hackenslash wrote:

Mackson wrote:But it does hold consequence because these beliefs can become part of their self-concept and social identity, as psychologists will tell you. Hence, while it is not genetic (like sexual orientation likely is), it is still part of their personal identity.

Psychologists again? Besides, that it has consequences has zero impact on the point, namely that it's still mere belief.

These are among the authorities on self-identity, hackenslash. It matters what they think. appeals to authority are non-fallacious when the authority actually exists.

Total fucking cock. Psychologists aren't experts on identity, they study behaviour. It doesn't matter what they think on this topic, and the appeal IS fallacious.

Please, there must be a topic on which you actually have some idea of what you're talking about? This isn't it.

Psychologists are not experts on personal identity? That's news. Tell me, who is?

Shrunk wrote:

Mackson wrote:Religious belief is far more than alcoholism; it connects you to the community, with a shared value set and metaphysic. It is the light upon which you see the world and find meaning within it. This might seem odd to you, but that shouldn't matter, because you are not every other person.

Many alcoholics will see their addiction in much the same manner. That might seem odd to you, but you are not every other person.

If that were true, then I'd see it as no problem, but is it true? Provide evidence.

Mackson wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Mackson wrote:Religious belief is far more than alcoholism; it connects you to the community, with a shared value set and metaphysic. It is the light upon which you see the world and find meaning within it. This might seem odd to you, but that shouldn't matter, because you are not every other person.

Many alcoholics will see their addiction in much the same manner. That might seem odd to you, but you are not every other person.

If that were true, then I'd see it as no problem, but is it true? Provide evidence.

Oh, sorry. Did you provide evidence for your assertions regarding religion? Because I seem to have missed it.

Mackson wrote:Psychologists are not experts on personal identity? That's news. Tell me, who is?

There are none.

Oh, incidentally, if psychologists are the experts in identity, then you shouldn't need to ask Shrunk for evidence in support of his contention about alcoholics because, according to you, his opinion is evidence. The clue is in the moniker (which is why I was looking forward to his response to your cock).

Shrunk wrote:

Mackson wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Mackson wrote:Religious belief is far more than alcoholism; it connects you to the community, with a shared value set and metaphysic. It is the light upon which you see the world and find meaning within it. This might seem odd to you, but that shouldn't matter, because you are not every other person.

Many alcoholics will see their addiction in much the same manner. That might seem odd to you, but you are not every other person.

If that were true, then I'd see it as no problem, but is it true? Provide evidence.

Oh, sorry. Did you provide evidence for your assertions regarding religion? Because I seem to have missed it.

Serious? Which claim do you find in need of support? Religion as a part of social identity should be downright intuitively obvious. http://psr.sagepub.com/content/14/1/60.short and http://www.midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/381.pdf Social identity theory holds that our personal identity has two parts: personal and social. The social aspect of religion should be obvious, especially those which assert the role of the community, like in Judaism, Islam and Catholicism. I'd argue that religious belief also informs the personal because what it teaches you about the person (see Catholic personalism, the fall, image of god, atonement, etc) impacts how a person sees himself. This is actually a source of criticism for some religions because it contributes to a poor self-concept among homosexual teens ( e.g. being told that you're evil because you're gay).

Mackson wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Mackson wrote:

willhud9 wrote:People can choose religious ideas and behaviors.

People cannot choose sexual identities.

I'm not too sure in which sense a person can "choose" a religious identity-it does not seem to be an authentic reality for many people. We're often raised in this; it becomes part of who we are, the lens upon which we see the world. I can't simply, right now, choose to be non-Catholic. It wouldn't work--there's no off-switch. It's integral to part of who I am today. Can this be changed? Sure, in a sense, but then I would have a transition of identity, and it is far from clear how this would be "chosen" by me.

Bollocks. Just because it is ingrained in your behavior and mindset does not mean it is a part of you. By that logic alcoholics should also not be criticized for their addiction and abuse of alcohol because a lot of them being alcoholics is "part of who they are."

I did not say that people or their ideas or whatever else should not be criticized. I simply said that the distinction between idea and person, especially when it comes to religion, is murky.

Religious belief is far more than alcoholism; it connects you to the community, with a shared value set and metaphysic. It is the light upon which you see the world and find meaning within it. This might seem odd to you, but that shouldn't matter, because you are not every other person.

1) Don't preach to me. I was just as religious as you were and an associate pastor for a Southern Baptist Church AND went to Liberty University for a year to go for a pastoral studies degree before changing schools and majors. So yes I do know what it is like, very intimately.

2) My religious beliefs and practices WERE irrational and rightfully should be ridiculed. It may go to follow that when we say praying is fucking wankers than it can technically follow that those who pray are fucking wankers, but it does not. Those who pray simply engage in something fucking wankers. But when you say being attracted to the same sex or having intimate relations with the same sex is fucking wankers you then say homosexuals are fucking wankers because that is directly a characteristic of that person. Now you can say anal sex is fucking wankers, and that would be fine, because that is criticizing an action not a direct attribute of a person.

3) What Shrunk said and which you avoided.

Mackson - so what name did you go under previously??

Troll hunting time methinks. ...a sock lurks

A Mick it tis.....a very odiferous sock indeed.....more holey than holy....

Hack had it in one....

hackenslash wrote:
Mick, you are far and away the most contemptible cunt I ever came across.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/nonth ... 2-120.html

seconded...

Mackson wrote:downright intuitively obvious.

Really racking up those fallacies. This one should be downright intuitively obvious...

Shrunk wrote:It's this simple: Everyone understands what it means to be tolerant and supportive of homosexual or transgendered students. And there is a minority of people who understand it, but don't want that tolerance and support to exist.

Yes, that's it, exactly.

I chuckle every time I see a study that shows that sex education, and more open attitudes about sex in general, with readily available birth control and abortion, results in fewer underage pregnancies, less sexual battery, including of children, a longer wait time before the first sex, lower STD transmission rates, lower abortion rates, and so on and so forth.

The trouble is not that it hasn't been shown every which way from Sunday. The problem is that some people just don't like it, period.

The 'they're ignorant" schtick is just a pretense or alibi to hide this. That's all it is.

epepke wrote:

I chuckle every time I see a study that shows that sex education, and more open attitudes about sex in general, with readily available birth control and abortion, results in fewer underage pregnancies, less sexual battery, including of children, a longer wait time before the first sex, lower STD transmission rates, lower abortion rates, and so on and so forth.

The trouble is not that it hasn't been shown every which way from Sunday. The problem is that some people just don't like it, period.

The 'they're ignorant" schtick is just a pretense or alibi to hide this. That's all it is.

And these are absolutely compelling reasons as to why the state should set the standards on sex education and prescribe when it is taught.

It is far too an important subject to be left to the vagaries of individual parenting. Some will be good. Some will be very poor. Some will be very harmful.

And the role of the state is to help protect its populace.

And arguably intervening to ensure the young get a proper education in the face of a religious minority preaching ignorance and stuff that is just downright incorrect, is the state protecting its populace.

willhud9 wrote:2) My religious beliefs and practices WERE irrational and rightfully should be ridiculed. It may go to follow that when we say praying is fucking wankers than it can technically follow that those who pray are fucking wankers, but it does not. Those who pray simply engage in something fucking wankers. But when you say being attracted to the same sex or having intimate relations with the same sex is fucking wankers you then say homosexuals are fucking wankers because that is directly a characteristic of that person. Now you can say anal sex is fucking wankers, and that would be fine, because that is criticizing an action not a direct attribute of a person.

Though as a personal declaration I think this is pretty unassailable, I would take issue on the final point on the basis that criticising the nature of intimate physical relations between same-sex individuals on the basis of it being merely an action divorces the action from the context as well as from the nature of the intimacy itself. Other than that, yeah.

willhud9 wrote:
1) Don't preach to me. I was just as religious as you were and an associate pastor for a Southern Baptist Church AND went to Liberty University for a year to go for a pastoral studies degree before changing schools and majors. So yes I do know what it is like, very intimately.

I was not preaching to you. I was expressing the difference. I am not here to talk about our religiosity. I didn't even deny that you do know what it is like.

Not that it matters much, but I am unsure how you can reliably state that you're just as religious as me if you don't even know me or much about me, but I suppose that is another issue, for another time.

2) My religious beliefs and practices WERE irrational and rightfully should be ridiculed.

Even if this were true, it is irrelevant to the point. The point in question is whether religious belief and such can be part of a person's identity. I provided sources and a theory (social identity theory) within psychology that says it is. Nothing about this suggests that the components of the identity have to be "rational".

Thus far no one has even challenged the sources and theory I pointed toward. Hackenslash responded to my post, but he just omitted the relevant parts, leaving them unaddressed. But that's not a rebuttal; it is simply ignoring the issue at hand. You, on the other hand, at least try to address the issue, but continuously confuse what's at discussion.

It may go to follow that when we say praying is fucking wankers than it can technically follow that those who pray are fucking wankers, but it does not.

I can't make good sense of this sentence. From what I can tell, you seem to be saying that a person can claim that praying is silly without anything "following" about the person. I am not too sure what you mean by "follow", though often times that is the language of entailment. Yet, not all messages are entailed by their literal meaning, if there's one thing that English pragmatics teaches us, it's that. But the point here needn't be that to say that a practice or belief of the religious sort is silly is to say the person is silly. It is just that these practices and beliefs are so intertwined with his identity, that there is a perceived degradation of the person himself.


Once you grant social identity theory, as I mentioned, this distinction between personal identity and belief, at least of the religious sort, is not always so clear. Nothing about this suggests that we should not criticize religious beliefs anyways, but it does, at least if we accept this theory, give us pause about the intelligibility of the distinction.

3) What Shrunk said and which you avoided.

What did I avoid?

epepke wrote:

Shrunk wrote:It's this simple: Everyone understands what it means to be tolerant and supportive of homosexual or transgendered students. And there is a minority of people who understand it, but don't want that tolerance and support to exist.

Yes, that's it, exactly.

I chuckle every time I see a study that shows that sex education, and more open attitudes about sex in general, with readily available birth control and abortion, results in fewer underage pregnancies, less sexual battery, including of children, a longer wait time before the first sex, lower STD transmission rates, lower abortion rates, and so on and so forth.

The trouble is not that it hasn't been shown every which way from Sunday. The problem is that some people just don't like it, period.

The 'they're ignorant" schtick is just a pretense or alibi to hide this. That's all it is.

But, the sources I have provided contradicts Shrunk's statement. Not everyone understands what it means.

You two cannot simply ignore my sources and repeat your statements.

Macksock wrote:Hackenslash responded to my post, but he just omitted the relevant parts, leaving them unaddressed. But that's not a rebuttal; it is simply ignoring the issue at hand.

Lie if you like, it won't diminish my opinion of your apologetic.

What actually happened was that I pointed out why the 'relevant' parts weren't actually relevant and then, when you fucking whined pathetically about it like a choirboy in receipt of pastoral care, I went back and fucked it up the arse.

The record is there for all. It isn't like you can cover up this lie. It's not like you have any credibility to screw up, so why not just lie?

Edit: Typos

So, hackenslash, why is social identity theory wrong?

Mackson wrote:So, hackenslash, why is social identity theory wrong?

Who the fuck said it was wrong?

Why is it correct?

Mackson wrote:

epepke wrote:

Shrunk wrote:It's this simple: Everyone understands what it means to be tolerant and supportive of homosexual or transgendered students. And there is a minority of people who understand it, but don't want that tolerance and support to exist.

Yes, that's it, exactly.

I chuckle every time I see a study that shows that sex education, and more open attitudes about sex in general, with readily available birth control and abortion, results in fewer underage pregnancies, less sexual battery, including of children, a longer wait time before the first sex, lower STD transmission rates, lower abortion rates, and so on and so forth.

The trouble is not that it hasn't been shown every which way from Sunday. The problem is that some people just don't like it, period.

The 'they're ignorant" schtick is just a pretense or alibi to hide this. That's all it is.

But, the sources I have provided contradicts Shrunk's statement. Not everyone understands what it means.

You two cannot simply ignore my sources and repeat your statements.

I sincerely hope you're blind to the hypocricy in this statement, because the alternative is just fucking disgusting.

Mackson, at what point in the future can we expect to see actual controversy raised over the revised curriculum?

Again here's the link to it:
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum ... th1to8.pdf

It's easily accessible so I don't know why controversy hasn't been raised yet. I've one article about a school district in Ottawa, parents were concerned with the age appropriateness -not masturbation being evil-- of the topics. And one article which says the revisions do not go far enough.

--Are the people who are going to complain about it the intellectually lazy type and will wait until their child comes home in September talking about what they've learnt at school? We're gonna have to wait until Sept. for the big controversy?

Acetone wrote:Mackson, at what point in the future can we expect to see actual controversy raised over the revised curriculum?

Again here's the link to it:
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum ... th1to8.pdf

It's easily accessible so I don't know why controversy hasn't been raised yet. I've one article about a school district in Ottawa, parents were concerned with the age appropriateness -not masturbation being evil-- of the topics. And one article which says the revisions do not go far enough.

--Are the people who are going to complain about it the intellectually lazy type and will wait until their child comes home in September talking about what they've learnt at school? We're gonna have to wait until Sept. for the big controversy?

There is controversy. If you want to see more, then you'll see it when it is applied. You need to remember that a lot of controversies don't make it to the public; they are dealt with behind close doors, with administration staff, trustees, etc. I'm not sure if it is appropriate to call them intellectually lazy. A lot of people don't care about political issues until it hurts them in some way or form, and then they'll whine.

The Education Act in Ontario lets kids be pulled from class, so I think that will alleviate a lot of concern for parents within regular public schools. You won't hear about this. This will be private. What interests me is the differences in the interpretation of the curriculum from the regular public boards and the catholic boards, and I wonder if that will come out into the public.