Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

I don't believe you


Jodie.Lynne

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

You don't frame you dissertations very well and leave yourself open for warranted and unwarranted criticism. You're not going get any medals for justifying past historical behaviors abhorrent today, even within the context of history. You made yourself an apologist for marital rape, whether you realized you were that or not, hence their reaction.

No i didnt That is a perception from  an inner bias and cultural prejudice which has to been tempered by adequate reading and knowledge of human history to be of any value 

You are basically saying that it is ok to be attacked for offering accurate historical realities on such an issue, just because those who dont understand those historical realities  have a strong negative emotional response I guess ive spent my whole life learning to think and argue objectively and factually eliminating emotion and subjective  arguments from a pov 

its not about apology. It is about recognising that marital rape did not exist in either a legal or social context in western jurisdictions for the last few centuries  No one needs to apologise for the tetement of mae to women in such past times  we only have to take responsibility for our own behaviours.

if oyu cant accept  that then you  cant make a logical or accurate case about the  issue  

  It is about recognising that we are a product of our present context and there is NO WAY someone from a very difernt context could think as we do, and hold the same  values which we do   

What should i do?  Simply sit back and allow the moral absolutists to have the only say? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mr Walker said:

No i didnt That is a perception from  an inner bias and cultural prejudice which has to been tempered by adequate reading and knowledge of human history to be of any value 

You are basically saying that it is ok to be attacked for offering accurate historical realities on such an issue, just because those who dont understand those historical realities  have a strong negative emotional response I guess ive spent my whole life learning to think and argue objectively and factually eliminating emotion and subjective  arguments from a pov 

its not about apology. It is about recognising that marital rape did not exist in either a legal or social context in western jurisdictions for the last few centuries  No one needs to apologise for the tetement of mae to women in such past times  we only have to take responsibility for our own behaviours.

if oyu cant accept  that then you  cant make a logical or accurate case about the  issue  

  It is about recognising that we are a product of our present context and there is NO WAY someone from a very difernt context could think as we do, and hold the same  values which we do   

What should i do?  Simply sit back and allow the moral absolutists to have the only say? 

Who said people are logical or rational? You are a minority of one, here, and despite your protestations, display alarming irrationality of your own. If you can't accept how other people think, feel, believe, and know the world their own unique way, I'm afraid you are beyond social redemption. You don't have any people skills, at least, not in the printed medium.

  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

I don’t believe  that you just “can’t” judge past human behavior, you do it all the time, Cigarette smokers, people who drink, atheists, people, who don’t read books, parents who don’t hit their kids, meat eaters, or people who are depressed etc. etc.

You could change in a second, quit picking poking the bear topics. 

What  is the point of defending rape and then admonishing a cigarette smoker?

Maybe you are  nice guy deep down, so focus on showing this on here. 

Those are current issues, or at least from my life time.

The y are based on current modern thinking and knowledge.

However, you cant blame a person  from  1920 for smoking when it was seen as a medical cure for some illnesses, was allowed in hospitals and theatres/cinemas  and no one knew the dangers 

i would "admonish" a current rapist or smoker or slaver . I would not admonish a person from  4000 years ago who did these things  How could they know any better ? who was there to tell them their behaviours were wrong, even 400 years  ago 

 The y were all seen very differently In saying a  slave owner from 4000 years ago was evil you are  making a value judgement like saying that a person from  1920 who smoked was dumb  Today you know stuff that they not know back then, including that all human are basically the  same Then some were believed to be like animals  That gives you  greater responsibility today than the y had 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Who said people are logical or rational? You are a minority of one, here, and despite your protestations, display alarming irrationality of your own. If you can't accept how other people think, feel, believe, and know the world their own unique way, I'm afraid you are beyond social redemption. You don't have any people skills, at least, not in the printed medium.

Fair enough. I find most humans to be over emotional and irrational, making them quite dangerous, and yet i actually rub along very well in the real world.

This is a place i come to debate and present difernt pov  so you see that argumentative, cold, and logical, aspect of me. 

Must admit i always admired Spock more than Kirk   I fear for the human race if it cant get past that emotional irrational way of thinking, yet as Kirk often said, it is also our great  strenght   when used as love compassion empathy etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr Walker said:

Those are current issues, or at least from my life time.

The y are based on current modern thinking and knowledge.

However, you cant blame a person  from  1920 for smoking when it was seen as a medical cure for some illnesses, was allowed in hospitals and theatres/cinemas  and no one knew the dangers 

i would "admonish" a current rapist or smoker or slaver . I would not admonish a person from  4000 years ago who did these things  How could they know any better ? who was there to tell them their behaviours were wrong, even 400 years  ago 

 The y were all seen very differently In saying a  slave owner from 4000 years ago was evil you are  making a value judgement like saying that a person from  1920 who smoked was dumb  Today you know stuff that they not know back then, including that all human are basically the  same Then some were believed to be like animals  That gives you  greater responsibility today than the y had 

I don’t have the issue with smokers, you do. 

You don’t want to acknowledge that you are as judgmental as the rest of us. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Fair enough. I find most humans to be over emotional and irrational, making them quite dangerous, and yet i actually rub along very well in the real world.

This is a place i come to debate and present difernt pov  so you see that argumentative, cold, and logical, aspect of me. 

Must admit i always admired Spock more than Kirk   I fear for the human race if it cant get past that emotional irrational way of thinking, yet as Kirk often said, it is also our great  strenght   when used as love compassion empathy etc. 

If anything, you're persistent.

dig-yourself-hole-businessman-pickaxe-di

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Fair enough. I find most humans to be over emotional and irrational, making them quite dangerous, and yet i actually rub along very well in the real world.

This is a place i come to debate and present difernt pov  so you see that argumentative, cold, and logical, aspect of me. 

Must admit i always admired Spock more than Kirk   I fear for the human race if it cant get past that emotional irrational way of thinking, yet as Kirk often said, it is also our great  strenght   when used as love compassion empathy etc. 

What comes across is a lack of compassion and empathy, and social insight, not the self professed brilliance in argumentation you have decided you possess. 

 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

What comes across is a lack of compassion and empathy, and social insight, not the self professed brilliance in argumentation you have decided you possess. 

 

 

5bac64ceb155d7a9cc977232fd5ee338abb3c5cd

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

I don’t have the issue with smokers, you do. 

You don’t want to acknowledge that you are as judgmental as the rest of us. 

Of course I judge behaviours, OF MODERN PEOPLE, who should know better.  (I don't judge the people, just their behaviours) 

I don't judge the behaviours of  people from the past who had no way of knowing any better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

What comes across is a lack of compassion and empathy, and social insight, not the self professed brilliance in argumentation you have decided you possess. 

 

 

Ah, but you see, that is your problem of perception, not my problem of character.  It is caused by something inside you, not anything inside me.

I see you, and some others, as more concerned with appearance and how you  are thought  of by others, than being yourself, and being honest about yourself.

That is  ok. Many humans are like that, and how others see them is very important to most people,  so they do not make controversial statements, or argue unpopular pov  The y seek validation, acceptance and agreement /harmony, rather than truth. 

You work hard to be liked. I work hard to be honest 

Different priorities; different values.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

5bac64ceb155d7a9cc977232fd5ee338abb3c5cd

It is subjective value judgement of course, but i empathise with Spock more than Kirk. 

This difference in characterisation was deliberate, and one of the many brilliant aspects of the writing of the original series.

The  authors wanted to produce a dialogue between the two sides of human nature.

The logical/  rational side, and the emotional one, both presented in a pure and uncompromising  state.

   Spock and Kirk embodied those qualities and often debated alternate pov about a moral or ethical dilemma.

Usually compromise was reached, and this was also deliberate, as the writers believed that the inner duality of humanity had to reach a compromise to work effectively, and enable  human emotional evolution and development . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

It is subjective value judgement of course, but i empathise with Spock more than Kirk. 

This difference in characterisation was deliberate, and one of the many brilliant aspects of the writing of the original series.

The  authors wanted to produce a dialogue between the two sides of human nature.

The logical/  rational side, and the emotional one, both presented in a pure and uncompromising  state.

   Spock and Kirk embodied those qualities and often debated alternate pov about a moral or ethical dilemma.

Usually compromise was reached, and this was also deliberate, as the writers believed that the inner duality of humanity had to reach a compromise to work effectively, and enable  human emotional evolution and development . 

You green-blooded, inhuman...…...

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Ah, but you see, that is your problem of perception, not my problem of character.  It is caused by something inside you, not anything inside me.

I see you, and some others, as more concerned with appearance and how you  are thought  of by others, than being yourself, and being honest about yourself.

That is  ok. Many humans are like that, and how others see them is very important to most people,  so they do not make controversial statements, or argue unpopular pov  The y seek validation, acceptance and agreement /harmony, rather than truth. 

You work hard to be liked. I work hard to be honest 

Different priorities; different values.    

Hmmmm, honest?

 

 

 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I work hard to be human and will lie through my teeth to spare another's feelings. It's the right thing to do if truth is too grim to stomach. Better to ease a soul with a lie than damn it with cold hard facts. We lie to ourselves all the time to make life bearable, so I'll spare others the virtue of honesty if circumstance dictates. For those who believe in a conceptual God of compassion, then compassion must dwell in one's heart for as long as one lives. For that's what God is, an idea in countless peoples minds that make the deity a conceptual reality.  As an idea, a God like that really isn't such a bad thing, at all.

Edited by Hammerclaw
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/24/2019 at 7:56 PM, Mr Walker said:

Go back and read all the previous posts .

Rape did not even exist as an entity within a marriage until the 1970s.  Rape is defined as  sex which is had without ( in modern law free and informed)  consent, and is thus illegal  

In a marriage consent was legally given by the act of marriage and could not be withdrawn under that contract (socially and legally)

Second it was not illegal for either partner to demand sex from the other, although politeness civilty and a good nature might limit the demands 

marriage legally and specifically excluded the possibility of rape within it 

BUT outside of marriage,  where no contract existed, a person could give and withdraw consent on an individual basis at different times  

This is where everything falls apart for you. 

Of course rape existed. Of course it was wrong. It was outright evil. 

It was not specifically noted as being against any particular law. 

Not the same thing. 

That's not a pardon, it's a poor excuse. An excuse for disgusting people to do disgusting things. Not being against the law does not change that. 

Rape entails force and violence. That's is always wrong. It is always evil. If one loves another, one will not do that to that person. No means no, then and now. Such a person would be horrified and demand justice if such crimes were committed against their mother or sister, yet see themselves and their victim as an exception to the standard of decency. 

This is why you are seen in such a bad light by so many for your views. You don't recognise wrong unless society does it for you. Quite frankly, it's outright disturbing that you consider a henious act that is not specified as breaking a law written for that very situation as permissable. It strikes me as akin to the narrow minded conservative fundamentals who say of God doesnt exist, why don't we rape kill pillage and plunder? 

Its honestly hard to believe one can have such a limited blinkered view. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Of course I judge behaviours, OF MODERN PEOPLE, who should know better.  (I don't judge the people, just their behaviours) 

I don't judge the behaviours of  people from the past who had no way of knowing any better. 

Oh trust me! I am sure I will find an example of where you do. Lol 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Oh trust me! I am sure I will find an example of where you do. Lol 

Adam and eve. 

Why should god have punished them when they had no concept of death? 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

I work hard to be human and will lie through my teeth to spare another's feelings. It's the right thing to do if truth is too grim to stomach. Better to ease a soul with a lie than damn it with cold hard facts. We lie to ourselves all the time to make life bearable, so I'll spare others the virtue of honesty if circumstance dictates. For those who believe in a conceptual God of compassion, then compassion must dwell in one's heart for as long as one lives. For that's what God is, an idea in countless peoples minds that make the deity a conceptual reality.  As an idea, a God like that really isn't such a bad thing, at all.

Really good point. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Adam and eve. 

Why should god have punished them when they had no concept of death? 

Well there you go. 

Geez, I have actually read posts from Walker arguing for god’s right to punish them. That not knowing any better was not an excuse.

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Well there you go. 

Geez, I have actually read posts from Walker arguing for god’s right to punish them. That not knowing any better was not an excuse.

 

First genesis is a creation myth with a very specific purpose and you need to know and understand the purpose to understand  the  story 

 You Got it wrong again but then what else should i expect 

 Not even going to bother arguing this.

  psyche misunderstands the relationship between god and adam and even and their level of self knowledge  

God laid  out the rules and told them the consequences of breaking the rules  

They  had  free will and he could not predict their behaviour  The serpent told them god had lied to them 

The y believed the serpent, broke the rules and god applied the known consequence

No other people across the heavens fell from gods grace by disobeying him .

As in the story of job god will  restore all those who believe in him to eternal life on the new earth which will be like Eden. 

ALL myth  

but of course, in that story, god had the right to  punish them.

Actually he did NOT punish them. The y reaped the consequences for the behaviour they chose.

  That has never gone down well with humans who think they should be able to act as they like without consequence. which of course was one reason for the moral

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

First genesis is a creation myth with a very specific purpose and you need to know and understand the purpose to understand  the  story 

 You Got it wrong again but then what else should i expect 

 Not even going to bother arguing this.

  psyche misunderstands the relationship between god and adam and even and their level of self knowledge  

God laid  out the rules and told them the consequences of breaking the rules  

They  had  free will and he could not predict their behaviour  The serpent told them god had lied to them 

The y believed the serpent, broke the rules and god applied the known consequence

No other people across the heavens fell from gods grace by disobeying him .

As in the story of job god will  restore all those who believe in him to eternal life on the new earth which will be like Eden. 

ALL myth  

but of course, in that story, god had the right to  punish them.

Actually he did NOT punish them. The y reaped the consequences for the behaviour they chose.

  That has never gone down well with humans who think they should be able to act as they like without consequence. which of course was one reason for the moral

This is your opinion about Genesis, it is not informed, scholarly or academic it is how you “interpret” it, it really only tells us about what you glean from the myth. 

You also think lights talk and have magical powers,...

 

 

 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

No one 


"sets them self up"

i was open, clear, and accurate, from  the start

it is a complex issue, and i made it clear that i see rape as wrong and evil, BUT  that it was not always so, and was not always seen as so.

I explained the philosophical  difference  between absolutist and relativistic moralities.

  However, most people have no background understanding and simply saw a bloke saying that rape was not always evil. 

Some read  as they often do read, through the cultural spectacles they wear, and interpreted what i wrote in a preconceived and biased way 

as i just posted to Sherapy,  I abhor rape as evil.

BUT how can i blame a bloke from  several centuries ago for his attitudes, when i know that,  if i was born and raised in that time and place, i would not hold my modern current  values but the ones he held. We are ALL products of our environment and culture 

 

Phew, only a thousand posts later, but better late then never. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/04/2019 at 8:52 PM, Sherapy said:

In digging back further I found this contrary to your claim advise me “to go further back in the past and see rape was not wrong at all, except in a few special instances” ( Walker).

“Rape did not even exist as an entity within a marriage until the 1970s.  Rape is defined as  sex which is had without ( in modern law free and informed)  consent, and is thus illegal “  ( Walker).

Then I found this:

“The ancient Hebrews had many views regarding the rape of a woman, and had varying penalties for raping married and unmarried women. Where the rape occurred was also relevant to the sentence meted out for the crime. If she was a virgin at the time of the rape, and the act occurred within the city, both the woman and her assailant were viewed as culpable, and both were subject to death by stoning. If she was raped outside the city, the assailant” ordered to pay her father for the damage he had inflicted on the father's property and was forced to marry the woman. However, if the woman was a virgin and had already been engaged to someone, the assailant was not given the option to purchase her. He was stoned to death, and she was sold to whomever would have her. Yet a married woman who was raped by a stranger was always viewed as somehow responsible for her attack, and thus her husband was permitted to have her and her assailant stoned to death.” 

Yes, there was the marriage exemption law, but it was challenged as early as 1721. 

“In spite of Hale's statement on the common law, the English courts recognized that a wife could be legally separated from her husband as early as 1721, and that the husband no longer had a right to "confine" his wife if they had mutually agreed to separate.54 In the case of Popkin v. Popkin, [1794] 1 Mag. Ecc. 765, a suit by a wife for divorce a mensa et thoro5,5 the Ecclesiastical Courts of England recognized that "[t]he husband has a right to the person of his wife" but with the qualification "but not if her health is endangered,, 56 thus setting up the first exception to the marital rape exemption. There were, however, cases that also suggested exactly the opposite, holding that the husband had the right to confine his wife so long as they were married.”

 

Then in 1889 it seems that Rape within a marriage a man could considered as guilty of a crime. Walker your claim that rape was not even thought of as a crime until the 70s is not bearing out. 

“The English courts began to doubt the absolute validity of Hale's assertion on record in 1889 with the case of Regina v. Clarence.58 Although the majority still believed that "marital rape" as a crime did not exist, Justice Wills (in a separate statement, but still agreeing with the majority) stated that he did not believe that "as between married persons rape is impossible. 59 In the dissent, Justice Field stated: "The authority of Hale, C.J., on such a tter is undoubtedly as high as any can be, but no other authority is cited by him for this proposition, and I should hesitate before I adopted it. There may, I think, be many cases in which a wife may lawfully refuse intercourse, and in which, if the husband imposed it by violence, he might be guilty of a crime."' 

https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1315&context=gjicl

Here's an essay from the Australian Women's History Network. It supports what Walker is saying about criminalization.

http://www.auswhn.org.au/blog/marital-rape/

English common law in place at the time of federation of Australia would have remained in place in until codification altered that.

It's anomolous hough that in 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 16 guarantees the rights of the individual in marriage. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/04/2019 at 11:04 PM, Liquid Gardens said:

... except maybe when you go back to prehistory where I'm not sure intellectual development had come far enough for humans to comprehend morality.

The "if you go back far enough" antecedent surely leads to the consequent that we can't possibly be sure what happened. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:
5 hours ago, Sherapy said:

What comes across is a lack of compassion and empathy, and social insight, not the self professed brilliance in argumentation you have decided you possess. 

 

 

5bac64ceb155d7a9cc977232fd5ee338abb3c5cd

If I may, (being a Trekkie myself), the fictional Vulcan race is interesting, but because of the many series and years into the franchise Vulcans are more explored than as the ‘unfeeling’ beings they were originally were thought of to be and portrayed. (And note the Spock character is half-human, and the exploration of the war inside him is explored and probably a closer to it in the movies) If I could use another Vulcan character to express something, emotions and feelings have their place, and what could be thought of of characters originally thought of as unemotional, is more of true feelings assuming they are controlled, but are there nevertheless. And the intent to control, having their own issues with it. Taking what the character T’Pol Says to Commander Tucker Say in part of this clip of “Enterprise”  shows how emotions can have their part, and it’s not always ‘sunny’ on the other side of the fence. I have seen varying fictional shows that show the emotional individual, lots of times ‘save the day’ over the unemotional intellectuals from time to time. In real life, from my standpoint and experience, a steady control of release of emotions can also have a positive effect in lots of ways. Point out, that I said ‘a steady control’ ;)  

Spock’s half-nature is probably a good lesson in learning, that when you embrace both sides, and use it in a way that is controlable yet is exercised, one can learn from that, I think. Intelligence, well........ if used unfeelingly, can have it’s dangerous aspects, in my opinion. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.