Quote:Lilly has already countered all your arguments and she said it better than I could have said it myself.

Rayaan so you do think it's ok for 9 year olds to leave education if they want to and to become pregnant within a marriage?

(May 14, 2013 at 4:06 am)paulpablo Wrote: I can't see anything in any of the links I posted that

1 Wasn't true.
2 Made any generalized statements about Muslims.

I simply posted facts about what happens in countries where Muslims are allowed to marry 9 year olds.

Because India and Nepal are just hotbeds for Muslim law?

Maybe it wasn't the links you posted, but what you said that made generalized statements about Muslims. But just so we're clear, the videos are pretty anti-Islamic.

Quote:I disagree, I don't think anyone should be stoned to death or have their hands cut off. I don't need to see statistics on crime to know I don't believe in literally throwing rocks at someone until they are dead as a form of punishment.

Here's another example of opinion without telling us anything. WHY do you believe that stoning is not an applicable death sentence for a heinous crime? WHY do you believe that cutting off someone's hand(s) for thievery is not a worthy sentence?

Quote:I shouldn't need to explain this to anyone why someone who is taller with bigger muscles is less vulnerable than someone who is small with small muscles think about why in boxing they have weight classes, think about why in prison they have young offenders and adult prisons, think about why most club security workers will be bigger and more muscular than the average person.

I shouldn't need to explain this to anyone why someone who is taller with bigger muscles is more vulnerable than someone who is small with small muscles think about why in war tall people get butchered by guns, think about when a person is running away and they're faced with a small gap between them and freedom why a large person won't make it, think about why people evolved to be of a moderate height in the first place.

Well I have thought about why in boxing there are weight classes: because the people who thought up boxing want to make more money. There are weight classes in wrestling too, but even though I am 3/4ths (or less) the weight of my bother carey and my father... we're fairly evenly matched. I believe weight classes to be a cop-out in a every sport in which they are present. There is a goal in the sport, and the only thing that matters is that those playing attempt to achieve said goal. Certainly, you'll see fewer light-weighted people in the sport, but that's to be expected where weight is thrown around.

I have thought of why in prisons there are adult and juvenile prisons, and it's not because of age-laws, but these are particularly a mistake under this circumstance. If a 17 year old commits a serious crime, I seriously think he should probably be in the adult prison. If a 12 year old commits a serious crime, I often think he should probably be in the adult prison. The reason these populations are segregated at all is that we question putting someone in prison that we believe cannot make decisions for themselves. Really, I think that they don't do kids enough credit in most cases.

Quote:The fact I am explaining this very basic thing to you proves to me that you're in denial about something. Or just simply trolling this thread.

The fact I am explaining this very basic thing to you proves to me... well, nothing. I have never yet trolled you, at the most: I have repeated your statements to you to demonstrate how ridiculous they are. And I can't even do that, since I cringe at the stupidity I'm writing, and modify the statements to be, well... less stupid.

Quote:go to google and type "why is education important for children"

So, you really don't know why education is important to children? You really have no conceptualization of how one's goal modifies values? You really don't have any recognition of
of how education might not be important for children? You seriously don't understand how utterly worthless the education of basic arithmetic and language is... how little will be remembered of their education from their life under a memorization-testing system as apposed to an ability-testing system?


I've gone in front of my tenth grade class and winged a presentation on why reading isn't important, and I got an A for it without even having written the paper we were supposed to write on the subject. I know this subject matter very well, and maybe I could even teach you something on the subject, or perhaps I might learn something even more about it through discussing it with you (I have serious doubts of that)
... but all you give me is "google it"?

You're a cop-out.

Quote:Considering that without medical schools (education) only very primitive surgery would exist anyway the evidence is self explanatory.

Sure, university specialization is fantastic for whatever you want to learn to do... but we're talking about 9 year old education, are we not? Shall I pull one of your little techniques and say 'I never brought up university-level education, and if you think 9 year olds are capable of it'- oh I can't even finish it, because it's just that rude and pointless.

General education is utterly pointless in every case. If you'd care to demonstrate to me the instance where geography will do shit for a doctor, or where basic anatomical study will do shit for a mathematician: I'd be impressed.

Quote:That and the fact education reduces poverty, helps people get jobs, again this is another point I shouldn't have to explain unless you are in denial or trolling the thread.

These: you will have to find me data.

Places without ANY EDUCATION SYSTEM AT ALL (read that over again, and once more till you get it) still have jobs, and the people within these communities are not unemployed by anything except choice. How does a childhood basic education reduce poverty? Hell, even university education has people seriously in debt for a good decade (or more) if they didn't already have a bunch of money.

I *should* have to explain the nuances of what I say if I pop out the gate with a shit ton of opinion... and ah: zero data. I can bring up data to back up these things that I've just said, can you find this yourself? I imagine the first point and second point are at their best indirectly related, given that without the existence of 'education' at all: people survived into the stone age, and you don't actually need any education that you can't find *at your job* in MOST jobs.

Quote:Consider that we survived without C sections for longer than we survived without education and good parenting.

Sure, but given that the idea's been around for, oh... at as long as aqueducts, and significantly before anyone thought to educate the peasant class... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesarean_section#History this way, even if the mother dies during childbirth: you often still get the baby alive and well (hence, the mother's role in propagation of the species was not stoppered).

Modern C-sections are a life-saving technology that allow mothers to continue their role in propagation of the species when they would ordinarily have died. This is a moderate surgery, and the absence of it is a primary factor in modern maternal death. Having basic arithmetic is NOT a factor, it is modern medical facilities manned by modern medical doctors that these countries are lacking in. How about if we look at another statistic to see how the doctors in these countries are doing, eh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou...ality_rate



These are deaths within one year of live birth per 1000 births. Maybe it's startling that the same offenders of maternal death are also those who struggle at keeping babies alive. Let's just see another, then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_mortality

http://www.childinfo.org/mortality_ufmrcountrydata.php

Chad, afganistan, somalia... we're looking at a very similar list to before. One interesting thing is that *even in the worst countries in the world for child mortality: only a third of the number who died fifty years ago are dying today.* This is in the places with the worst medical technology in the world. Now, let's run a little experiment: does economics impact whether or not people are dying in your nation?

http://chartsbin.com/view/2438

Imagine that... an almost identical graph.

Hypothesis: economics is the single most important factor in medical infrastructure and high-tier education. That is to say: economy, being the basis of both infrastructure and education, saves more lives than good parenting, medical science (wholly), and nine-year old education combined (infact, expand that to all of general education).

Not that you've yet demonstrated what parenting has to do with saving lives at all, of course

Paul Wrote:This would be like searching through google to find data on "Do I have two eyes?" I have never searched for it or found data on it because it is obvious.

I don't see how searching through google to find data on whether or not you have two eyes is comparable to the determining vulnerabilities exposed to you by the possession of two eyes. For instance... I was just out working, and I stood up quickly, and a few inches in front of my eyes is this iron rebar jutting out that could have easily fucked my eye up if I had been but a few inches forward of where I was. That's a vulnerability of having my eyes as a pair on each side of my head, without good upward periphery vision

Now, if you're quite done complaining about what is or is not obvious, I will ask you again: We arrive at the ALL IMPORTANT QUESTION: What has differed between a 9 year old, 30 year old, and 80 year old that allows for an identical abuse they experience to be greater or lesser? What *vulnerabilities* are expressly prevalent in 9 year olds that are not found (to the same extent) in 15 year olds or 30 year olds; why are these vulnerabilities greater or lesser than those of 15 or 30 year olds; and do you possess any data that backs up your analysis?

Quote:I have never known anyone in my entire life who was as strong, tall and muscular at age 9 as they were at age 16.

Stunted growth, disease, just about everyone wheelchair bound, midgets, etc. What, you've never known any of these people? 0.o You know OF them, yes?

Quote:Not by a small difference either, everyone I've ever known was much less weak, less vulnerable at age 16 than at age 9. Apart from in exceptional circumstances for example if they died at age 10. Yet another obvious point I shouldn't need to explain or find statistics on.
Puberty increases strength and height, most people complete puberty around the ages of 14-16

You don't know all that many people, do you Paul? The very wide majority of people I've ever known have been weaker on terms of physical strength and what physical force they are capable of outputting. However, these people are nearly identically vulnerable at 16 as they are at nine, and they are nearly identically vulnerable at 9 as they are at 30.

"Yet another obvious point I shouldn't need to explain or find statistics on." Only... I'll actually explain this stuff, right down to the roots.

Puberty also increases sex drive and hormone levels in a body, which is quite a serious weakness that few five year olds suffer from. Not to mention pimples.

Quote:Women are easier to abuse than men but it has nothing to do with the holes in them as you put it, it's because they are typically smaller and less muscular than men.

That's even better. Are you omitting all potential forms of abuse for sake of argument without telling me? Because I am *not* omitting emotional, financial, social, sexual, physical, familial, psychological, or physiological abuses... certainly: there are cases where a woman is easier to abuse than that same individual would have been as a man specifically due to being *slightly* smaller and/or less muscular, but there are also certainly cases where a man is easier to abuse than that same individual would have been as a woman due to being *slightly* larger and/or more muscular.

The reality of abuse is that while a victim of abuse might possess atributes which ease some strains upon the abuser (stupid people might be easier to financially abuse than smart people, smaller people may take less preparation to physically abuse than larger people, sensitive people may be easier to elicit screams from or otherwise neutralize via sexual abuse), and certain qualities might assist in triggering an otherwise non-abuser to commit abuses (an attractive person is more at risk of triggering abuses from a horny person than one this person finds unattractive): It is ultimately the abuser, and what said abuser is capable of doing... that is the deciding factor in whether or not another person will be abused or not. The size difference between humans is typically not severe (a couple of feet, and maybe 100-200 pounds difference? As someone who works construction, fishing, and farming... if THIS is the difference between you abusing someone or not: you're a fucking pansy.), and the muscles of a person being abused should not matter, given that an abuser has the jump upon the abused.

Quote:So have you also noticed that all these places with poor education and poor medical facilities are the places which have a lot of child pregnancies?

The list was of *child and teenager marriages*, honey. Reading comprehension, I swear man. The places where CHILD PREGNANCY is the most common is where humans are trafficked to (and I'm considering 'childhood' as roughly between 2 and 10, I'll even explain my reasoning for this, but come off it: if you were interested, you would have asked long ago). And if they manage to survive this ordeal... they're very lucky indeed. TEENAGE pregnancy, and TEENAGE marriage, are quite other matters altogether. Given that most teenagers are fertile: it should come as no surprise that there is a significant amount of teenage pregnancy which corresponds to teenage marriage. I have this data too, I'll put it down in the post a bit.

But then, we wouldn't be talking about 9 year olds, would we? We would be talking about (11?, 12?) 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 year olds. Not that it matters according to my question (at what point do they become fuckable/marriagable, why?). Why don't you answer that instead of rambling on about nonsense like this?

Anyway, here is teenage pregnancies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy



FYI: grey means 'no data recorded', so this is pretty shoddy as far as graphs go.

Quote:As opposed to less poor places with better education which don't allow 9 year children to be married or decide to leave education?

Did you consider that?

Considering what the places in question have for 'education', you might want to consider what you just said.

Hell, most women in said countries are culturally expected to not complete even this basic general education. Hence this isn't a question of even economics... it's cultural. You disagree with a people's culture? Because clearly what they're doing is wrong, what savages they are!

Use your head, paul: these are MORAL standpoints, nothing else. You're assuming that everyone else has the same goals as you, faces the same situation as you, believes as you do.

Quote:I was asleep when you typed this so I don't know how could have ignored or not ignored me when I had typed nothing at this point in time for you to even look at, just more babble basically.

Because I tell you why I'm posting but not responding to your post quite yet so as to not offend you: you get offended?

My... bloody... gods... on... high. You really are this thick, ain'tcha?

(May 14, 2013 at 4:06 am)paulpablo Wrote: I disagree, I don't think anyone should be stoned to death or have their hands cut off. I don't need to see statistics on crime to know I don't believe in literally throwing rocks at someone until they are dead as a form of punishment.

I know you disagree, Paul. And that's fine because, ultimately, different people will have different opinions on what is or isn't a "correct" form of punishment, so this is subjective.

Muslims believe in the Shariah as a code of behavior and discipline that was divinely revealed through the Quran and the Hadiths (or the sayings of Muhammad), so that is the system that they follow. You don't believe in that, since you're an atheist, so you can follow or agree with whatever system that you feel is correct.

As I pointed out earlier, the reason that the punishments prescribed in Islam are so severe and harsh is to primarily act as a method of deterrence against crimes; The more severe a punishment is, the more effective it is in reducing crimes, and the more effective a punishment is in reducing crimes, the better.

The potential murderer who knows that he will be killed if he kills someone, or the potential thief who knows that he will have his hands cut off, or the potential sexual offender who knows that he will be stoned to death (or given a hundred lashes in some cases), will think twice (or perhaps more than a hundred times) before going out and committing the crime.

In the Western system of punishment, however, those who commit crimes are usually just put in a prison for a specified period of time and then they are set free again. And (unfortunately) many of the serial killers who are sent to prison do not reform after spending their time there. It's like removing them from society for a few months, only so that they can escape and then kill someone else. They probably don't even care that much if they have to stay locked in a prison for their entire lives.

Also, read the following about prisons and there is more at the link below:

Quote:It's breathtaking hypocrisy because the very prison officers who frisk you just might be trafficking the drugs with which the system is awash. Time and again addict inmates I've spoken to have told me that it's easier to obtain heroin in jail than out.

Contrary to the view of prison as a deterrent and a way of keeping criminals off the streets, almost all enlightened opinion now concurs in the following.

Not only does prison, for the vast majority of those who endure it, not work, either as punishment or as rehabilitation, but there is no escaping the conclusion that it functions as a stimulant to crime, rather than its bromide.

The current chief inspector of prisons for England and Wales recently warned that the latest pupils to enrol in these £30,000 per-annum malefaction academies are being recruited by criminal gangs, and will almost certainly reoffend upon their release - if not before.

Full article: A Point of View: Prisons don't work

(May 14, 2013 at 5:19 am)paulpablo Wrote: Rayaan so you do think it's ok for 9 year olds to leave education if they want to and to become pregnant within a marriage?

Why not? Are they breaking any rules?

And it's not like it's a common thing to see that happening in Muslim countries nor that every 9-year-old wants to do that, which you failed to support, obviously.

And education is a choice; Islam doesn't prohibit anyone from getting an education if they want to, and the same goes for leaving education.

---

(May 14, 2013 at 2:47 am)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: And that is fascinating indeed, suggesting that it was a rather more common practice at the time

Yeah, that was exactly my point.

(May 14, 2013 at 2:47 am)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: Now that's just selling yourself short! I'm a terrible arguer, focus too much on little pedantic things. Makes people angry at me, like they think I missed the point Dodgy But often, I feel that answering 'em straight just... isn't convincing.

Well, it might be true that you're a terrible arguer in some ways, but, at the same time, I think that you are also a great arguer.

I noticed that you are especially good at debating topics that you are more knowledgeable in than others (and/or have more experience in) such as topics that are related to sex or sexuality although I think that there are still other members who are way better at debating than you are, like theVoid (who sadly doesn't come here anymore) and DeistPaladin, for example.

But your style of arguing is very unique.

Quote:Maybe it wasn't the links you posted, but what you said that made generalized statements about Muslims. But just so we're clear, the videos are pretty anti-Islamic.

No we aren't clear on that, the videos featured Muslims but held no subjective opinion on muslims or made generalized claims about the entire Islamic world, they just showed the consequences of what happens when you legalize marriage to 9 year olds. The videos from what I remember actually didn't feature any non muslims or have any voice overs from any non muslims, they basically only featured Muslims and made no statement about the Islamic world as a whole, just to clarify neither did I.

Quote:but there are also certainly cases where a man is easier to abuse than that same individual would have been as a woman due to being *slightly* larger and/or more muscular.

Please elaborate on these cases, if they have anything to do with domestic abuse between a man and a woman where a woman was less vulnerable than a man because she was physically weaker and smaller.

---

Quote:Here's another example of opinion without telling us anything. WHY do you believe that stoning is not an applicable death sentence for a heinous crime? WHY do you believe that cutting off someone's hand(s) for thievery is not a worthy sentence?

Start another thread on it and I'll tell you

---

Quote:I shouldn't need to explain this to anyone why someone who is taller with bigger muscles is more vulnerable than someone who is small with small muscles think about why in war tall people get butchered by guns, think about when a person is running away and they're faced with a small gap between them and freedom why a large person won't make it, think about why people evolved to be of a moderate height in the first place.

None of which has any relevance to circumstances involved in domestic violence but you seem to be advocating that we should also have 9 year old soldiers now in war?

---

Quote:Sure, but given that the idea's been around for, oh... at as long as aqueducts, and significantly before anyone thought to educate the peasant class...

Education existed before humans, monkeys educate their young.

---

Quote:You seriously don't understand how utterly worthless the education of basic arithmetic and language is...

I never said these two things were important, I said educating children is important.

---

Quote:Stunted growth, disease, just about everyone wheelchair bound, midgets, etc. What, you've never known any of these people? 0.o You know OF them, yes?

Yes, they all become stronger at age 16 than they were at age 9 obviously unless the disease prevents what typically happens between the ages of 9 and 16 (becoming stronger and taller and less vulnerable)

---

Quote: However, these people are nearly identically vulnerable at 16 as they are at nine

So you know people who got taller and stronger but became just as vulnerable as 9 year olds? Did they become more stupid? What happened?

---

Quote: We arrive at the ALL IMPORTANT QUESTION: What has differed between a 9 year old, 30 year old, and 80 year old that allows for an identical abuse they experience to be greater or lesser?

The 9 year old will be smaller weaker have less experience and will most likely be still reliant on some form of parent or guardian.
But yes 80 year olds are also of an age group which may be vulnerable because of their age and how it has effected their body.

---

Quote:Because I tell you why I'm posting but not responding to your post quite yet so as to not offend you: you get offended? Angel

My... bloody... gods... on... high. You really are this thick, ain'tcha? Thinking

I'm not offended by you attempting to insult me or by ignoring me.

---

Quote: Are you omitting all potential forms of abuse for sake of argument without telling me? Because I am *not* omitting emotional, financial, social, sexual, physical, familial, psychological, or physiological abuses...

No a 9 year olds usually have less experience with money so are more vulnerable to financial abuse, less experience with people, less experience with sex, weaker physically, you will have to explain to me what physiological abuse is.

---

Quote:You don't believe in that, since you're an atheist,

I don't believe in stoning people to death for adultery because I think it's barbaric and inhumane, atheism is a lack of belief in god it doesn't effect my belief in not stoning people to death. But yeh you're correct I also don't believe sharia is law from god.

---

Quote:The more severe a punishment is, the more effective it is in reducing crimes, and the more effective a punishment is in reducing crimes, the better.

In my opinion killing people in order to stop adultery isn't worth it, neither is the amputation of hands in order to stop stealing.

---

Quote:You don't believe in that, since you're an atheist, so you can follow or agree with whatever system that you feel is correct.

Muslims do the same thing with the several different Muslim systems and beliefs.

---

Quote:But your style of arguing is very unique.

You the way violet types paragraph after paragraph after paragraph of writing without actually making a valid point? I've seen it done before.

I'm looking forward to the next mound of paragraphs you can both post on here, but take your time you don't want to type anything stupid.
Let's see if you can both do the next mound without resorting to insulting videos, insulting comments, accusations of religious prejudice and all the other tactics people who are losing arguments usually use.

(May 15, 2013 at 5:06 am)paulpablo Wrote: No we aren't clear on that, the videos featured Muslims but held no subjective opinion on muslims or made generalized claims about the entire Islamic world, they just showed the consequences of what happens when you legalize marriage to 9 year olds. The videos from what I remember actually didn't feature any non muslims or have any voice overs from any non muslims, they basically only featured Muslims and made no statement about the Islamic world as a whole, just to clarify neither did I.

'Showed the consequences of what happens when you legalize marriage to nine year olds...' conspicuously absent is showing the consequences of legalizing marriage to anyone. You're never going to respond to the observation that trust allows to vulnerabilities which do not occur without trust, are you? Anyways... you think that these things happen because of marriage? I think these things happen because of proximity, ease of access, seclusion (from population), and the desires of the abuser. Marriage only has an impact at all because it often consists of these roots.

Observe these stats for the USA http://www.rainn.org/statistics

Here's an excerpt, and bear in mind: THIS IS THE USA.

RAINN Wrote:15% of sexual assault and rape victims are under age 12.

29% are age 12-17.
44% are under age 18.
80% are under age 30.
12-34 are the highest risk years.
Girls ages 16-19 are 4 times more likely than the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault.

And another one, with a very important bit to it:

RAINN Wrote:In 1995, local child protection service agencies identified 126,000 children who were victims of either substantiated or indicated sexual abuse.

Of these, 75% were girls.
Nearly 30% of child victims were between the age of 4 and 7.

In the united states, where child marriage is not legal.

RAINN Wrote:93% of juvenile sexual assault victims know their attacker.

34.2% of attackers were family members.
58.7% were acquaintances.
Only 7% of the perpetrators were strangers to the victim.

...

Honestly, I'd bet you my horse's left shin that most child pregnancies and the like you're seeing in those red countries isn't from arranged marriages: it's from family and friends. I'd love to find data to compare these, because I am actually quite interested in this subject.

Quote:Start another thread on it and I'll tell you

Why? Are you incapable of carrying on a discussion, or is it related to your attention span?

Quote:None of which has any relevance to circumstances involved in domestic violence but you seem to be advocating that we should also have 9 year old soldiers now in war?

I'm guessing you've never heard of a certain Joseph Kony?

But you're right: size doesn't have any relevance to circumstances involved in domestic violence. What does have relevance, you'll no doubt forget to ask, is appearance, reactivity, sensitivity, and the satisfaction of the abuser. And every abuser has a different bent... some want a little bitch to scream and cry at everything they do, some want a resilient will to break under their assault, some really just want to fuck something breathing, others get off on blanking another persons's mind through shock. Size is irrelevant, as not only do both men and women both commit domestic abuses... but the only decider of who will or will not be abused is the abuser. If big and muscular people are on their menu, then it's big and muscular people they'll go for.

Quote:Education existed before humans, monkeys educate their young.

So kind of Momma chimp to teach Baby chimp the delicacy what is human baby flesh. Truly, chimps are the scholarly masters of the natural world.

If we're going to go ahead and start talking about non-scholarly education: nobody drops out of education, ever... and you have lost this point entirely.

What's it gonna be: the monkeys, or the argument?

Quote:I never said these two things were important, I said educating children is important.

Pray tell us all: what are you teaching children in school at nine years of age that isn't basic arithmetic or language skills? Basic geography? PE? Please: when you find something that a 9 year old learns in school that will impact their lives... come find me Don't forget the practical work experience they could be getting in a job in your calculations.

Quote:

Quote:Stunted growth, disease, just about everyone wheelchair bound, midgets, etc. What, you've never known any of these people? 0.o You know OF them, yes?

Yes, they all become stronger at age 16 than they were at age 9.

Now that's just ignorant. I have fucking disease noted in there. Please take this time to reconfigure your argument.

Quote:So you know people who got taller and stronger but became just as vulnerable as 9 year olds? Did they become more stupid? What happened?

Theoretically, they grew. Now they are more vulnerable to the shortcomings of being tall(er). Socially, they're expected to have a pretty significant grasp of etiquette (and are thus vulnerable to not meet an expectation that was far easier to meet at nine (consists mostly of "keep your pants on")). Physiologically, they've been absolutely flooded with hormones, and they are thus far more vulnerable to inflicting themselves with STIs, pregnancy, angst in general, etc. Visually and some assorted baggage that I don't feel like categorizing because it's 2:30: pimples, more severe body oder, body hair, facial hair, onset of male-pattern balding, ballsack drops (now that's a vulnerability), menstruation, menstruation, menstruation, and an insatiable desire to fuck/masturbate/orgasm-in-general. Among many many others. But then, some of these are also strengths in certain situations (pregnancy, someone else thinks your hairy twat is sexy, etc).

In exchange, they can lift a little bit more, and they have more mass, which is great... if you're not being shot at (by bullets, arrows... dodgeballs).

Quote:The 9 year old will be smaller weaker have less experience and will most likely be still reliant on some form of parent or guardian.

Okay... honestly, I don't know how you are construing smallness as a weakness and yet largeness not (it's not like america has an obesity epidemic or anything...). I really can't get behind it at all.

Weakness, on the other hand, CONGRATULATIONS: you have found a single thing which is a vulnerability in more cases than it is a resistance! Not that it's of particular note in most cases, however... I mean: I'm crazy weak, my muscles have atrophied for a good year and a half, but with proper leverage: I can get by without it. Anyway, this means that you consider physical strength to be a primary factor of fuckability/marriageability, yes? You've been saying it forever now, so I'll take it as such, feel free to tell me I'm wrong though. Well... where does this leave wheelchair-bound people, midgets, the elderly, the diseased, the malnourished, the starving, and the stunted of growth? I consider weakness to be a very weak mark upon which fuckability is to be based.

Quote:But yes 80 year olds are also of an age group which may be vulnerable because of their age and how it has effected their body.

Everyone of every age is vulnerable because of how aging has affected their bodies.

Quote:I'm not offended by you insulting me or by ignoring me.

Oh? Then don't be a twat when I respectfully inform you that I intend to get to a post later

It has a tendency to give people the wrong idea.

Paul Wrote:

Violet Wrote:Are you omitting all potential forms of abuse for sake of argument without telling me? Because I am *not* omitting emotional, financial, social, sexual, physical, familial, psychological, or physiological abuses...

No a 9 year olds usually have less experience with money so are more vulnerable to financial abuse, less experience with people, less experience with sex, weaker physically, you will have to explain to me what physiological abuse is.

Experience really only brings you so far... that is to say: until you have been financially abused, you probably don't understand very well what it is like to be financially abused. We often learn by being abused... but if we're lucky, we can learn such things second hand. Now THAT would be a more effective schooling system for 9 year olds

Less experience with people is a wash, since we're all at least somewhat inexperienced with people. If we weren't: we would never be surprised by what people do. We would also be significantly less prone to outrage. You're going to have less experience with sex until you have sex, and really: there's a point where you can have too much experience with sex... more of a wash than the last one. Can you isolate specifically what makes a person fuckable or marriageable? If we base our notions of fuckability and marriageablity off of experience as shown above: we cannot be fuckable until we are first fucked, and we cannot be marriageable until we are first married.

Physiological abuse is when the functioning of an organism/its parts is abused. One example of this can be found in addicting someone to a drug, and using it as coercion/leverage against them, usually for purpose of control (take the whores of pimps, for instance). Most physiological abuses involve drugs, given that they modify the functioning itself (therein: physiological), but fringe cases of surgical abuses would fall under this, as well as forcing hypothermia/hyperthermia upon someone (a relatively common abuse up in alaska, I'd think).

Paul Wrote:

Rayaan Wrote:You don't believe in that, since you're an atheist,

No I don't believe in stoning people to death for adultery because I think it's barbaric and inhumane, atheism is a lack of belief in god it doesn't effect my belief in not stoning people to death.

Context, Paulie.

Rayaan Wrote:Muslims believe in the Shariah as a code of behavior and discipline that was divinely revealed through the Quran and the Hadiths (or the sayings of Muhammad), so that is the system that they follow. You don't believe in (^)that(^), since you're an atheist, so you can follow or agree with whatever system that you feel is correct.

I'll repeat the question Rayaan, 30 days in jail or I lop of your hand. What say -you-.

Less body parts Rayaan, less, body parts. To tell someone that they don't accept shariah "because they're an atheist": is probably a rough sell. Hell, you could believe in "allah" and still think that sharia was barbaric.

I can appreciate that you keep saying "it works it works it works" but no, it doesn't, not by our standards. It merely turns the "justice system" into an assailant. Do you think that maybe we're wrong in having this standard (or that this is a poor standard) - this notion that the cops, or the judge, or the prison guard -or anyone associated with this system- isn't somehow justified in mutilating you? It's not like we don;t have a cultural history o mutilation or physical harm doled out as a means of punishment or "justice". That's kind of why we, here in the west, call that "barbaric". We've been there.

(May 15, 2013 at 5:06 am)paulpablo Wrote: You the way violet types paragraph after paragraph after paragraph of writing without actually making a valid point? I've seen it done before.

Well, I've never in my entire life seen anyone manage to type so many horrifyingly terrible gramatical, syntax, word choice, and spelling errors without intentionally doing so.

I lie... I remember the third grade of elementary school, which might well have been where you dropped out of scholarship (and thus, the extent of your knowledge of education, explaining succinctly how you don't register the difference between the advanced academia to be found in universities, and the basic fundamentals that are sometimes found in elementary schools (if one's lucky!), but I digress).

Quote:I'm looking forward to the next mound of paragraphs you can both post on here, but take your time you don't want to type anything stupid.

I was outlining how you might fix the grammar, syntax, word choices, emphasis, and poorly conveyed voice of the above quotation... but then I realized that I had only left three words untouched by the end of it. That's when I observed that I had wasted two minutes of my life attempting to teach you something.

Were it so easy...

Quote:Let's see if you can both do the next mound without resorting to insulting videos, insulting comments, accusations of religious prejudice and all the other tactics people who are losing arguments usually use.

How about sheer utter mockery? It's more than that last statement deserves. That was subjective, of course... my sister believes that it deserves yet more mockery than that. See, I'm too nice to believe that anyone's argument should be mocked... Ripped appart? That's cool. Shredded? That's fine. Taken behind the bleachers and beaten? Kosher. Ridiculed? Now that's just going too far.

It's ironic that you take my quote out of context as an example how how I was taking things out of context.

Quote:I don't believe in stoning people to death for adultery because I think it's barbaric and inhumane, atheism is a lack of belief in god it doesn't effect my belief in not stoning people to death. But yeh you're correct I also don't believe sharia is law from god.

You missed out the last part.

Would it matter if it were law from a god? I hardly think so.

Quote:Now that's just ignorant. I have fucking disease noted in there. Please take this time to reconfigure your argument.

I don't know whether or not there's some lag involved in the forum or you're just copying and pasting parts of my argument without including all of it but I actually have edited the post minutes after I posted it, you should have been able to see that, not that it makes much difference anyway.

Just to finish this off I don't have the time to read through a million paragraphs of bullshit to try and get to what point you're trying to make, I don't have the time to tell you about things that you should already know but seem to be denying.

---

Quote:Oh? Then don't be a twat when I respectfully inform you that I intend to get to a post later

Ok stop being such an ugly lady boy, or whatever it is you are.