|
Twicehappy2x -> RE: D/s and Religion (9/23/2008 5:46:49 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Twicehappy2x
No, it isn't, especially when they were exposed to and allowed to explore any religion they desired. In the process of which we explored Judaism, Catholicism, Buddhism, Wicca, the religion of the Lakota people too name a few.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NihilusZero
You realize we are specifically talking about the term "indoctrination", yes? Intellectual exploration is an entirely different issue.
Under your definition then, everything we teach our children could be considered indoctrination. Do you intend to teach yours that any and all religion is not provable and therefore does not exist? If so then you would also be guilty of indoctrination. It is not possible to raise the small folk without teaching them.
Or given my comments below do you believe indoctrination to only cover subjects we as the human race have yet to prove?
In that case there will be a multitude of subjects that are taboo. Questions like why and how the dinosaurs died, what exactly did humans evolve from, what are black holes, is there alien life on other planets, etc, but you get the idea.
Scientists have lots of theories on lots of subjects, some even have bits of evidence that lead them to these conclusions. But if they possessed incontrovertible proof, they would not be theories but facts.
There is also all types and kinds of bits of evidence that the metaphysical exists. Much like some scientific theories, not enough for proof, but enough for belief for some.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Twicehappy2x
If i loved the person, and they wanted to be the amputee, yes, i could. Provided they were not forcing/badgering me to want to be an amputee as well.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NihilusZero
This is making my point for me: precisely that you can be supportive without having to necessarily want it directly in that portion of your life.
You are wrong, i said yes, i could be in a relationship with them, if they did not force their desires on me. Not that, no, i could not be in a relationship with them.
According to your post, you have already stated that you, personally cannot do this. As per your posted comment below.
"and would likely not blend well with anyone who is heavily attached to their religious/spiritual dogma".
quote:
Original twicehappy2x
Ah, i get it. You would be the intolerant one.
quote:
ORIGINAL: NihilusZero
This is rubbish. Do you date hermaphrodites that are into bestiality? No? Well, obviously it must be because you are "intolerant".
No, i am not intolerant of hermaphrodites. Or anybody for that matter as long as it does not involve the innocent or unable to consent.
I notice you rather deliberately left out the statement i copied that was the reason i called you intolerant of those who believed in any type of the metaphysical. I believe i said it appeared you considered them your intellectual inferiors. I never said you had to date them. It is just that in the process of asking why you would not i caught on rather quickly to an apparent thought process( or at least apparent to me).
So i perved your profile and found this;
"...if you cannot handle logical, rational debate (or are unable to willingly yield in the face of a sound argument and well-supported point of view) things probably won't go over well. I'm not a Dom that enjoys the whole "because I said so" technique...but I also loathe the notion of "opinion" (and the idea that everyone's can magically be equally "right"). Opinion, to me, is a term used when one cannot adequately back up the sensibility of the position they are arguing. Surprise me by countering a demand of mine with a logical deconstruction"
It appears that not only do you consider those with belief to be your intellectual inferiors, but you cannot tolerate some one who would refuse to see your "logical" argument on this or any other subject.
While you do state you would be willing to listen to an argument and accept another's view if, at least this is how it sounds, they can prove it to you. Given that portion of your statement, i have to wonder if anybodys proof, other than your own would mean anything anyway.
I get your statement "i only believe in what can be proved to me" . But what you may not realize is that with and how you make these statements it seems you are also stating "if you are not smart enough to only believe in what can be proved, you are not smart enough for me to want to associate/have a relationship with".
Yet you cannot see this as being intolerant?
quote:
ORIGINAL: NihilusZero
You realize the crux of your argument here is that people fundamentally do not have the place to decide their relationship ideals for themselves? It doesn't matter if my limits revolve around religiosity or having a sexually transmitted disease.
I reread my posts and i cannot find one word i said that states you cannot pick and choose for yourself what you wanted. But if you can, feel free to copy and paste them for me.
|
|
|
|
