VICanucksfan5551 Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 That's not my definition for 'martyr', it's Merriam-Webster's. He may have sacrificed himself...but it doesn't make him a 'martyr', regardless of your definition of martyrdom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 There doesn't have to be an exclusionary word for the statement as a whole to imply exclusion. If the statement doesn't exclude other possibilities, it's very strangely worded, as Weinberg unnecessarily cluttered his point of "religion can make good people do bad things". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 http://www.merriam-w...ctionary/martyr Check out definition 2. That definitely applies to Bruno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 In order for you to assert that the statement is exclusionary you have to be able to point to the exclusionary word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 In this instance, it's a pair of words: "it takes". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 Nope, that's not exlusionary. Had he said "It 'only' takes" then yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thema Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 Wow, institutionalized pedophilia. What is it with the hyper devout (of any religion) and having sex with children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 So when someone says "it takes one to know one", why is it seen as an insult? If it's not exclusionary, it shouldn't imply anything insulting at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLASSJAW Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 Oh, so you're ok asking loaded questions but prefer to not answer them? How do you know what's Google and what's scholastic knowledge? Are you claiming mind-reading as one of your many 'carny' attributes? The smartest thing you said in your response was "nor do i know". That would seem to be a theme, as opposed to "I thought clearly", something which is evidently beyond your capability. Again, i'll try to use simple words in trying to retrieve a cogent answer from you....why is applying the morality of forcing one's penis into a 9 year old 1406 years ago, morally different from forcing your penis into a 9 year old today? Again, is there something about a 9 year old then that makes them developmentally more capable of receiving a male penis at that age? If you could answer the question, that'd be great. And you're right, you have no idea what my education level, nor does it matter, since it bears no real relevance to the defence of your own position in this discussion. Oh, well, actually you did by agreeing with me about the years in question 1406 years ago would have made Aisha, the girl and 6 year old in question.....well, 6 years old. I realize math isn't your strong suit, but i assumed basic arithmetic wasn't beyond your superior intellect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 Bunch of Bugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 If sources should be checked and confirmed for hockey related news they should also be checked and confirmed for this type of nonsense too. This whole thread seems to be sourced by a propaganda news article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 If sources should be checked and confirmed for hockey related news they should also be checked and confirmed for this type of nonsense too. This whole thread seems to be sourced by a propaganda news article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remy Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 Wow, institutionalized pedophilia. What is it with the hyper devout (of any religion) and having sex with children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 I'd like to thank you for toning down the big words in your post, sentences like "Were their cognitive development more advanced that the cognitive capabilities of today's adolescent?" are challenging indeed! My appreciation ends there, though! Are you trying to goad me into defending rape, or something? I can't quite tell. And speaking of challenging... "(a)why is applying the morality of forcing one's penis into a 9 year old 1406 years ago, morally different from ( b )forcing your penis into a 9 year old today? Again, ( c) is there something about a 9 year old then that makes them developmentally more capable of receiving a male penis at that age?" It's kind of ironic that you'd offer up a "simplified" version of your complex thoughts by typing up such a convoluted question. To attempt an answer... you're asking for a difference, right? Well, technically, point (a) is simply the application of morality, whereas point ( b ) is a physical act and considered rape. You're asking me to compare the application of morality with the act of forcing sex? As for question ( c ), you can keep asking it, I'm not dumb enough to even attempt to answer. Your other (original) question, even for me to seriously consider, implies that I have an understanding of "the morality of forcing one's penis into a 9 year old 1400 years ago" -- which I don't. So is your follow-up question then "why should an act be examined under a different moral lens, depending on the year in which the act was committed?" If so, then I'd just dismiss the conversation entirely by saying that applying morality to history is pointless, period. Unless, of course, you're religious or philosophically warped enough to believe in absolutism, suggesting that morality transcends time (I'm now repeating myself), in which case you could easily engage in this discussion. I'm not, so I won't. As a side: Thank you for specifying the gender from which the penis comes, by the way. When people don't specify "male penis" I tend to wonder which gender's penis they're referring to. Regardless of what your dumb question may have been aiming for, my entire point was that I can't apply moral judgment to an act committed 1400 years ago, because my moral judgments are based on what I understand as being good and bad in a modern sense. Nowhere did I say a 6, 9, 10, or even 14 year old has the developmental ability to cast judgment on sexual partnership. However, what I did say was that even having the morality conversation is problematic due to fallacious pitfalls, as the conversation inherently requires (or at least encourages) a form of presentism. Especially in my case, because I don't have the slightest clue about what societal norms (philosophical or sociological) were,1400 years ago, and I couldn't care less to even google them and pretend to know. Therefore objectivity is entirely impossible. Other posters in this thread were very, very, very obviously incapable of using any objectivity as well (as displayed by the comments of puberty, ice cream, etc.). The post to which I was responding to originally was also guilty of presentism. And no, I didn't say anything about a 6 year old child making rational decisions, I said "yup" to the approximation of year you supplied. That "yup" doesn't have anything to do with logic or reasoning, just an agreement on a date. What I did say was that in England, just a few hundred years ago, children regularly had educations that would have been nothing like the education a similarly aged child would experience today (i.e. studying Classics before the age of 13), and that the legal marrying age was probably around 12 or 13, which--I know for a fact--was regularly disregarded for cultural reasons which are beyond my place to cast judgment on, without falling into fallacy zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmcookies1975 Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 and the Iranian priests are condemning chicken now too!!! not even a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 and the Iranian priests are condemning chicken now too!!! not even a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Light Racicot Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 Man...you're really stretching here. WWi was a pi$$ing match between royal relatives and two super-powers of the day itching for a fight so they could divide Europe and the world. The Duke's assassination was just an excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 Meanwhile.....in Pakistan. Pakistani Christian Girl With Special Needs Arrested For Allegedly Burning Islamic Text A Christian girl with Down's syndrome has been arrested and charged with blasphemy in Pakistan for allegedly burning pages containing Islamic text, the BBC and Agence France-Presse report. According to the Express Tribune, an English language newspaper in Pakistan, the11-year-old was beaten last week after locals in her village near Islamabad saw her burning pages inscribed with Islamic text. Dawn, another English-language Pakistani paper, notes that other reports indicatethat she "was burning used papers collected from the garbage for cooking." If found guilty, the young girl could face the death penalty, according to AFP. Her family and other Christians in the area reportedly fled out of fear following the incident, according to the Express Tribune and Dawn, but not before people in the village brought the girl and her mother to local authorities. AFP reports that the Women's Action Forum, a women's rights organization in Pakistan, has called on authorities to release the young girl. "WAF is outraged at the total inhumanity of the men who lodged the First Information Report (FIR) in the police," Tahira Abdullah, a spokeswoman for WAF said. This is one of the latest high-profile incidents to draw attention to Pakistan's controversial blasphemy laws, which state that people who are convicted of insulting the Quran or Islam's prophet can face the death penalty. In 2010, a Christian mother of five was sentenced to death for blasphemy. And last month, a man accused of desecrating the Quran was dragged from a police station in Pakistan and beaten to death before his body was set on fire. Salman Taseer, a Pakistani governor, was assassinated by a bodyguard in 2011because of his reported opposition to the laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remy Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 quote removed - absolutely inappropriate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsCanuck Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 That's heart wrenching. What a horrible life to live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.