Ok. Ana ol' pal, ol' friend!
Do you mean to say that virginity in itself is not a 'thing,' or do you mean to say instead that it's not something I could even have remotely and truly valued as a 'thing,' even whether I actually did remain a virgin or not during my adolescence and early adulthood and then on up and to my marriage?
Alright. I'll rephrase: I don't give a rat's right paw ...
OR more relevant to the occasion of this thread, we can focus on Raunch culture as bounced between the vision of, say, Mr. Atheist, or Hugh Hefner and other friends on one side of the divide, and that of Girl Defined, Paul the Apostle, or other prophetic friends on the other side.
...and somewhere in the middle of all of that will be me, bouncing around like a pinball in a pinball machine.
Ok. Ana ol' pal, ol' friend!
Do you mean to say that virginity in itself is not a 'thing,'
and that of Girl Defined, Paul the Apostle, or other prophetic friends on the other side.
Ok then. How do you think it should be defined since my definition is apparently unworthy enough to even sit beneath a pile of donkey doo?
It may seem as if it's conceptual, but the word "conceptual" is itself a form of conception and may have different applications, uses or in the case of both (I'd say) religions and also irreligion, abuses.
So, it IS physical in the 'sense' that it is a daily state that a person and their relation to other persons, sexually speaking, is "in designation."
Ok. I'll allow you a hearing on this, although I think you know I disagree.
What makes you think they don't?
Why, I'm so glad you asked. To a limited extent, YES, why....YES I do think he'd approve. I guess you haven't seen the various posts I've made on this topic over the last few years. That's ok. It's not your fault if you missed them because they weren't posted in your usual forum hangout spots.
First off, in saying "this stuff," what are you referring to? The topic of Raunch Culture? That of Virginity? That of the Speech-Act of defining the concept of virginity? Legal considerations? What precisely?
So, you're not willing to modify the definition as needed? I find that troublesome and to be a bit analytically inhibited. Don't necessarily get stuck in other human being's denotations, I always say!
What kind of silliness is this? People make up words to fit whatever new concepts they think of, time and cultural acceptance permitting.
Not exactly; and not by any kind of physical necessity does the word have to mean what we say it means, nor does it have to continue to do so. Words are funny like that, although the actual phenomena in the world to which they reference ........ may not be so funny, like 'rape,' or, 'Raunch,' or 'Infidelity.'
Ok. Ana is going to describe "a girl who blasphemes every day...she works on Sunday, she eats shellfish, she makes pacts with demons and says disrespectful things about her parents...."
Yes, she would be a virgin in body, but like me and a multitude of other folks (which may 'dern near' be just about everyone else as well these days), a fornicator and adulterer in mind. (Duh! Let's give a big applause for the influences upon us of ... Raunch Culture!!! *clap**clap*clap**clap**clap*!)
Yes, and so do actual actions in the on going collective stories of our respective lives, don't they?
Oh................you have time to go through the evidence? I'm guessing you watched the video in the OP for starters, right?
No, I wouldn't do better. To do so may be to give you authority of pronouncement that neither you nor I may actually have all by our little selves, alone. [... some Foucault cookies, anyone?]
Yes, but that's not the only thing. It's also a cultural attitude ... one that has come about essentially because "Let Freedom Ring" has finally become the catch-all phrase in society [otherwise known as the term "excuse"] and, moreover, some room has now been made for those women who consider themselves to be willing, ready and able on the already existing cultural Playboy Bandwagon, or what has been becoming the Play-people Bandwagon.
Of course, some folks just call that the 'hook-up culture.'
So, you're not willing to modify the definition as needed? I find that troublesome and to be a bit analytically inhibited. Don't necessarily get stuck in other human being's denotations, I always say!
Yes, but that's not the only thing. It's also a cultural attitude ... one that has come about essentially because "Let Freedom Ring" has finally become the catch-all phrase in society [otherwise known as the term "excuse"] and, moreover, some room has now been made for those women who consider themselves to be willing, ready and able on the already existing cultural Playboy Bandwagon, or what has been becoming the Play-people Bandwagon.
Of course, but it appears that despite all of the rigors of various Theories of Communication we could pull out and apply, you and I, on some level, just don't agree about the Zeitgeist. And that, my dear friend, affects "All."
But is that enough to say this, because one concept is not by any necessity the same in nature as any other odd-ball concept we can pick out and toss around. So, trying to "reduce" things conceptually with the claim that 'such-and-such' is a mere concept is a bit dubious, maybe even presumptuous, maybe even, at times, dishonest.
Sometimes, understanding each other requires that we both do much, much more than merely use the same grammar and syntax.
CONTROL? The only "control" that is being inserted here, or should be inserted into this conversation, is self-control. That is, up and against those social forces that would like to insist that we can do away with sexual self-control, and not only insist that we do, but approve of such and to aggrandize such looseness as a "cultural norm." Are we understanding each other?
Not necessarily. Again, more disagreement.
And I never said he did. I didn't say that this kind of conversation should merely be an exercise in on providing a BA for Mr. Atheist, but rather it might require us to go outside of Mr. Atheist's 'text,' and find further bits of the reality from outside.
Yes, it most definitely is Alright.
It can be. But freedom is a malleable concept isn't it? It might not be that it is freedom that is the problem, but the kind of freedom that is installed within society as "the Norm," wouldn't you say?
Granted, it is a mixed-bag, but that doesn't alleviate the responsibility that we men (and I assume you're a fellow man) have to listen to the feelings, needs and expressed capacities of women. Wouldn't you agree?
Of course, but it appears that despite all of the rigors of various Theories of Communication we could pull out and apply, you and I, on some level, just don't agree about the Zeitgeist. And that, my dear friend, affects "All."
So, we can pick probably just about any topic, and rather than high-5 each other with mutual understand, we'll end up with a severe head-butt, even if accidentally.
That's the silliest notion I've heard in a long time. That's like saying that the bottom layer of bricks that run across the base of a wall aren't relevant to the bricks above it, with the past being envisions as the the lower most bricks.
And is this supposed to be an improvement that somehow illustrates that things are ............. "better"? I mean, what is this supposed to even tell us? That it's somehow 'ok' because it's being normalized in our culture now? (And I can't access your link. You may have to offer a quick summary of it.)
Says you. There's a lot of metaphysical posturing and assumption that hides behind this statement of yours. Of course, you're "free" to see it from that angle alone and not have to assess any other angle with philosophical measure, but this doesn't make your statement 'true.'
And semantics.
And the jury is still out as to whether or not being less judgmental is a "good" thing, Axiologically speaking of course.
The difference will first have to be evaluated by stating which denotation of "tolerance" you think IS at play and which one you think SHOULD be at play in society, because my notion of tolerance might not be your notion ...
One doesn't have to be told that some action is not only painful but beyond the norms of usual human interaction. Otherwise, sociopathy and psychopathy wouldn't be really separate domains of moral and psychological status, just as they have for the most part always been, even if under different languages and conceptualizations in various cultures.
Not really. That's a minor point; the major point is that for folks who are lazy, it's easy enough to pull info up on Hefner's Playboy Philosophy and compare his thoughts with the random thoughts on the same subject matter as we find here in Mr. Atheist's video (which again, I'm sure you watched thoroughly so as to be 'in' an actual discussion with me in a relevant way, right?)
You might keep in mind that what you may perceive from me as being 'Political Rhetoric' isn't aimed as overturning any lack of foresight in Legislation and Obscenity that have been put [unwisely] in place to loosen these things up over the past 50 years (or so). No, I'm just offering a free public service on a Christian Forum. [And how dare a Christian do that on what is primarily a Christian forum, anyways? Am I right, or am I right?]
I'd almost find this funny if it weren't for the fact that this isn't really funny.
About what? My "paranoia"? My "grandiosity"? My "frantic rambling"? Your attempt to seemingly "profile" me because I'm outspoken and have awakened to what I think are larger spiritual truths and ramifications that the population of the world today doesn't seem to get (and probably won't if the Bible really does have anything to say about it all?)
About what? My "paranoia"? My "grandiosity"? My "frantic rambling"? Your attempt to seemingly "profile" me because I'm outspoken and have awakened to what I think are larger spiritual truths and ramifications that the population of the world today doesn't seem to get (and probably won't if the Bible really does have anything to say about it all?)
But seriously, if we're going to talk, let's keep this focused on the contents of the OP video.
I agree with you that many issues dealing with human morality are open to debate, but that doesn't mean there isn't at least the possibility of arriving at some modicum of truth, even if that truth is often a matter of waiting to being hit squarely in the face by Reality.
From what I understand, one needs to be cautious when handling Machiavelli; one could gain the suspicion that he's had the habit of telling people what they want to hear.
