Ship of Fools: GeeD

Thread: GeeD Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005697

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Apparently, I was incorrect, and you are a moron.
Equating giving rapists a condom to protect them, a crime in which they harm someone else in a life altering manner with checking drugs for safety is mind-numbingly stupid. It shows that you neither understand rape or drug use. Or humans, for that matter. It also shows you have no compassion.

You are lower than the slime on the belly of a slug.

Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :

This hell call is shaping up to be as thunderous as your last you sniveling sack of shit.

Is this all you have to do with your pitiful existence?

Log off occasionally...

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

It might be a case of skewed expectations.

lilbubba felt the need to vent at GeeD, but it seems that much fewer people are similarly annoyed than the resounding majority of people who show up to mention how much they hate your unclefucking guts on your semi-regular Hell-calls.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
This hell call is shaping up to be as thunderous as your last you sniveling sack of shit.

Is this all you have to do with your pitiful existence?

Log off occasionally...

You are such a worthless piece of shit that it is difficult to properly craft an insult.
Wait, that is not fair, You are not worthless. You are a magnificent proof that evolution is not inherently progress and that the intelligence of a species is not necessarily reflected by its every member.
Your posts are also a demonstration of way the hell too few monkeys.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

lilBuddha--

I'm disturbed by the condom/drug-test tangle, too. I'm not sure whether Gee really doesn't understand, or thinks all crimes are equal, or that everyone should suffer the consequences of their actions without mercy. or if he simply understands words differently than you and I do.

Also disturbing and confusing is the idea that not giving kids condoms makes them (more) able to say "no" to sex with peers, and that makes them more able to refuse/avoid sexual abusers.

It leans towards draconian, and IMHO some sort of convoluted misunderstanding. Many of us have tried to work our way through and understand, and tried to at least get G to understand where we're coming from. Nothing seems to work, on either side.

It's all very ?????????????

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

GeeD doesn't seem great at reading for comprehension either. Or his mind is so fixed on its tramlines he can't see beyond that tunnel vision to what others are saying.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Nothing seems to work, on either side.

Thank you for including that. I am getting frustrated also.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Gee D--

FWIW, I think your comments about sex, condoms, rape, and pedophilia are what pushed the thread (and many posters) over the edge, and into some bizarre alternate universe.

The connections you made seemed bizarre, and made you look like you didn't understand the real-life aspects of those things.

I'm one of the posters who doesn't understand your comments and views, despite trying. If you want to continue the conversation, dropping the sex-related topics might serve you well, IMHO.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I went to them after someone - perhaps mdijon - referred to handing out condoms to underage teens, something I'm dead against for the reason given.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Gee D--

Ok. But not have condoms may not keep teens from having sex--it just means that they won't have protection from diseases or pregnancy.

I'm not big on under-age teens having sex, because of all the possible ramifications. But if they're going to do it, then birth control can at least help to reduce the chance of some of those ramifications.

One way to look at it: a teen desperately wants a motorcycle; but the parents said no, for safety reasons. The teen manages to get one anyway, and rides it all the time--without a helmet. The parents still disapprove, and are still very worried.

Should they buy a motorcycle helmet for their teen?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

You drive home the message that underage sex is illegal whether with someone your own age or one older. You drive home the message that child abuse is a crime and will be prosecuted, encourage children to come forward knowing that their actions may well stop the abuse spreading to others. The no free condoms is a part of that, a small part admittedly, but a part.

To have said this before then accused of supporting paedophilia was offensive and hurtful. But I could not be bothered making a hell call; that seems an occupation for others

In your motorcycle example, is it an offence for the young person to ride? I have no idea what the age limit is.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

I haven't read the thread that relates to this and make no comment on it. It seems to me though that the last few posts are good examples of how to talk through things and show respect to other people. Rainbow Eucalyptus saplings to the posters involved.

I came here because I was surprised to see Gee D's name on a hell thread. He strikes me as a forthright poster, for sure, but I have admired his grasp of the law and grammar in my time here.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I went to them after someone - perhaps mdijon - referred to handing out condoms to underage teens, something I'm dead against for the reason given.

Since you mention me let me say I think the problem is not the introduction of the subject but your take on it.

By the way I didn't find "I don't see that as principle." a very helpful addition to avoiding frustration.

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

I have followed the thread and think that this Hell call is vastly disproportionate to the "offence." It's good to see a sane, useful discussion developing. Perhaps if lilBuddha stays out of it ... ? 🤔

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I don't see GeeD as some kind of troll or drive-by, unlike some people. However, his rigid moral stance gives me the heebie-jeebies. I worked for decades with people who were doing all kinds of illegal stuff, including drugs (in psychotherapy).

The idea of telling them that X is illegal is pointless really. Anyway, this is another topic really, as to whether you can get under that stuff, to something deeper.

Interesting ethical points as well, as many therapy organizations have fulsome ethical frameworks, including not condoning illegal stuff. Well OK ...

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Gee D:

quote:
You drive home the message that underage sex is illegal whether with someone your own age or one older. You drive home the message that child abuse is a crime and will be prosecuted, encourage children to come forward knowing that their actions may well stop the abuse spreading to others. The no free condoms is a part of that, a small part admittedly, but a part.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, better to keep my principle than save a life. Hang on.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Nothing seems to work, on either side.

But GeeD is not making any sort of effort, but merely repeating his insane mantra.

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
You drive home the message that underage sex is illegal whether with someone your own age or one older. You drive home the message that child abuse is a crime and will be prosecuted, encourage children to come forward knowing that their actions may well stop the abuse spreading to others.

You might be a parent, but you apparently know nothing about children. Good children of responsible parents will do stupid, wrong, illegal things. One reduces the chance by being a responsible, loving parent, but one cannot eliminate it. This is a plain fact.
Sex and drugs are especially difficult because they are a time-limited prohibition. "Sex and drink are wrong for you Jr. Now run along and play, you mum and I want to finish our whisky and fuck."
Underage will have sex. Saying don't hasn't worked ever, why should it now?
Alchohol is a dangerous as hell drug, more dangerous than many illegal ones. That it is legal and other, less harmful are not, is something that is not lost on the youth.

quote:

The no free condoms is a part of that, a small part admittedly, but a part.

No, it demonstrably isn't. Restricting condom accessibility increases pregnancy and the transmission of disease.

quote:

To have said this before then accused of supporting paedophilia was offensive and hurtful.

YOU made the connection between free condoms and paedophilia. As in the former encourages the latter. Which shows a massive fail on information, comprehension and reasoning.

quote:

In your motorcycle example, is it an offence for the young person to ride? I have no idea what the age limit is.

Hang on, your answer depends upon whether the action is legal?
If those who think Heaven exists and has an entrance qualification are correct, you might as well become acquainted with the devil now.

What is legal =/= what is right.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, better to keep my principle than save a life. Hang on.

Just like Jesus.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

lilBuddha:

quote:
Alchohol is a dangerous as hell drug, more dangerous than many illegal ones.

A timely example. The frontal cortex of a large number of human brains do not reach maturity until the early twenties. In a totally circumscribed culture offspring might be under family control most of the time and therefore perhaps safer from some of these mistakes. We are not that culture. We can do our best, drive home the lessons we want them to learn, but they will be out there among their peers getting different POV. They need every tool we can give them to not have life-changing disasters.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

This reminds me of the right-wing Christian argument that proper sex education should be "abstinence only". No discussion of birth control or protecting oneself from STDs. And no shots against HPV. If kids break the rules because they somehow weren't "driven home" properly or because kids don't believe bad things can happen to them because that's how their brains work, let them have babies, get herpes, get drug resistant gonorrhea, get cervical cancer, and get HIV. The principle is more important than the possible realities.

No, not at all. They are entirely separate issues, and I have no problems at with the sort of education you would have me decrying. We did not get it in my day at school, but fortunately Dlet did.

lilbuddha said

YOU made the connection between free condoms and paedophilia. As in the former encourages the latter. Which shows a massive fail on information, comprehension and reasoning.

You obviously are not capable of reading what I said. I did not link free condoms with paedophilia, but with the campaign against paedophilia.

[ 23. July 2017, 22:00: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

It's at this point, someone giving a link to the offending post would be very welcome.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Not a single post, but starting here is the beginning of the worst.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Gee D--
Re the motorcycle example:

I kept it to a simple example: doing the forbidden thing. Parents said no, kid said yes, parents can't stop the kid, and they're worried sick there'll be an accident. So should they give the kid a helmet? They love their kid, and it would give the kid some protection, in case there's an accident. Or should they just say "the kid is disobedient, which will cause its own punishment, and we'll just stay out of it"?

If you want to consider legal aspects, then, sure, let's say the kid isn't quite old enough to legally operate a motorcycle. But the kid won't stop. The parents can't stop the kid. So a secondary question: should parents give the kid a helmet in *this* situation?

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
[H]is rigid moral stance gives me the heebie-jeebies.

I would argue that such legalism isn't very moral.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

You obviously are not capable of reading what I said.

Well, since you appear incapable of understanding what the words you write mean...

quote:

I did not link free condoms with paedophilia, but with the campaign against paedophilia.

And that is incredibly stupid. Most paedophiles use trust to access their victims and most victims are too young to make the tortured logic you use appear realistic even were it not stupid. For older children, teens, informing them that sex is illegal will not be effective. One educates them that adult/child relationships are abusive.
Free condoms don't change any of this, they just reduce teen pregnancy and disease. Proper sex education reduces teen sexual activity. Education, not threats.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I'm going to guess that GeeD is old and his children grown. And that by chance, and hopefully acceptable parenting, they did not become addicts and/or teen parents. He thinks this is solely due to his parenting and society of ye olde days being tough legally. Pretend this is accurate.
What of children of bad parenting, poor neighborhoods, abuse victims and the mentally challenged. They are fucked in his scenario as they are more likely to make poor choices.
Apparently he is OK with them becoming pregnant, diseased, addicted and dying.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Harm reduction. It's all about harm reduction. Can I stop you from having sex? If not, how can I make sure that the least harm results from it. Unwanted and especially teenage pregnancies are generally speaking a harm. Sexually transmitted diseases are a harm. If you use a barrier method of pregnancy prevention, the likelihood of these harms are greatly reduced. And that is a good thing. Similarly for HPV inoculation.

It's not a matter of no sex versus sex with condoms. It's sex without condoms versus sex with condoms. Think you can talk kids out of having sex? Knock yourself out. But don't punish the ones you can't convince. Take that failure on yourself, and allow them -- indeed, press upon them the importance of -- methods of harm reduction.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

lilBuddha--

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Nothing seems to work, on either side.
But GeeD is not making any sort of effort, but merely repeating his insane mantra.

Actually, I think he really is trying to communicate, and thinks we just don't understand what he's saying--possibly that we're not understanding on purpose. To him, he's making perfect sense.

More or less the same with "our side".

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Gee D--

I can't always remember who follows what faith/beliefs. But a question: If you're guided by the Bible, do you lean more on the Old/Hebrew Testament than the New? E.g., law rather than grace?

If so, that would make more sense of much that you've said.

Thx.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Gee D--

I can't always remember who follows what faith/beliefs. But a question: If you're guided by the Bible, do you lean more on the Old/Hebrew Testament than the New? E.g., law rather than grace?

If so, that would make more sense of much that you've said.

Thx.

I am guided much more by the New than the Old. And even with the New, I draw on an interpretation of Grace. For example, I don't like the doctrine of transubstantiation as the explanation of the Real Presence, much preferring the Orthodox - we don't know how it happens except that it is by Grace.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
If you want to consider legal aspects, then, sure, let's say the kid isn't quite old enough to legally operate a motorcycle. But the kid won't stop. The parents can't stop the kid. So a secondary question: should parents give the kid a helmet in *this* situation?

The parents buy a sturdy lock, fix it to the bike's rear wheel.

Problem, and terrible analogy, solved.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I'm going to guess that GeeD is old and his children grown. And that by chance, and hopefully acceptable parenting, they did not become addicts and/or teen parents. He thinks this is solely due to his parenting and society of ye olde days being tough legally. Pretend this is accurate.
What of children of bad parenting, poor neighborhoods, abuse victims and the mentally challenged. They are fucked in his scenario as they are more likely to make poor choices.
Apparently he is OK with them becoming pregnant, diseased, addicted and dying.

I'm going to suggest that there is a difference between what you might do with your own children and what you might think is good for children in general.

I'd suggest that if you are an awake, engaged, non-addict parent - then I can't think of many reasons why you'd help your child to do things that are obviously unsafe. If you found out they were taking drugs, you'd likely do whatever you could to stop them. If you found out they were doing other risky things, you'd do your best to keep them safe.

I don't think your first response to finding out that they were experimenting with injecting drugs would be to get a supply of needles or if they were experimenting with sex to give them condoms.

In contrast, if you are a nurse, health professional - or other responsible adult in a position to do something about it - you might well think that the only thing you can do for a child in a chaotic situation is to offer advice on contraception and a clean needle exchange.

The engaged parent might become that responsible adult after a chain of events which have spiraled out of control, but I don't think one would reach for the condoms as quickly as the nurse would.

Yes, I appreciate that good parenting doesn't always lead to safe attitudes about sex and drugs. But I'd also say that there is an undeniable link between these things and poor parenting - and the engaged parent isn't simply going to let these things happen to their child.

Motorbikes are a bit of a different thing because there are things that you might do to encourage good habits in riding. For example you might try to get him to a motocross club or find some other way to get him into motorbikes without doing it dangerously on the road.

[ 24. July 2017, 08:31: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

It's not often that my late Nan turns out to have had the wisdom of Solomon but she would have said: If you can't be good, be careful

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
It's not often that my late Nan turns out to have had the wisdom of Solomon but she would have said: If you can't be good, be careful

All this does make me wonder if GeeD has ever met a horny teen. How about 24/7 chaperones?

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will watch the guards - or, in this case, the chaperones)

You can't trust anyone nowadays.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Eunuchs.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Iain Banks proposed autonomous 'slapbots' for recidivists. Guess it'd work for horny teens, too.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Iain Banks proposed autonomous 'slapbots' for recidivists. Guess it'd work for horny teens, too.

Nah - you've solved the problem already. Your solution to the parents of the bike rider was a sturdy lock on the rear wheel. Clearly the solution for horny teens is a sturdy chastity belt.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

I am afraid I stopped reading when Gee equated mdjohn's utilitarianism with economic rationalism (which is the Australian terminology for neoliberalism). In the context, that could only be written by someone who has no idea what economic rationalism is. I am nonplussed.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
It's not often that my late Nan turns out to have had the wisdom of Solomon but she would have said: If you can't be good, be careful

"And if you can't be careful, buy a pram." - wisdom from my old neighbourhood.

Huia

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Apparently he is OK with them becoming pregnant, diseased, addicted and dying.

Raddled as well. You forgot that. I want them to be pregnant, diseased, addicted, dying and raddled.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Well, whilst we debate the accuracy of describing you as stupid and/or heartless, we can definitely strike comedian off the list.

[ 24. July 2017, 22:06: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

mr cheesy, if the first time you bring up drug abuse or sex is when your child gets caught, you have already failed to instill your values* and we're into mode 2, harm reduction.

_______
*or rather you have instilled your values, but your values are "it doesn't matter." If it mattered you would have already talked with them about it.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well, whilst we debate the accuracy of describing you as stupid and/or heartless, we can definitely strike comedian off the list.

It's because I am old, as you've noted. Interesting that you consider it proper to use age as a term of abuse, but then again, we old people can't keep up with the neo-Stalinists.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

But lilBuddha didn't use age as a term of abuse; she merely speculated that you are old. And you confirmed that that is the case.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well, whilst we debate the accuracy of describing you as stupid and/or heartless, we can definitely strike comedian off the list.
It's because I am old, as you've noted. Interesting that you consider it proper to use age as a term of abuse, but then again, we old people can't keep up with the neo-Stalinists.

As RuthW points out, I did not use age as a negative. I do think it is a factor in that you are further from the age of the people in discussion and therefore less likely to relate, remember exactly what it was like to be that age and/or sympathise.
Though I do not think your rigid adherence to the law rather than what is moral, just or right is a function of age as much as your callous disregard for your fellow humans.

ETA: Neo-Stalinist? Seriously? Instead of addressing my posts, the best you have is an irrelevant and inaccurate attempt at an insult?

[ 25. July 2017, 02:45: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Doc Tor--

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
If you want to consider legal aspects, then, sure, let's say the kid isn't quite old enough to legally operate a motorcycle. But the kid won't stop. The parents can't stop the kid. So a secondary question: should parents give the kid a helmet in *this* situation?
The parents buy a sturdy lock, fix it to the bike's rear wheel.

Problem, and terrible analogy, solved.

Kid breaks/picks lock (and oooo, new skill!), and rides off to the nearest rave--without a helmet.

For a simple comparison with giving away free condoms for teens who may be in need, an analogy of motorcycle and helmet seems apt.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Gee D--

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Gee D--

I can't always remember who follows what faith/beliefs. But a question: If you're guided by the Bible, do you lean more on the Old/Hebrew Testament than the New? E.g., law rather than grace?

If so, that would make more sense of much that you've said.

Thx.
I am guided much more by the New than the Old. And even with the New, I draw on an interpretation of Grace. For example, I don't like the doctrine of transubstantiation as the explanation of the Real Presence, much preferring the Orthodox - we don't know how it happens except that it is by Grace.

Ok. Thanks for the explanation. However, everything you've said on the related threads, about law and sin and responsibility for choices, sounds very much OT law, with no grace or mercy allowed.

Several posters have said that, in several ways.

FWIW.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
For example, I don't like the doctrine of transubstantiation as the explanation of the Real Presence, much preferring the Orthodox - we don't know how it happens except that it is by Grace.

I'm not sure I've never heard an Orthodox person use the phrase "by Grace" and that's certainly not how the Change in the elements of Communion would be described. It strikes me that "by Grace" is a rather Protestant formula. Particularly as we equate Grace with God's Energies, and certainly not "unmerited favor."

Rather we say that the Change in the Elements is "a mystery."

[ 25. July 2017, 04:21: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

mt--

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Rather we say that the Change in the Elements is "a mystery."

Alchemy. (Changed elements.) [Smile]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
mt--

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Rather we say that the Change in the Elements is "a mystery."
Alchemy. (Changed elements.)

Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

LOL. What, God can't be an alchemist?

I am at least half serious. Alchemy is about changing elements from one state of being into another. And it's got a spiritual component. Whatever one thinks of alchemy, maybe they got the idea of transmutation right. Or not.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Mousethief, I got that use of Grace from both Ian Climacus and The Scrumpmeister in years gone by. The major point I was making was that I find Aquinas far too dry and academic an explanation for the Real Presence.

Golden Key, probably sounds like it to some, but that's a real mis-reading; what I'm saying is rather more subtle than that.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
mr cheesy, if the first time you bring up drug abuse or sex is when your child gets caught, you have already failed to instill your values* and we're into mode 2, harm reduction.

_______
*or rather you have instilled your values, but your values are "it doesn't matter." If it mattered you would have already talked with them about it.

For sure, I don't disagree with that. I was just trying to say that one can believe in both modes. Both that there is something to be said for good parenting and responsible adult led harm reduction when discussing these issues.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Doc Tor--

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
If you want to consider legal aspects, then, sure, let's say the kid isn't quite old enough to legally operate a motorcycle. But the kid won't stop. The parents can't stop the kid. So a secondary question: should parents give the kid a helmet in *this* situation?
The parents buy a sturdy lock, fix it to the bike's rear wheel.

Problem, and terrible analogy, solved.
Kid breaks/picks lock (and oooo, new skill!), and rides off to the nearest rave--without a helmet.

For a simple comparison with giving away free condoms for teens who may be in need, an analogy of motorcycle and helmet seems apt.

Doc Tor’s point was that this analogy doesn’t work and I agree with him.

FWIW if I had forbidden an underage kid from illegally riding a motorbike and they did it anyway, without a helmet to boot, I would not buy a helmet. I would call the police. (Yes I do mean that. I would report my own child to the police.)

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I was just trying to say that one can believe in both modes. Both that there is something to be said for good parenting and responsible adult led harm reduction when discussing these issues.

Okay well that's not what I see in what you wrote, but I certainly agree with it.

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
LOL. What, God can't be an alchemist?

I am at least half serious. Alchemy is about changing elements from one state of being into another. And it's got a spiritual component. Whatever one thinks of alchemy, maybe they got the idea of transmutation right. Or not.

The problem is you are equivocating on the word "element." Bread is not an element in the chemical sense of the word. It is a compound. Alchemists sought to transmutate (transmute?) chemical elements, namely lead into gold. They did not seek to transmute bread into flesh, let alone in such a way that the bread remained bread while simultaneously becoming flesh.

What alchemists wanted, and what happens in the paraclesis, are both change, but not at all the same kind of change. You might as well say that alchemists were doing (rather attempting) the same thing as a man who changes his clothes.

TL/DR: I think you have your hands on a category error. Much as I love you, etc.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Okay well that's not what I see in what you wrote, but I certainly agree with it.

My fault no doubt. It just irritates me when the debate seems to turn into a narrow one of "good parenting" vs "condoms" (for example), when in reality I think most people think we need both.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

Indeed. In much the same way that we teach kids to cover their mouths when they sneeze instead of not to sneeze. Because decision-making is not something humans get good at until their frontal lobe develops - looooong after puberty.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

It is a failure to view a child as merely an ignorant adult; that merely adding information is necessary. Children use different, more primitive, parts of their brains to make decisions. It isn't that they do not understand or agree with adult guidance, but that their decisions flow through paths that might disregard it.

ETA: It isn't something that switched off at 16, 18 or 21. It is a process.

[ 25. July 2017, 15:22: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

You know, we really shouldn't have seatbelts in cars. It only encourages people to drive faster and risk accidents.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

A better analogy might be to deny medical treatment to anyone who was speeding or otherwise not obeying the rules.
"You were speeding? Please try not to bleed too heavily on your way out of the A&E. Costs law abiding citizens to clean that, you know." "Apologies, we cannot rebuild your face, you looked away from the road at the wrong time."

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It isn't something that switched off at 16, 18 or 21. It is a process.

To be clear, the physical development of the brain's frontal lobe not completing until humans are in their 20's is well-understood neurobiology, as is it's primary functions involving decision making.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

{Finishing up tangent.}

mt--

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
LOL. What, God can't be an alchemist?

I am at least half serious. Alchemy is about changing elements from one state of being into another. And it's got a spiritual component. Whatever one thinks of alchemy, maybe they got the idea of transmutation right. Or not.
The problem is you are equivocating on the word "element." Bread is not an element in the chemical sense of the word. It is a compound. Alchemists sought to transmutate (transmute?) chemical elements, namely lead into gold. They did not seek to transmute bread into flesh, let alone in such a way that the bread remained bread while simultaneously becoming flesh.

What alchemists wanted, and what happens in the paraclesis, are both change, but not at all the same kind of change. You might as well say that alchemists were doing (rather attempting) the same thing as a man who changes his clothes.

TL/DR: I think you have your hands on a category error. Much as I love you, etc.

Fair enough. FYI: Last night, I searched on "alchemy bread wine Eucharist". I skimmed some of the sites. It looks like the Eucharist was/is an inspiration. Alchemy has a spiritual dimension.

We now return you to your regular thread. [Smile]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Well shut my mouth then. Thank you for being a good sport about it and not ripping me a new one.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Golden Key is one of the nicest people to often visit Hell. [Overused]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

{curtsey}

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0