When I was about 13, my sister, 3 years younger, wanted to get her ears pierced. Mum didn’t want to say yes to her unless my ears were pierced as well. So…we were trundled off to the lady who pierces the precious innocent little ears brought to her all unwittingly.
Young Fiery- “Does it hurt?”
Lady with the ear gun- “No, of course not!”
Young Fiery- “Oh, ok then.”
(That was the extent of my excitement at getting my ears pierced.)
*ping*
Young Fiery- “OW!!! That hurt!”
Lady with the ear gun- “Ok, tip your head I need to do the other one.”
Young Fiery- “You said it wouldn’t hurt.”
*ping*
Young Fiery- “OW!!!!”
I don’t know about anyone else’s ear lobes, but you shove a metal spike in mine and it stings like crazy. The correct answer to “Does it hurt?” is actually, “Yes it hurts a bit, but only for a little while and you get to wear pretties in your ears for the rest of your life.”
Why do adults lie about pain? It would have been much easier to cope with and much less of a horrid shock knowing that it does indeed sting. I’d rather know than be surprised by it like that.
It’s like with labor and delivery. “Do contractions hurt?”
“Yes, absolutely. But because they are natural and your bodies way of expelling the baby, they’re not that big of a deal and in between contractions, barring complications, it doesn’t hurt at all. Plus, once you have the baby, the pain of the contractions is gone. “
“Oh, well alright then. I can handle just about anything knowing that it’s natural, the discomfort doesn’t mean anything is wrong, and that it won’t last forever.”
Which brings me to another question. Why do adults lie to children at all? If you give them the information they need, they are much more able to cope with the world as they find it. Why don’t adults provide children with the tools they need to behave properly? How many adults drag children places without telling them what behavior is expected from them? “Sweety, we are going grocery shopping. I need you to hold my hand or ride in the cart. Your job will be to help me pick out some fruit, choose between 3 types of cereal, help me find our favorite soup, and help me count the bananas.”
“When we go in the mortuary, everyone is going to be really quiet. It is rude to run around and shout so if you need to ask me a question or tell me something I need you to use your quietest whisper. I’ve brought along some toys for you to play with quietly. You can color, or read this story, and I need you to help keep Raggedy Anne really quiet too. You know how she likes to bounce and yell.”
Just tell people what is going on! Be straight forward with them about what you want from them, what you expect from them.
62 comments:
"Do as I say, and not as I do."
My dad was real fond of saying this... Funny thing was when ever I got into trouble for not telling the truth or what have you, it was always: "What were you thinking? Where did you learn to lie like that?"
Hmmm, I can't imagine where...
ramen sistah! i vehemently agree. some have accused me of being *too* honest with my kids but they can GFT.
my 7 year old wanted to get her ears pierced last month. after i agreed i tried to set her up at the place that pierced my nose but they won't do under 13s. i was very explicit in telling her what would happen and how much it would hurt. i think because i oversold the pain she was able to sit through it without even flinching.
the only problem with parenting truthfully is when your kids burst another kids bubble and then the parents come after you. *shrugs*
T&A the "in-laws" said to my two, "Well, we know your mom doesn't want you to have sugar, but we just won't tell her about going out for ice cream and we'll keep this our little secret."
WHAT!!!!! What kind of a precedent is that setting?????? Are you stark raving mad?
Nope. Just completely idiotic incompetent fundies. Morons. Thank FSM they've toddled off to Florida for the winter.
EIBirds- As for bursting bubbles, I've tried to deal with that somewhat. My two both know, and have always known about Santa and the rest, that they are wonderful stories that grownups like to pretend to believe in. Some grownups think kids should actually believe so they lie and say Santa really exists.
However, it takes all the fun out of it to run around talking about how Santa isn't real. If some kid says they really believe in Santa, does that make them stupid? Nope, just means that some grownup has lied to them. Not your job to fix that particular lie, just let them be. If they ASK you can be honest, but you don't have to ram the truth down their throats.
And... since I'm pretty much a hermit, it just never came up that often.
As for parents getting ticked off and coming at me I'd ask them why they were lying to their children in the first place. Wouldn't it have been better to introduce Santa as a pretend that the child NEVER has to stop playing? Rather than a lie that when they find out they are bitterly disappointed in? Or worse become indifferently disillusioned towards?
Yeah, exactly. Like when we tell kids that if they use a condom they will be safe. Or if they get the "ONE LESS" shot they won't get cancer. Nevermind that condoms don't protect you emotionally or that they don't always work, or that "one less" girl with cancer means really means "one more" girl who is called a slut.
Or even better. You are the result of evolution. That means that there is no GOD and you will determine your purpose in life and that will be to make yourself happy. So go ahead, have sex in the 6th grade, STDs will only further our evolution. Girls that don't get cervical cancer will produce more girls that don't get cancer and we will all be better off in the long run.
Reg,
You make me laugh with that attempt. Funny thing is my Catholic Parents told me to wear protection, and to respect the person that I got involved with. I was never told that Condoms were 100% safe by parents or by my teachers.
As to emotional protection, I don't think it is claimed anywhere that condoms do.
You sir have proved once again that you are a twat.
Yeah, but not all parent do that (the respect thing). And that is really what we are talking about.
(I am sure you were always the most respectful young mate when you so respectfully mounted your lovely young lady for a few second of pleasure)
Were you told that condoms aren't 100% safe? Not all kids are told that truth, and isn't that really what we are talking about.
Do parents tell their kids that sex has emotional consequences (along with all the physical ones)? Not all do, and that IS what we are talking about.
Call me what you want, but any twit, twat or otherwise can see that you had perfect parents who no doubt had your best interest at heart when they so proudly told you to "wear protection and respect your partner". Except if they really cared about you or her they probably should have told you the truth.
TWAT! HA! I haven't heard that word in a long time. I think I might have to use it in a sentence at some point today. I love that word.
Now, are we talking about sex, fucking or making love? They can all be the same thing or they can all be different things, depending on the people and the situations.
So a young woman would be considered a slut because when she was a teenager her parents were smart enough to protect her against HPV so that when she was 19, got married in the LDS temple still being a virgin to a man 21 fresh off his mission, had unprotected sex with her new husband only to find out 2 years later he was still cheating on her with someone he met on said mission and came home with genital warts? I'm confused, HOW DOES THIS MAKE HER A SLUT?
Reg,
I am not really interested in how you perceive my first forays into sexual intimacy. Indeed your comment about mounting probably says more about the way you like to perform in the bedroom.
As to not all parents inform their children, you talking anecdotal evidence or can you lay you hands on some figures here.
Oh the truth being what Reg?
Don't bother you already have your mind made up don't you about the sex education I received from both my parents and teachers.
Poodles, exactly what you said.
Sean, Why do I have to have evidence? Are you saying all parents tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I never said that, I said that exact opposite. I said not all parent tell their kids the truth about yada yada yada.
We were talking about when parents don't tell the truth? Do you have some figures that say ALL parent tell thier kids the truth?
I dont think I'll enter into Reg's condom debate:)
But I agree, honesty with children (and adults) is always the best way to deal with anything, otherwise when the truth comes out you have a lot of explaining to do.
I must admit I kept up the lie about santa with my eldest son until he asked me straight out if he was real after another boy at school had told everyone that it was a big fat lie...I sat him down and said yes its a big fat lie... it didnt go down too well with him at age 6, I tried to explain about the whole thing but it didnt even make sense to me why everyone lied about it(30years ago), so why should it to him. He did feel quite smug when other little kids would come around and didnt know the 'truth' and I was proud of him for not bursting their bubble, but he would give me little sly glances...as if to say, we are participating in a big fat lie!
I loved what you said to your kids about santa Fiery, wish I could have set the stage for mine the same way:-)
"I loved what you said to your kids about santa Fiery, wish I could have set the stage for mine the same way:-)"
I think the word you were looking for it WOULD not COULD. You clearly could have set the stage.
That is what I am trying to say about the condom. I don't know how old you kid is, hopefully you still CAN tell them the truth about sex. Unlike SEAN, saying "protect yourself" doesn't equip your child.
You have a truly twisted sense of the world glob and I find you absolutely repuslive in the fullest sense of the world. Not only are you the poster boy for abortion you are the poster boy for condom use and the classic example of the ugly christian.You are always dragging this blog, and I suspect every other unfortunate enough to recieve your spastic attention, down you bag of shit, oops strike that you make shit look good!
(I am sure you were always the most respectful young mate when you so respectfully mounted your lovely young lady for a few second of pleasure)
This is a very, very telling example of YOUR attitude to women, one of the most disrespectful things I could imagine someone saying both to Sean and to women in general, truly disgraceful. glob women are people too, ah I forget they are subservient to men in your teachings aren't they, obedience is their job right? You think we just chuck a packet of condoms at our kids and say there you go get out there and fuck as much as you can you are blindfolded by tht abhorrent culture of christianity!
Call me what you want, but any twit, twat or otherwise can see that you had perfect parents who no doubt had your best interest at heart when they so proudly told you to "wear protection and respect your partner". Except if they really cared about you or her they probably should have told you the truth.
Truth, TRUTH!!! What truth is that? What an absolute fucking disgrace a christian talking about truth!!!
Once again glob something as simple as saying "I don't believe in premarital sex, so I think abstinence before monogamy is the way to go" would surely have been the best and easiest way to express your feelings and garnered a shit load more respect but oh no your snide nature won out, you know I think? If there really was a god you, my hateful friend, would be fucked!!
Reg,
Of course I should have typed out every conversation that I ever had with my parents on the topic of sex and relationships - instead of trying to be succinct.
But I am sure even then you would have found a way to twist what you read to suit your own thinking/position.
Reg...where are you coming from??? Here i was telling my favourite blogger how good I thought she was with her kids...and there you go butting in like a condescending know it all. My comment had nothing to do with condoms, I suggest you pull one down over your head and really become the dickhead you obviously are.
As I said it was 30 years ago, I was making an admission that I wasnt too sharp about santa back then! You dimwitted, foolish, small minded, twisted, wasted-life-christian dog botherer, read what Johnny said 50 times, he said it better than I ever could!!
*blush* favorite blogger.... awwwwww shucks, ya sweet thing you!!!! Oh... and way to go TTEyes!!! That was an awesome slam!!!!!! And absolutely right about Johnny's comment it too was brilliant.
Group hug!!!!!
glob isn't invited, not that he would hug an atheist anyway, rationality is contagious in close proximity. I wonder if he wears a mask when he comes here.
Group hug back from here too:-)and yep you're my definite favouritexx
And yuk just the thought of getting anywhere up close and personal with the reg globs of this world makes me sick, if i was in the same room i would be projectile vomiting all over him right now!!
I reckon he liked the idea of putting a condom on his head so much that he'll be wearing that from now on here...well thats my mental picture of him!!!*snerk snerk snerkity snerk*!!
johnnycomelately, did poor sean sic you on me. bwahaha.
so when I described the attitude of most young boys (don't worry you'll be a man someday) which is pretty much exactly what I said, you think I was being disrespectful? Funny, down boy. That is the reality, that is what so may boys want a girl for. And nowadays that is even what many girls want as well, friends with benefits, You might have heard of it.
The truth. telling a kid that wearing a condom is "safe sex". You could at least be honest (like fiery is suggesting) and say it is "safer sex"
What, johnnycomelately, is hateful about telling a kid the truth (see above)? That is not hateful. it is honest.
For sean,
I made the first comment, and it was not about you, yes I ponder your stroll into adulthood, but not this time.
Let me restate. It is wrong to tell kids that wearing a condom is safe sex. Am I wrong. NO unless Santa delivered the condoms.
Where am I coming from? Did you read my comment?
I agree with fiery. I think she did a great job telling the truth. I said ..... You could have told you kid the truth about santa(unless someone was holding a knife to your throat) what you should have said was that you should have done what fiery did.
Is that confusing
Could have vs should have.
different meaning. That is what I was getting at.
Sorry for correcting you. I was only pointing out that you "could" have done what fiery did (maybe you just didn't have the imagination to tell the truth). We are talking about what you "should" have done. I can't say it any clearer.
Hey, anyone with a brain think that wearing a condom is really SAFE sex?
Is there no atheist who can be honest about that?
Is this one of those times where my "worldview" is blinding me from the "real" truth?
Are condoms really safe after all?
Where did my best friend get his son from? The one that was born while he was wearing two condoms and his wife was using the sponge? HMMMMMMM
I've learnt from my mistakes and moved on.
Now pull that franger down a little tighter around your boof head!
Good, I am glad you learnt something. I am also glad to be of assistance.
Now if only johnny and seanny could learn to read for comprehension.
I hope you're not suggesting that I learnt something from you because I didnt.
You werent of any assistance, and I dont need any assistance.
In my opinion you would do well to try hard to learn something from Sean and Johnny's words.
Reg,
You made my day with the last attempt (the one that was deleted). Bravo
Yep, I called Johnny and said "Big Bad Reg is making me cry, can you come and pick on him for me".
If I had not known of you from this blog I might have been inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt in regard to your first post.
Your post was badly worded if you wanted to convey what you later claimed.
On the subject of condoms yes they are not 100% safe, they can break and result in pregnancy or exposure to disease.
Now provide me with the public health information where this occurs - where they say that your 100% safe, that there is no risk.
First I want to see a report that says telling kids santa is real is bad for the kid?
Yo, This was a discussion about giving kids information. Not some gov't conspiracy to kill off the atheists, settle down.
I didn't even suggest that it was a certain percentage, or some curricullie (like punctuated equilibrium). I just said "Like when we tell kids that if they use a condom they will be safe."
(that was an exact quote of my earlier statement, but since you know of me, you assumed I had to mean whatever it is that you are accusing me of)
That was it. Is that what you are disagreeing with. Just for fun, Would you agree that it is wrong to tell even 1 kid that wearing a condom is "safe sex"?
Glob the digusting said Yeah, exactly. Like when we tell kids that if they use a condom they will be safe.
Sean the Blogonaught said I was never told that Condoms were 100% safe by parents or by my teachers.
Glob the Disgusting said Were you told that condoms aren't 100% safe? Not all kids are told that truth, and isn't that really what we are talking about.
Note the use of the word "we" in the first quote, who exactly fuckstick, just cause you say shit does not mean it's true.
It looks like you are the only one here suggesting that parents tell their kids that, I think your absolutely wrong again simpleton! It even says that they are not 100%safe on the packaging you fucking moron!!
Glob the digusting sad The truth. telling a kid that wearing a condom is "safe sex". You could at least be honest (like fiery is suggesting) and say it is "safer sex"
What, johnnycomelately, is hateful about telling a kid the truth (see above)? That is not hateful. it is honest. Once again we all know that condoms are not 100% safe I will remind you IT SAYS SO ON THE PACKAGING!!! You are a dumbass everything is black and white christian! As I said before all you had to say Mr snidely is "I would tell my kids because you are at some risk you should abstain till monogomy!" How hard is that. Oh thats right you are asserting that parents lie to their kids and say use these condoms there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of getting pregnant or catching anything ever if you or your partner wear one hey glob guess what IT SAYS ON THE PACKAGING THAT CONDOMS ARE NOT FOOLPROOF!! YOU brought up this subject YOU asserted parents lie to their kids by saying condoms are 100% safe because YOU assume that's what safe sex means and YOU are wrong. How many people have you talked to that have told their kids that?? Being a good little god boy you wouldn't know many people who would even think of harming one of god's little sacred sperm. YOU make the assertion glob YOU have to back it up.
Glob the disgusting said (that was an exact quote of my earlier statement, but since you know of me, you assumed I had to mean whatever it is that you are accusing me of)
Looks for all the world to me that it is you making the assumptions glob.
Sean the Blogonaught said Your post was badly worded if you wanted to convey what you later claimed.
They are all pretty badly worded Sean usually all over the shop!! I think it is because he wants to slip in those snide castigations and it all gets a bit much for him...oh and he's not very bright.
glob the disgusting said Would you agree that it is wrong to tell even 1 kid that wearing a condom is "safe sex"?
You just don't get it, when we say safe sex we mean sex without a condom is completely unsafe, and wearing a condom is SO much safer that that is preferable and much smarter if you are going to have sex before marriage and not abstain.
"You just don't get it, when we say safe sex we mean sex without a condom is completely unsafe"
Another canard. Sex between me and my wife is completely safe, without a condom. I am sorry that the Bible's model for sex works perfectly if people would follow it. That is rather inconvenient for your side.
But I relent. You are obviously right. All parents surely tell their young kids that condoms are not 100% safe. I am sure that If a parent were to busy to explain what they "MEANT" that our incredibly responsible, respectful and highly educated youth would be able to discern the true meaning of your "saying". And I am also sure that all (100%) those kids thoroughly read the packaging. So I am sure that we are fine.
For sean,
I made the first comment, and it was not about you, yes I ponder your stroll into adulthood, but not this time.
You fucking LIAR, this was about your comment straight after a post by Sean and CLEARLY replying and thus directed at Sean, here it is, note the use of the word YOU
Yeah, but not all parent do that (the respect thing). And that is really what we are talking about.
(I am sure you were always the most respectful young mate when you so respectfully mounted your lovely young lady for a few second of pleasure)
I repeat you glob are a LIAR, one connot trust anything you say because you glob are a LIAR.
Fucking ugly christian!!
Didn't see anywhere in that link where it says anything about parents telling their kids about condoms! So the point of that was? We already know condoms aren't 100% safe tool!After all as you keep saying we are talking about parents telling there kids the truth aren't we LIAR?
Never said having sex with only one person ever is not the best way of not catching a disease you stupid LIAR. Not very practical unless everybody follows exactly what your "side" says. Doesn't your "side" say its wrong to lie? After all that's what we are talking about isn't it? If you lie to us I can assume you lie to your kids, well I know you do because you tell them there is an all loving god that loves you, oh only if you believe though then if you don't he doesn't love you he sends you to hell!! Do you go to hell for lying liar?
Is there no atheist who can be honest about that?
What a paranoid freak!! What the fuck has this even got to do with Atheism??? NOTHING.
Chill jonboy,
I made the first comment, it was agreeing with fiery and I just added my thought. sean came in and attacked me, because his parents did such a fine job raising him, so must everyone's.
It is just too much of a stretch to think evolution is true when there are people like you in the world. IF it were, your sexual lifestyles would have been selected out long ago.
Is there no atheist who can be honest about that?
What a paranoid freak!! What the fuck has this even got to do with Atheism??? NOTHING
ELLO, this is predominantly an atheist blog.
Reg said: "Another canard. Sex between me and my wife is completely safe, without a condom. I am sorry that the Bible's model for sex works perfectly if people would follow it. That is rather inconvenient for your side."
You sure about that Reg? You sure she isn't cheating on you?
Of course, my wife is very obedient.
What does it matter anyway? If she did cheat, how does that hurt the Biblical model of safe sex?
Chill jonboy,
I made the first comment, it was agreeing with fiery and I just added my thought. sean came in and attacked me, because his parents did such a fine job raising him, so must everyone's.
It is just too much of a stretch to think evolution is true when there are people like you in the world. IF it were, your sexual lifestyles would have been selected out long ago.
Will you stop talking about shit you clearly know nothing about!! Go to school and learn about evolution then you may talk about it but until then you clearly know not how it really works. So why isn't every other animal (they don't practice safe sex do they? Most species have multiple partners don't they?) on the planet monogamous? Is that what you would use as an argument against evolution? Oh how little you know about the subject.
You made the first comment that agreed wich was merely "yes exactly" and then look what you wrote! The reason you get attacked is the snine, smug, superior, emotive way you write things. Absolutely typical of you, you type this rubbish get a rise and then go on the defensive, so very christian of you waaaa stop persecuting me waaaaaa. Then you make a flat out blatant lie so it looks more like Sean is attacking you "unjustly"
Look, really look, what your fist comment is like glob, no wonder Sean had a go at you. All you needed to say was "yea exactly Fiery like when parents tell their kids that condom use is 100% safe when we all know it isn't, it should be called safer sex."
Why are you here glob? Do you think you deserve respect just because you have a different opinion? Respect is garnered from the way you behave glob.
YOU make this into an atheist argument because YOU mention god. It is NOT an atheist issue, the only atheist issue is not believing in god you fool. Glob our side is reality, it is a real fact that people have sex with more than one person (in fact although we have evovled so that we are radicaly different from all other animals in certain ways it is still a function of our animal physiology to want to pass our genes on that, glob, is what sexual drive is! You think humans have always been totally monogamous? Oh of course you do, you believe the creation myth! Doesn't help in the respect stakes that!!) If you want to do the christian thing and close your eyes and stick your fngers in your ears and go lalalalalalalala then I can do nothing about that
"Most species have multiple partners don't they?) on the planet monogamous? Is that what you would use as an argument against evolution? Oh how little you know about the subject."
Are you saying that nature doesn't select disease free animals?
Reg,
All your comments have already been discussed and not one iota of them has
made the slightest dent in the gnarly blob of discarded cement between your ears. Johnny is right, but Damn You, I am going further to expose the cesspool you call the Truth.
Reg wrote,
I am sure you were always the most respectful young mate when you so respectfully mounted your lovely young lady for a few second of pleasure
I hardly know Sean (nice shades dude), but every young human has to discover sex for his or herself. The dishonest, the irrational, the misconstrued, will always occur. Nowhere is this more likely under the despicable irrationalism of religion, and its virulent Platonistic dichotomy of mind and body. As such bodily pleasure IS merely a few second [sic] of pleasure. Then in the pseudo romance of love under God, sex continues to be an act --pun intended-- as you described.
However, lovers can gradually discover through experience and slow maturity, the difference between your Underverse and the glorious and passionate integration of loving the person as a real part of a real Universe. How different that is from seeing your lover and your physical relationship with him/her as something orchestrated through a manipulative super power. A supernatural authority that forever intervenes in success and failure. E.g. God the Pharmacist invented Viagra so people could fuck for another second's pleasure.
To 'get-it-up' under such conditions IS a mere physical act, a depraved desire for the physical, while knowing it is only made legitimate by that Holier than thou Shitstorm in the Sky; that it is a concession to base, bodily desires and a departure from the heavenly goals of one's supernatural soul in the interests of procreation. The products of which are not of your rational values, but are His values (more little GodZombies) by your acceptance of His authority.
Thanks to the man made filth that is religion, every ultimate joy and pain in human life is stolen by that irrationality:
-Birth imbues that new life with Original Sin (abort the poor thing first, if that's how life really is), then
-Baptize it as a foul commitment of that child's mind to religious irrationalism, the cement it more permanently with
-Confirmation as a deeper commitment to intellectual blindness just as they are starting to think for themselves (can't have that), then thru
-Pre-Marital-sex-as-evil make them feel as guilty as possible so they cannot learn about love and sex, then take over
-'Holy' Marriage where the ultimate gesture of the good in human relations is formalized as an act dependent on an authority other than the minds involved, and commit their inexperienced minds to a near slavish relationship with another person who in all likelihood is suffering the same way as you are... just smile and say you love them and love God, even as you engage in
-Marital Intercourse where the act itself is base and disgusting, unless one is acting for the purposes of that other authority by producing more zombies to follow Him (see above), and then
-Funeral Services, where grief over the loss of a loved one is transformed into the most despicable spiritual blackmail of all: the mourning minds that live must believe that the death of their loved one leads him to a hidden life of which the living may have no part unless they too believe they will follow the same (false) path to Heaven's 'Glory'.
The iniquity of religion for usurping the most profound moments in mens' lives brings bile to my mouth.
Hitler merely killed his victims, he did not ask them to be walking corpses like Reg.
I have to add that there is ample evidence to support Johnny's contention that if anyone on this blog is having a few seconds of mindless pleasure in sex it is Glob.
Today my kids were watching a show involving a ghost. My 12 yr old reminded my 8 year old that ghosts don't exist.
Then she said, "God is really a ghost too". My 8 yr old just listened but my head snapped around (I still need Tylenol, but the Brandy is closer... WTF did she say?)
"When I went to church with grandma I heard everyone say, 'I believe in God, the Son and the Holy Ghost."
An opportunity was screaming out at me.
Kaitlin, you know they think that God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are all one thing that acts in three different way?
"I guess so, because god is like ghosts. People say He is there, but you can't see him any more than you can see ghosts."
"What about Jesus, who is supposed to be god's son?"
"Ghosts can't make babies, Dad."
"That's for sure!"
Are you saying that nature doesn't select disease free animals?
You talk about reading comprehention what a gall, you need to learn how to write with clarity!! Do you mean..... Are you saying that nature will select diseased animals?
YES that's exactly what I am saying dumbass! The only time "nature" doesn't "select" an animal with a disease is when that animal can't produce offspring because of the disease usually through being sterile or the disease killing the animal before it can procreate. So yes some STD's like clamydia and gonorrhea can make an individual sterile (in fact we have issues in koala populations with the spread of clamydia), are you saying someone with genital herpes can't pass on their genetic material? See you don't really know anything about it do you glob? Your interpretation of natural selection is fatally flawed and that's why you don't believe it, YOU have been told what it is but not how it works, too busy absorbing that hypocrisy you call christianity to find out about reality
STD's are NOT passed on genetically. Nature does not "select" in any way near the way you think it does. You think in terms of absolutes like all your deluded kind do, there is some big mother nature presiding over things saying nope that one has syphillys can't have offspring, totally wrong reg.STD's are NOT passed on genetically.
A mother may be at risk of passing on a disease through her blood but that is not a certainty. Put simply glob, if an animal can procreate and have viable offspring that is enough. If a disease was the stymie point for natural selection there would either be no diseases or no animals.
Rich,
It is hard not to comment isn't it? Even when you know he doesn't have a reset button.
Love the spiritual blackmail call, describes theistic belief to a tee, nice one.
Say what you want, jump to any conclusions you choose, but my comment was a simple one.
People get lied to about sexual issues. That is a fact.
And Richard, "The dishonest, the irrational, the misconstrued, will always occur." ALWAYS, you call yourself a scientist, no self respecting scientist ever uses ALWAYS.
Johnny, If you want to ask a question then please allow me to answer. And thank you for validating my comment, I really needed the support.
I asked "Are you saying that nature doesn't select disease free animals?"
You replied. "YES that's exactly what I am saying dumbass!"
Then you said "The only time "nature" doesn't "select" an animal with a disease is when that animal can't produce offspring because of the disease usually through being sterile or the disease killing the animal before it can procreate." or basically NO.
I was refering to the second. You obviously were able to pick up on that. Just a little help.
I don’t think you realise what a sick, weird and strange turn you took when you spewed this out over everyone in your very first post, nor do you realise what you revealed about yourself... you went from pierced ears, parenting and santa to condoms in one quick jump....then breezily into cancer and sluts......here’s the first part of that post.
Reg said:
“Yeah, exactly. Like when we tell kids that if they use a condom they will be safe. Or if they get the "ONE LESS" shot they won't get cancer. Never mind that condoms don't protect you emotionally or that they don't always work, or that "one less" girl with cancer means really means "one more" girl who is called a slut.”
Reg, come on really you’re just showing your ignorance about the condoms, no one thinks they are 100% safe where have you been? What planet are you on? So let me get it straight about what you’re saying there - condoms don’t protect you emotionally and they don’t always work! You must have been crushed when you figured that out.....did you have a bad experience? No one thinks they offer any emotional safety either Reg, what were you thinking there?
I spluttered in my cup of tea when I read the second half of your first post..... further irrational comments, totally twisted and misinformed as usual!
Reg said:
Or even better. You are the result of evolution. That means that there is no GOD and you will determine your purpose in life and that will be to make yourself happy. So go ahead, have sex in the 6th grade, STDs will only further our evolution. Girls that don't get cervical cancer will produce more girls that don't get cancer and we will all be better off in the long run.
You continue to go on further and further through the posts to expose the yellow underbelly of your stagnating xstian ignorance.
Continually one foot goes into your mouth after the other. Even the sick post you deleted comes to everyone by email, so don’t think it’s gone Reg, its all there in front of us.
You really are a lowly type aren’t you, slimily adding, subtracting and twisting things to bolster your pathetic little arguments. Lying when it suits you and once again forgetting that we can all read back over it.....duh!
You pushed the discussion into the direction your sick little mind wanted and in my opinion everything you’ve gotten back you deserved. Some particularly excellent bits of 'reg abuse' I would like to acknowledge are.....
You have a truly twisted sense of the world glob and I find you absolutely repulsive in the fullest sense of the world.
Down you bag of shit, oops strike that you make shit look good!
Truth, TRUTH!!! What truth is that? What an absolute fucking disgrace a christian talking about truth!!!
If there really was a god you, my hateful friend, would be fucked!!
Note the use of the word "we" in the first quote, who exactly fuckstick, just cause you say shit does not mean it's true.
What a paranoid freak!! What the fuck has this even got to do with Atheism??? NOTHING.
Although there is more, I think I’ve made my point, glob you got everything you asked for!
Jhonny wrote,
(in fact we have issues in koala populations with the spread of clamydia).
Aaaah Hah Hah Hah Ha!!!!!!!!!
.
.
.
.
So some blokes down under that have been stuffing Koala bitches, or what??
Whoops, sorry about the typo in your name Johnny.
Johnny wrote,
"it is a real fact that people have sex with more than one person (in fact although we have evovled so that we are radicaly different from all other animals in certain ways it is still a function of our animal physiology to want to pass our genes on that, glob, is what sexual drive is!
It seems that way, especially among men who do not think very far through their own character, and those who do not truly love themselves ("To truly say 'I love you', one must first love themselves").
That said, I strongly disagree with your description as an application to humans in principle.
Genuine romantic lovemaking is primarily conceptual not physical. I know from personal experience that my sexual drive dives to zero if 'she' contradicts a fundamental intellectual value I hold. The opposite is also true.
I could not do it with the as beautiful a woman as you could want in bed with you, when I learned the new direction her mind was clearly considering. And she was asking me.
Glob wrote,
"no self respecting scientist ever uses ALWAYS"
That shows how very little you know about science. Only really BAD scientists are incapable of saying "always".
Whoops I said "BAD", which can be misconstrued. I mean "intellectually incompetent", at least with respect to the broader principles they believe they are working under.
With lots of respect to Johnny, I'd like to take up a point Glob has made.
Glob wrote:
"I asked "Are you saying that nature doesn't select disease free animals?"
You replied. "YES that's exactly what I am saying dumbass!"
That is not exactly right, perhaps given Johnny's 'heat-of-the-moment' typing.
Sure, disease is not the only thing that de-selects specimens within a species. Evolutionary selection is rather complicated.
A perfectly healthy buck is a ripe target for hunters. A sick fish can do pretty well during a flood, but a really healthy hamster has considerable trouble. The fish 'fits' with that natural circumstance and variation, the hamster does not 'fit'.
I realized some years ago that the saying "Survival of the Fittest" rather misrepresents Evolution. It should be, "The Survival of the Best Fitted". A disease free animal that is out-of-place, in time or place, will be selected out. Too bad, no gene transmission to the next generation, even if you were the finest specimen of your species. That perfect hamster just did not have the genes that the sick fish had.
This has little to do with the spread of STDs, but obviously if a disease negates successful procreation then the victim is de-selected.
However in humans, and I cannot stress this strongly enough, the de-selection is a function of an intellectual error, not a genetic failure. As such the de-selection has no impact on human evolution. Such de-selection is primarily limited to congenital diseases, or congenital physiological weaknesses that render them susceptible to early death &/or failed procreation.
Continuing the Glob quotation:
Then you said "The only time "nature" doesn't "select" an animal with a disease is when that animal can't produce offspring because of the disease usually through being sterile or the disease killing the animal before it can procreate." or basically NO.
I suspect, given the entirety of his comment, Johnny was being hasty. Sterility &/or death by disease before procreation, is a selective feature, in animals! The non-sterile animal can transmit its genes, as can any animal that can resist disease in some way.
A recent, and I think stunning, example is the discovery that a distinct percentage of children born of mothers with active AIDS, test positively for AIDs at birth and by one year test 100% negative! Somehow, their immune system (or some system) has defeated it! AIDS researchers are struggling to figure out how they do it.
Those babies will procreate. Evolutionarily speaking, they will have some feature (not necessarily a mutation) that operates with sufficient strength to beat the virus. If AIDS is sufficiently virulent, most of the human race will eventually consist of people with that remarkable resistance. A percentage may survive without it, and may keep AIDS alive too, in a ongoing see-saw battle between the two organasms.
That las word was a typo, but I could not resist leaving it... snerk^2
Now Richard is a Johnny apologist. You make a great team.
Is that a rubber Johnny apologist?
"AIDS researchers are struggling to figure out how they do it."
I will tell them -
God made us with an amazing body that can actually heal itself, and without drugs most of the time.
Let's call it a . . . miracle.
Glob should discover what an "apologist" is. I disagreed on a wording Johnny used, but I know that he actually thinks [Glob doesn't know the meaning of "think" either] so he deserved a break. Johnny's comment was hardly for publication in an international journal.
Glob wrote this obscene, depraved filth,
""AIDS researchers are struggling to figure out how they do it."
I will tell them -
God made us with an amazing body that can actually heal itself, and without drugs most of the time."
Note that he is going to tell *researchers* that healing is a miracle. By this logic there is no advantage achieved by such discoveries as Rabies and Polio vaccination, Penicillin, Insulin treatment for Diabetics, skin grafting for burn victims, heart bypass surgery, eyeglasses or cataract surgery, and so many others in medicine alone that it is likely no one man could list them all.
Every one of the horrible things on that list are something humans chose to study rather than trusting in "God's wondrous ways". A Millennium of suffering, starvation and disease --called The Dark Ages-- was the direct result of Glob's approach to knowledge. Every backwards nation today is dominated by religions with that approach: In the poorer communities of Jamaica one can see it explicitly. Shop windows and homes and bumper stickers say. "Let go and let God". Let them (and Glob) get what God gives them -SFA!!!
Glob, you (not your children) deserve to have your children get diabetes as teenagers, so you can watch them dwindle away and die before they reach their twenties. Go ahead and pray. What you are doing will one day be seen as I see it now, as a despicable form of mental cruelty perpetrated by a parent on their own children.
Johnny's justified rants at you are as nothing compared to the contempt I hold for your kind and the diarrhea you spew as moral and logical 'understanding'.
AAAAHHHHRRRRGGGG I've been globbed!!!!!
I asked "Are you saying that nature doesn't select disease free animals?"
You replied. "YES that's exactly what I am saying dumbass!"
Ah the rat cunning of glob the disgusting!! That is not actually how the exchange went was it globule? My post was actually different to that wasn't it, not surprising from a liar though huh!
I blame myself of course...
I actually wrote
Do you mean..... Are you saying that nature will select diseased animals?
YES that's exactly what I am saying dumbass!
My fault for thinking I may have had an inkling of what a mind like glob's might be driving at.
The answer to your initial question then glob is nature does of course select disease free animals and it also selects diseased animals. Disease free is not a requisite for passing on your genetic material. Fitting into your environment is what really affects selection read Richard's post.
I wrote
The only time "nature" doesn't "select" an animal with a disease is when that animal can't produce offspring because of the disease usually through being sterile or the disease killing the animal before it can procreate.
Richard wrote
Obviously if a disease negates successful procreation then the victim is de-selected.
I suspect, given the entirety of his comment, Johnny was being hasty. Sterility &/or death by disease before procreation, is a selective feature, in animals! The non-sterile animal can transmit its genes, as can any animal that can resist disease in some way.
The bold is exactly what I said. And unless all diseases either sterilise or kill all animals always before they can pass on their genetic material said disease will not necessarily be a factor in selection be it an std or not. I think the issue is once again glob want's to talk in absolutes!!
I was talking about animals and when I said doesn't select that means it is a selective feature both selecting and not selecting are features of selection, it is obvious that death or sterilisation before being able to pass on genetic material means that animal or rather its genes are a victim of non selection.
I tryed to quote you, sorry if you said it wrong. I will, however, in the spirit of the season give you the benefit of the doubt. I will accept your corrected statement. But you owe me, (and your tutor, Ricardo)
F-off Glob-ule --hanks-for that Johnny :-)!
Johnny and I have not relation other than the comments we make independently on this blog. Just because reason arrives at the same conclusion hardly means one person's thinking is an echo of another's... you dumb f'ing ass. Of course, that is how you would think such things work because that is in fact how you work!!
I like to use the hyphenated term de-select to refer to individuals that die off without procreating. Organisms that are "selected" are those that survive to procreate.
Good God (which is a non-supernatural redundancy if you know how the word "god" originated) could you be any more dishonest. Dishonesty in that degree is madness, insanity, vicious evil.
Pass the fucking bottle, I can't believe that Glob's shit runs the world I have to struggle to survive in. No good deed goes un-fucking-punished by you c_ck-s_ck_ng as_h_les (be sure to picture exactly what that means).
Did you know that "passion" actually refers to the extreme agony of torture (slowly burned at the stake, or dangling from nails on a crucifix). Yep, "The Passion of the Christ" is the worship of the most agonizing things in life (Mel G. is no better than Glob-ule). Give it to your kids Glob, in the name of your f'ing upside down, perverted 'love'. Scum on a pond digesting pigshit is more moral.
Hey Johnny, that felt good. The most one can do with shyte is toss it to the "freakin' frackin'forkin' insects that eat it".
boo hoo Richard, "I like to use the hyphenated term de-select to refer to individuals that die off without procreating. Organisms that are "selected" are those that survive to procreate."
So what is you point, except to sound intelligent, I was saying that all along.
Globule's "obedient wife" must be living her own nightmare of confusion. And if she does cheat, chances are that if her lover uses a condom Glob will be safe --snicker. His use of a condom will protect both him and his wife from STD(s).
When people use the word "safe" they are not guaranteeing perfect Platonic safety. Such a guarantee in life is not available. However, for all intents and purposes condoms are extremely safe.
If airplanes were not safe, we would not get on them. Cars are no where near as safe as airplanes, but we (Glob) drive in them all the time. I say drive with a condom!
When a probability becomes sufficiently minute, it is not unreasonable to consider the event as of little or no concern, i.e. "safe". People misjudge probability all the time. They buy a lottery ticket with a 1 in 14 million chance of winning, and hope to win. With such odds one is approximately seven times more likely to be killed by lightning.
-Odds
of being struck by lightning: 576,000 to 1
-Odds
of being killed by lightning: 2,320,000 to 1
-Odds
of being murdered: 18,000 to 1
-Chance of dying from a shark attack: 1 in 300,000,000
-Chance of dying from a car accident: 1 in 18,585
-Chance of dying in an airplane accident: 1 in 354,319
People worry more about airplanes and sharks than about cars and murderers.
Airplanes are safe. Lotteries are a bad investment.
Glob's 100% argument is stupid quibbling, as if it was some moral high ground.
Oh, and Reg, you are so smart. I never noticed you said, once, "...would have been selected out...". I guess "once" is the same as saying something "all along!
Then there is the small fact of your calling attention to it, as if it somehow claims points for your overall argument. NOT!
And I'm not going to fall for the banana in the tailpipe.
Oh, yeah. The odds of getting struck by lightning while a shark attacks you in an airplane is pretty rare as well. But I would not say never, at least until never has come and gone. That is reggolb's wager.
Condoms on the other hand, not so much.
Where did my best friend get his son from? The one that was born while he was wearing two condoms and his wife was using the sponge? HMMMMMMM"
Maybe he should have named him Jesus, because it sounds like an immaculate conception. Actually, it sounds like his wife was cheating on his ass.
"I will tell them -
God made us with an amazing body that can actually heal itself, and without drugs most of the time.
Let's call it a . . . miracle.
If there is a God, then why did he make the body susceptible to disease in the first place? Or why did he make disease? If there truly is a God, he would not have made you- therefore, there is no God.
Harry,
When a kid looks exactly like you, there is not much of a question.
"If there is a God, then why did he make the body susceptible to disease in the first place?"
If you are going to put down Christianity, you might want to try to understand it first.
"If there truly is a God, he would not have made you- therefore, there is no God."
Nice, Nads!! :-P
"If you are going to put down Christianity, you might want to try to understand it first."
Reg, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I was raised a Christian, I did the Sunday School thing from the ages of four to fifteen. I was an altar boy until I was 16. I read any number of religious stories, and was totally awed. Often I read by flashlight under the covers until 2 and 3 am. Two books stand out in my memory.
At thirteen I read "The Robe" by Lloyd C. Douglass and it brought me to tears. Jesus and God were so amazing for their positive impact on human happiness and security. Still, the biblical and Sunday-go-to-Meetin' stuff smelled of B.S. Then I read "The Source" by Roland Michener. I was bed ridden by mononucleosis at the time, so I read it in about two days. My abstract thinking was already getting pretty good (because reading makes a world of difference in that respect), and I saw the implications for religion.
As a result, I became a Deist of sorts, and saw that the Son of God story was an overblown legend. A story promoted by the greatest orator of the early centuries A.D., St. Paul. The story was written and re-written by early medieval men who thought writing itself was primarily an exalted duty to God. No doubt St.Paul did a lot of the rewriting, to make it more and more captivating for his audiences.
Did the these re-writers read and think? No. They were more interested in the wealth their sheeple could provide.
They embellished the stories a little here and a little there, so it would 'go over' better and better. The illiterates will would accept the authority of the 'educated' and 'literate' men, and believe the embellishments.
It was not until I was in my thirties that I fully grasped that religion, and the morality it espouses, is the biggest con ever perpetrated on the minds of Man. Priests and Witch Doctors are all the same... Liars, Liars, Pants all Fires!
Getting rid of God was very emotional for me. For some months I felt torn in half. Then one sunny morning, walking my dog across fields sparkling with dew, I was still pondering what a Universe without God meant, and I finally understood! I felt a weight lift off me. The Universe and everything in it was mine to explore, and my life was mine to make happy. I imagine I had the same sense of Joy that those who are born again experience, except I knew I was being intellectually honest.
No longer was there any 'super thing' tallying my pros and cons. Since then I have been an enormously more moral and honest person. Why? Pride! Pride as respect and caring for my own character, the same way a craftsman takes prideful care to produce an excellent end result. Pride, in the religious morality is one of the worst sins. Morality by fear & or obedience is a subtle hell, sharply contrasting with the rational pursuit of happiness and self valuing.
If you actually understood Christianity, you would not be a Christian. You too would be an atheist, and be happier for it.
God, and the supernatural cannot possibly exist.
Post a Comment