the wife beating verse

[Al-Fatihah]

@ Al-Fatihah you may have missed my question(more likely ignored it due to the only correct Response would be to admit the true meaning of "wife beating") from my last POST.

If the beating is not harmful or abusive then what is the point or goal?

Response: Your post was already addressed and answered, as it's the same question made by others that has already been answered. (It's more like you ignored it because it completely debunks your argument.)

As already stated, no person can subject themselves to being repeatedlt tapped. Therefore, acting out such discipline can influence a person to change their ways.

[pocaracas]

To Al-Fatihah, here's a christian you'd like to argue with:

[...]biblical Christianity presents itself as necessarily true, entailing the unintelligibility, incoherence, falsehood, or inconsistency of any non-Christian worldview, in whole or part[...]

Enjoy and don't mention it.

[Waratah]

@ Al-Fatihah you may have missed my question(more likely ignored it due to the only correct Response would be to admit the true meaning of "wife beating") from my last POST.

If the beating is not harmful or abusive then what is the point or goal?

Response: Your post was already addressed and answered, as it's the same question made by others that has already been answered. (It's more like you ignored it because it completely debunks your argument.)

As already stated, no person can subject themselves to being repeatedlt tapped. Therefore, acting out such discipline can influence a person to change their ways.

I have already DEBUNKED your "repeated tapping" reasoning.
Since you are either too stupid or too lazy to actually read my post here you go

Trying to move your goalposts. You stated in an earlier post "Thus the hit should not be abusive or painful". If she was constantly being tapped that would be abusive. You fail again. If the beating is not harmful or abusive then what is the point or goal?

Just to make sure here is the question again(This will make it 3 times in 1 post)

If the beating is NOT harmful or ABUSIVE then what is the point or goal?

[Darkstar]

I think it has something to do with brain development.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892678/

I think it has to do with going over your head, and being philosophically braindead.

As long as you are not in a form of perfect stasis, your brain should always be developing. This includes after you have died. Future development, in no matter what way, has utterly no bearing upon the current status of a mind. If a mind is already 'mature' (to ANY EXTENT WHATSOEVER), then it is, by definition: mature. It might be barely mature, or mature beyond the scope of mankind... but it *is* mature.

I guess this is because "mature" has no clear cut definition.

Okay, technically you're right about that, but by that same logic "aging" isn't determined by age either, is it?

No, further aging of a body is not determined by its current age, but the effects of the environment upon it in time yet to come. Nor is aging inherently positive or negative.

"No"? I wasn't being sarcastic, I was serious. Nor was I suggesting that the rate of aging is affected by age. However, it is not difficult to argue that older people tend to be physically older than younger people, no?

I suppose one could make a theoretical argument that aging isn't aging, nor that anything is "determined by" anything else, if it can be influenced by other factors.

The process that is aging is defined as aging, so by most accounts, you would be wrong. You may feel free to redefine aging as you wish (an identified being becoming older than how it might earlier have been identified), but then you wouldn't be talking about the same thing anymore.

Sure, one can make any argument ever. That doesn't mean the argument isn't a shaky one, of course

I think this is another problem of definition. Above, you stated that even slightly mature is still technically mature, which is correct. This is not what I had originally thought you meant by "mature" and I doubt it is what Al-Fatihah meant when he said she was "marture" at age nine. Here, I was referring to the physical process of aging. Some things can accelerate or decellerate this process, so it can be influenced by things other then age (i.e. someone looking younger than they are or older than they are). Now if you are referring to aging as in getting older, completely seperate from the body, then of course it is determined by age or, more precicely, it determines age (by definition), though not necessarily physical age.

A better way I could have worded it would have been "physical/sexual maturity is influenced by age" in that naturally these things progress with age. Maybe science really could speed things up in the future (probably could) but they couldn't in that era.

And you would still be wrong. Physical and sexual maturity have absolutely nothing to do with aging (as if you put someone in stasis for a billion years, they will have the same physical and sexual maturity of a billion years ago).

Again, I think definitions have been mixed up. If people did not physically age then they would indeed not mature physically either. I misuderstood what you meant by aging.

Age CORRELATES with maturity... maybe. You have *YET* to define maturity, and I will not respond again until you tell me exactly what this mysterious adjective means.

I don't disagree with that. In fact, the entire heart of the matter is the fact that "mature" is so hard to define. If anyone needs to define mature, it is Al-Fatihah, as he is the one who argued a nine year old was "mature" enough to have sex with a grown man. I do not know what he meant by it; he could have meant sexually (as he said "has reached puberty and is mature") or emotionally.

[Violet]

I guess this is because "mature" has no clear cut definition.

In that case, why use the term at all?

"No"? I wasn't being sarcastic, I was serious. Nor was I suggesting that the rate of aging is affected by age. However, it is not difficult to argue that older people tend to be physically older than younger people, no?

So far as I can tell: time moves for no man. Cosmically, we are all the same age... but I would agree that yes, under normal circumstances: the older a person's body becomes, the more physically distanced it will tend to be from where it started (puberty, prostate cancer).

I think this is another problem of definition. Above, you stated that even slightly mature is still technically mature, which is correct. This is not what I had originally thought you meant by "mature" and I doubt it is what Al-Fatihah meant when he said she was "marture" at age nine. Here, I was referring to the physical process of aging. Some things can accelerate or decellerate this process, so it can be influenced by things other then age (i.e. someone looking younger than they are or older than they are). Now if you are referring to aging as in getting older, completely seperate from the body, then of course it is determined by age or, more precicely, it determines age (by definition), though not necessarily physical age.

Everything philosophical does seem to boil down to semantics, it's why I've not done this bullshit in so long

And why cannot she be mature (significantly so) at age nine? I know 72yo men who are very 'immature', why cannot the scale go another direction too? As for 'physical' maturity, which we've STILL YET TO DEFINE...

Nine year old female children can be pregnant, have small breasts, and grow faster into adulthood than most people their age. They can even look like mid-teenagers at the most extreme unlikeliness.

And age as determined by age alone has no bearing on anything, part of what makes me laugh derisively at every 'age line' in existence.

Again, I think definitions have been mixed up. If people did not physically age then they would indeed not mature physically either. I misuderstood what you meant by aging.

I mean many things by aging, and yet also nothing. I have yet to see maturity defined.

I don't disagree with that. In fact, the entire heart of the matter is the fact that "mature" is so hard to define. If anyone needs to define mature, it is Al-Fatihah, as he is the one who argued a nine year old was "mature" enough to have sex with a grown man. I do not know what he meant by it; he could have meant sexually (as he said "has reached puberty and is mature") or emotionally.

Well then, he should step up and bloody define what he means already Here's the best way I've seen it put, courtesy of my dictionary

---

"fully developed physically; full-grown : she was now a mature woman | owls are sexually mature at one year.
• having reached an advanced stage of mental or emotional development characteristic of an adult"

"Most of us would prefer to mature rather than simply age. Mature implies gaining wisdom, experience, or sophistication as well as adulthood; when applied to other living things, it indicates fullness of growth and readiness for normal functioning (: a mature crop of strawberries). To age, on the other hand, is to undergo the changes that result from the passage of time, often with an emphasis on the negative or destructive changes that accompany growing old (: the tragedy aged him five years)."

---

You do know I'm just pulling your leg with this whole thing, right? Nonetheless, defining the key word in your argument is vital for it to succeed, especially given that it is a word with more uses than an Englishman.

[Darkstar]

And then we could debate what "fully developed" means.
It could be worse, though. There are those dictionary defintions that go [word]ing: noun. to [word]
or [word]: something endowed with [word]like properties

I suppose it is possible for someone to be mature (whatever defintion) at nine, but very unlikely.

Nonetheless, defining the key word in your argument is vital for it to succeed, especially given that it is a word with more uses than an Englishman.

It is difficult to define exactly, but as I said before, Al-Fatihah is the one who originally used it.

You do know I'm just pulling your leg with this whole thing, right?

My "pulling your leg" detector is broken, and I didn't get the extended warrenty. I didn't get the extra warrenty on my sarcasm detector either, but at least it is only moderately damaged, and actually works reasonably well in face to face conversation.

Now then:

As already stated, no person can subject themselves to being repeatedlt tapped. Therefore, acting out such discipline can influence a person to change their ways.

So what you are arguing, basically, is that said tapping is abusive?

[paulpablo]

And why cannot she be mature (significantly so) at age nine? I know 72yo men who are very 'immature', why cannot the scale go another direction too?

because those men will probably die still acting immature but you dont get babies who are born mature. So technically the scale wouldnt go the other way.
I can understand the prospect of maturing early and having sex before the age of consent purely because when i was going through puberty around the age of 13 or 14 i was craving sex like a maniac, but still the thought of a man over 40 having sex with a girl whos 9 still makes me feel sick.

[Violet]

because those men will probably die still acting immature but you dont get babies who are born mature. So technically the scale wouldnt go the other way.
I can understand the prospect of maturing early and having sex before the age of consent purely because when i was going through puberty around the age of 13 or 14 i was craving sex like a maniac, but still the thought of a man over 40 having sex with a girl whos 9 still makes me feel sick.

Jesus was born mature, according to many Christians.

I don't think it's so bad, to be honest. In some cultures, namely... ones with arranged marriages, it is largely accepted. It all depends upon context, all of it.

[Al-Fatihah]

Response: Your post was already addressed and answered, as it's the same question made by others that has already been answered. (It's more like you ignored it because it completely debunks your argument.)

As already stated, no person can subject themselves to being repeatedlt tapped. Therefore, acting out such discipline can influence a person to change their ways.

I have already DEBUNKED your "repeated tapping" reasoning.
Since you are either too stupid or too lazy to actually read my post here you go

Trying to move your goalposts. You stated in an earlier post "Thus the hit should not be abusive or painful". If she was constantly being tapped that would be abusive. You fail again. If the beating is not harmful or abusive then what is the point or goal?

Just to make sure here is the question again(This will make it 3 times in 1 post)

If the beating is NOT harmful or ABUSIVE then what is the point or goal?

Response: And once again, no person can subject themselves to being repeatedly tapped. Therefore, acting out such discipline can influence a person to change their ways. Nor did you refute anything, as the definition of abuse is not "constantly being tapped" in any dictionary. Dummy. Debunked as usual.

[Darkstar]

Response: And once again, no person can subject themselves to being repeatedly tapped. Therefore, acting out such discipline can influence a person to change their ways.

If it isn't abuse, then why is it that "NO PERSON" (not even the most hardened, toughest person on earth) can be subjected to it?

Nor did you refute anything, as the definition of abuse is not "constantly being tapped" in any dictionary. Dummy. Debunked as usual.

Nor is the definition of dying "being strapped to a nuclear bomb and shot into the sun", but I bet you'd be dying now wouldn't you?