "good' happens, the religious crazies say it is a blessing from God ! These people really have much in common, namely, they are all nuts !

[Mr Walker]

1 minute ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Ya know what?

I was going to debate this with you, but I decided not to waste my energy.

You do you, believe what you want. At this point, based on my prior statement RE: slavery, you know what I think of you.

 

I understand.

Slavery  today is evil and repulsive (no argument)

And so, i must be evil and repulsive, because i can see from my education WHY it occurred, and why it was necessary for survival  in past societies, and i do NOT judge those people as evil or repulsive for doing what the y had to do, driven by economic and social realities of their own times.  I don't judge meat eaters as evil or repulsive either   

[Mr Walker]

24 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Slavery is slavery. It doesn't matter if it was then, or now.

Any "god" worthy of the title should be able to teach its subjects that OWNING another human being is wrong; morally, ethically, or any other way.

It doesn't matter if the owner is 'nice' or a walking, talking POS. Anyone who can condone the act of owning another human as property is morally bankrupt, and is not fit to mingle with society.

Substitute "any animal"   for  "another human", and you begin to understand the way moralities and values change over time. 

[+Sherapy]

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

It is not justifiable in our own modern western countries, but not only was it once justifiable it was absolutely essential for the  survival of those societies. 

Personally i cant see a justification for a sexual relationship below the age of puberty  but even i might be blinded by modern values

12 was the legal and common age for marriage  for centuries  You cannot, simply, from your modern perspective declare it wrong or evil. 

Generally only girls married that young because their role was to have children and the y did not need to have wealth or a job.

Men married much later because the y had to have wealth and income sufficient to care for and support the wife and children,   and this took years to establish

The idea of consent is also modern

Until the 1960s a woman could not refuse consent to her husband because legally it was established that the act of marraige conferred ongoing consent to sex 

Until quite recently historically, women were the property or legal ward of a man, and could do nothing without the permission of that man (father grandfather uncle older brother or husband )  

Times attitudes and laws change as economic and social realities change, and so those two things don't occur in western counties but are still common in Islamic ones

But again, you  cant say they were morally wrong in their times. You don't get to decide what was right or wrong in the past, just as the future cant judge your beliefs attitudes and values.   

Do you have any moral objection to the marriage of people  with considerable age differences, if the y are both consenting adults  eg an 18 year old girl/boy and a 60 year old  man woman? (hetero or  homo sexual included)  If so, ask yourself why, and what values or beliefs of yours it upsets.

 

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

It is not justifiable in our own modern western countries, but not only was it once justifiable it was absolutely essential for the  survival of those societies. 

Personally i cant see a justification for a sexual relationship below the age of puberty  but even i might be blinded by modern values

12 was the legal and common age for marriage  for centuries  You cannot, simply, from your modern perspective declare it wrong or evil. 

Generally only girls married that young because their role was to have children and the y did not need to have wealth or a job.

Men married much later because the y had to have wealth and income sufficient to care for and support the wife and children,   and this took years to establish

The idea of consent is also modern

Until the 1960s a woman could not refuse consent to her husband because legally it was established that the act of marraige conferred ongoing consent to sex 

Until quite recently historically, women were the property or legal ward of a man, and could do nothing without the permission of that man (father grandfather uncle older brother or husband )  

Times attitudes and laws change as economic and social realities change, and so those two things don't occur in western counties but are still common in Islamic ones

But again, you  cant say they were morally wrong in their times. You don't get to decide what was right or wrong in the past, just as the future cant judge your beliefs attitudes and values.   

Do you have any moral objection to the marriage of people  with considerable age differences, if the y are both consenting adults  eg an 18 year old girl/boy and a 60 year old  man woman? (hetero or  homo sexual included)  If so, ask yourself why, and what values or beliefs of yours it upsets.

It is a shame that it was ever a custom, I am not interested  in why young girls were violated and it is appalling that it took so long to change,  my point is because something was allowed doesn’t mean it was good for anyone. It seems you agree if it has to do with alcohol or cigarettes, but young girls not having the right to consent your all for it. 

Disgusting. 

 

Edited April 18, 2019 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I understand.

Slavery  today is evil and repulsive (no argument)

And so, i must be evil and repulsive, because i can see from my education WHY it occurred, and why it was necessary for survival  in past societies, and i do NOT judge those people as evil or repulsive for doing what the y had to do, driven by economic and social realities of their own times.  I don't judge meat eaters as evil or repulsive either   

That you see slavery as vital and defend it under any circumstance is shocking and concerning, The point of understanding history is not to advocate it’s practices but to learn for them and strive to be better to each other.

 

 

Edited April 18, 2019 by Sherapy

[jmccr8]

1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

That you see slavery as vital and defend it under any circumstance is shocking and concerning, The point of understanding history is not to advocate it’s practices but to learn for them and strive to be better to each other.

 

 

Hi Sherapy

Obviously, the slaves did not share the views of their owners and Walker seems to think that because it was good for the owners that the slaves were quite content to be a part of the system of the day.

I gave this link to Walker to respond to once before and got no response to the material presented and will link it again.

Slave rebellion - Wikipedia

jmccr8

[Habitat]

Virtue signalling is becoming a bore on this website, does anyone need to be told that slavery is bad news for the slave ?

[danydandan]

13 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Virtue signalling is becoming a bore on this website, does anyone need to be told that slavery is bad news for the slave ?

Apparently some do.

 

[Habitat]

5 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Apparently some do.

 

I don't think Mr Walker is indicating approval of slavery, merely indicating it was regarded as a "natural" part of the order of society in times past.  A few of the almost deified "founding fathers" of the USA were slave owners. He alludes to current factory farming practices with animals, it may well be that in future times, this will be looked upon as barbarism.

[Mr Walker]

2 hours ago, Sherapy said:

 

It is a shame that it was ever a custom, I am not interested  in why young girls were violated and it is appalling that it took so long to change,  my point is because something was allowed doesn’t mean it was good for anyone. It seems you agree if it has to do with alcohol or cigarettes, but young girls not having the right to consent your all for it. 

Disgusting. 

 

Course you are not interested Which is why you don't have a clue abut human history and the way people lived.

You want things to be how you want them to be, and  not just now, but in the past as well. 

As I have pointed out, I agree with you about modern ethics and values. BUT it is only ignorance which allows a person to blame  people from the past for how they lived and thought.  

i don't get your point about alcohol or cigarettes.

  Once upon a time no one knew they were bad for you and everyone basically smoked.

Today we know its harmful, and thus have different values 

This is actually exactly the same as the issue with teenage brides and rape in marriage. My attitude to smoking is the same as to underage sex.

  Dangerous and wrong.  But this was not realised or believed in the past.  

Like many, you use ad hominen, ( and quite incorrectly, given that I agree that such things are wrong and immoral in modern societies) as a last resort, because your argument is purely emotional and not rational, and cant be defended logically. 

[Mr Walker]

8 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I don't think Mr Walker is indicating approval of slavery, merely indicating it was regarded as a "natural" part of the order of society in times past.  A few of the almost deified "founding fathers" of the USA were slave owners. He alludes to current factory farming practices with animals, it may well be that in future times, this will be looked upon as barbarism.

As i pointed out. their arguments are emotional rather  than rational , and demonstrate an appalling lack of knowledge about human history, and how we had to live in the past, to survive  The idea that people in the past had the luxury of choice which we are lucky enough to enjoy today, is a terribly ignorant  one. 

its not just in future times. Animal rights activists staged large demonstrations, stole animals from farms, released others, threatened farmers  and blocked traffic, to protest not only eating animals or using their products in any way,  but keeping them as pets or using them as working animals. 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/apr/08/animal-rights-group-aussie-farms-faces-crackdown-after-protests

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-08/tougher-laws-for-animal-rights-activists-amid-plans-for-protest/10979204

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/08/australia/australia-animal-rights-protests-intl/index.html

 

 

[jmccr8]

17 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I don't think Mr Walker is indicating approval of slavery, merely indicating it was regarded as a "natural" part of the order of society in times past.  A few of the almost deified "founding fathers" of the USA were slave owners. He alludes to current factory farming practices with animals, it may well be that in future times, this will be looked upon as barbarism.

Hi Habitat

Did you read the link as slave rebellion would seem to be a fairly strong indicator that slavery has at no time been favored by the slaves?

jmccr8

[jmccr8]

3 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

As i pointed out. their arguments are emotional rather  than rational , and demonstrate an appalling lack of knowledge about human history, and how we had to live in the past, to survive  The idea that people in the past had the luxury of choice which we are lucky enough to enjoy today, is a terribly ignorant  one. 

its not just in future times. Animal rights activists staged large demonstrations, stole animals from farms, released others, threatened farmers  and blocked traffic, to protest not only eating animals or using their products in any way,  but keeping them as pets or using them as working animals. 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/apr/08/animal-rights-group-aussie-farms-faces-crackdown-after-protests

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-08/tougher-laws-for-animal-rights-activists-amid-plans-for-protest/10979204

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/08/australia/australia-animal-rights-protests-intl/index.html

 

 

Hi Walker

How is posting links that counter your position being emotional?

jmccr8

[+Hammerclaw]

The point of studying the past, other than for it's history, is not to have a hissy fit over it, but to learn from it's-in retrospect-"mistakes" and avoid repeating them. A lot of **** happened, good and bad. Just deal with it.