Christians Being Persecuted/discriminated Against In The Usa

[CrossCuT]

And in any event calling some one the b word really makes you loose all credibility as an advocate for charity. 

I realize that, but people on this site are horrid monsters most of the time when discussing these things and Ive had way worse things said to me by all you who tout your Catholic Morality. So ALL OF US can practice some good Catholic Charity. I freely admit that I do, its something I work on. But good Lord almighty Lillla has a strong history of just being a jerk on here. 

 

But it seems that as long as youre upholding catholic morality, you can say whatever bat poo crazy croutons to people. But the second anyone calls you out for it its "Wow youre so horrible."

 

Lame. 

 

It is 100% possible to express your thoughts on this matter without calling people neanderthals. 

 

Ps. I also realize the irony of this coming from me since i just used a similar tactic. 

Edited May 8, 2014 by CrossCuT

[KnightofChrist]

I realize that, but people on this site are horrid monsters most of the time when discussing these things and Ive had way worse things said to me by all you who tout your Catholic Morality. So ALL OF US can practice some good Catholic Charity. I freely admit that I do, its something I work on. But good Lord almighty Lillla has a strong history of just being a jerk on here. 

 

But it seems that as long as youre upholding catholic morality, you can say whatever bat poo crazy croutons to people. But the second anyone calls you out for it its "Wow youre so horrible."

 

Lame. 

 

It is 100% possible to express your thoughts on this matter without calling people neanderthals. 

 

I read up to horrid monsters and then I stopped reading. 

[4588686]

I read up to horrid monsters and then I stopped reading.

Well, just take a break and try again.

[Nihil Obstat]

I come to boston they want to have a black mass.
Coincidence???????? or am I the chosen one.

Yer a wizard, Harry!

[Lilllabettt]

 

But it seems that as long as youre upholding catholic morality, you can say whatever bat poo crazy croutons to people.

 

Maybe you should try it? 

 

Objectifying others is a very unevolved way for the human creature to live. neanderthalish. Do you disagree?

[4588686]

Maybe you should try it?

Objectifying others is a very unevolved way for the human creature to live. neanderthalish. Do you disagree?

Maybe. Maybe not. However you have yet to posit any sort of argument that gets you from your premiss about contraception and possibilities to your conclusion that contraception is objectifying.

Or even bother to spell out who is being objectified.

[4588686]

Literally every interaction that you have with somebody forecloses some set of possibilities for that individual. You're provided zero argument of how you get from 'x' forecloses a set of possibilities for somebody to 'x' objectifies that individual.

. .
:----:

[Lilllabettt]

Literally every interaction that you have with somebody forecloses some set of possibilities for that individual.  You're provided zero argument of how you get from 'x' forecloses a set of possibilities for somebody to 'x' objectifies that individual.  

 

So ... you mean the sliding doors scenario.

It seems obvious to me that there are important differences between a deliberate decision to try to limit another person's future possibilities and the incidental limiting that is a consequence of the passing of matter through time and space.

Every time we do something - an act, even an intellectual act, there is a set of possible outcomes. right? (Unless you are into string theory/the multiverse. please can we not go there right now)

 

But when someone chooses to have contraceptive sex, they are deliberately trying to reach out into that set of possible outcomes that are direct and proximate to that act. Trying to control the possibilities that are flowing from the other person's autonomous decision to have sex. You are reaching into their future.  which is itself a violation. But the tagline of contraceptive sex is:

 

I will have sex now, with this partner, but only if it does not mean their future could include being a parent of my children.

With the result being that now you are not having sex with a person, you are having sex with an object you have "designed" to be ideal for your use.

 

Objectification is a self-feeding process. Dehumanization is a cycle. You can't dehumanize someone without dehumanizing yourself. When one person objectifies another, the consequence is that their "target" also objectifies themselves. Self-objectification. Additionally: the act of giving someone else permission to objectify you results in an objectification of them ( which is why I disagree with feminists who say that women sex workers can be empowered in what they do), which in turn results in objectification of self. So as to who is objectifying who ... both partners are. objectifying themselves and each other, whenever they agree to an act which is by its nature objectifying (e.g., contraceptive sex).

Edited May 8, 2014 by Lilllabettt

[CrossCuT]

But when someone chooses to have NFP sex, they are deliberately trying to reach out into that set of possible outcomes that are direct and proximate to that act. Trying to control the possibilities that are flowing from the other person's autonomous decision to have sex. You are reaching into their future.  which is itself a violation. 

Since you  have earlier dismissed a religious connection to your argument, I dont see how swapping what I did in your quote is any different. With NFP, the same thing is happening. Sex is occuring with the deliberate reason to reach into the set of possible outcomes to control the result. You are reaching into the other persons future. 

 

 

But the tagline of contraceptive sex is:

 

I will have sex now, with this partner, but only if it does not mean their future could include being a parent of my children.

 

That seems like a pretty big assumption. You have no idea whats really going on in peoples minds. You can make a guess, but that is not the same thing as knowing. Besides, like I have mentioned previously, a couple who is married, devoted, love eachother etc who use contraception to delay prenancie due to financial reasons are not thinking that way. They WANT to have a child with their spouse, just not at the given time which is identical to NFP. However I fail to see how NFP in your context is not objectification since the same manipulation of outcomes is happening. 

 

Could you explain how the manipulation of contraception is different from the manipulation of NFP?

Edited May 8, 2014 by CrossCuT

[Fidei Defensor]

I would say that NFP takes advantage of the natural period of infertility while contraception artificially creates it.

[BG45]

Do you know these are the same folks who were behind the Satan statue in Oklahoma?

I live in Oklahoma, they want to put in a Satan statue.

I come to boston they want to have a black mass.

Coincidence???????? or am I the chosen one.

 

Haha.  Well played, and actually far more preferable to "Satan has better PR people than we do".
 

[CrossCuT]

I would say that NFP takes advantage of the natural period of infertility while contraception artificially creates it.

 

Ah yes, that is a good point however technology gives us the ability to "unnaturally" manipulate our bodies in many other areas. 

 

I assume youre not against modern medicine and the technology involved to improve it.

[Lilllabettt]

Since you  have earlier dismissed a religious connection to your argument, I dont see how swapping what I did in your quote is any different. With NFP, the same thing is happening. Sex is occuring with the deliberate reason to reach into the set of possible outcomes to control the result. You are reaching into the other persons future. 

 

 

That seems like a pretty big assumption. You have no idea whats really going on in peoples minds. You can make a guess, but that is not the same thing as knowing. Besides, like I have mentioned previously, a couple who is married, devoted, love eachother etc who use contraception to delay prenancie due to financial reasons are not thinking that way. They WANT to have a child with their spouse, just not at the given time which is identical to NFP. However I fail to see how NFP in your context is not objectification since the same manipulation of outcomes is happening. 

 

Could you explain how the manipulation of contraception is different from the manipulation of NFP?

 

Honestly ... didn't we just go over this?

People can have all kinds of intentions for their future. The universal principle here is that objectification of people is wrong.  This principle applies to your present actions even if sometime in the future you intend to live in a shoe with so many children you don't know what to do.

 

 I will now mangle the english language in an attempt to make this as clear as a freaky-deaky bell:

 

The thought that sometime in the future you will be open to the possibility of your partner becoming a parent of your child does not change the objectification inherent in you not being open to the possibility of your partner becoming a parent in the present. Your future intercourse may be non-objectifying. The intercourse where you are not open to that possibility is an objectifying act.

 

I could go into the differences between NFP and contraception, but I am not going to. BECAUSE IT IS BORING. If you are actually interested you can run a google search on the phorum. Believe it or not the "NFP and contraception is the same" idea has been covered a million times from a bazillion different angles.

[CrossCuT]

Its a pretty simple question.

By your definition of objectification which is the purposful manipulation of outcomes, is or isnt nfp objectification?

[Lilllabettt]

And if you honestly believe all that you just said about people simply being weak and not evil, then you should watch the ish that spews from your mouth on these topics. You practice the judgment virtue to an extent that makes you come off as a gigantic beesh.

 

 

chick who calls other woman the b word wants to argue about what is and what is not misogyny. lololololololololollololololololololololololololololololol. somehow I can't imagine a scenario where you call a man with whom you disagree that name. you remind me of this chick who got into it with me on abortion. hassan knows what I'm talking about.  She suggested my thought patterns were because I a. hated women and b. needed to get laid.

It was hilarious.

 

Its a pretty simple question.

By your definition of objectification which is the purposful manipulation of outcomes, is or isnt nfp objectification?

 

Not in the mood to deal with the NFP = contraception trolls. Not poking that beehive today. the answer is no. But I am not dealing with NFP is contraception trolls. So thats it. that's all you're getting from me. Ask somebody else about why NfP does not objectify if you don't want to let it go. And If anyone here wants to talk to me about how NFP is contraception or how it can be used with a contraceptive mentality, kindly go wash your hair.

 

[CrossCuT]

I think you should go back and try reading a little more closely. Im not asking you to explain to me the differences of NFP and contraception, Im asking YOU to explain to me how YOUR definition of objectification appears to not include NFP.

 

By your definition of objectification which is the purposeful manipulation of outcomes, is or isnt nfp objectification?

 

I am NOT asking if nfp = contraception.

Im asking since contraception = objectification by your definition, does nfp = objectification by the same?

Both are willful manipulations of an outcome. I am not including any other reasons since you yourself have dismissed them in an earlier post. 

[Lilllabettt]

Im sorry I can't. maybe someone else on the thread will help you. I think if you read into why nfp is not considered contraception it would be fairly clear. why nfp is not a refusal to accept the possible futures that are a part of a sexual partner's personal identity. blah see I am already getting roped in. but i said I am not going there and so I'm not going to. hopefully someone else will jump in.  happy to talk about anything else. not touching the nfp/contraception thing with a 10 ft pole.

[Lilllabettt]

btw when I say :NFP = contraception trolls" I am not referring to yourself crosscut

Edited May 8, 2014 by Lilllabettt

[4588686]

Im sorry I can't. maybe someone else on the thread will help you. I think if you read into why nfp is not considered contraception it would be fairly clear. why nfp is not a refusal to accept the possible futures that are a part of a sexual partner's personal identity. blah see I am already getting roped in. but i said I am not going there and so I'm not going to. hopefully someone else will jump in. happy to talk about anything else. not touching the nfp/contraception thing with a 10 ft pole.

Again, she's not asking why NFO is not contraception. She's asking why NFP is not objectifying. That seems like a perfectly fair question. I strongly suspect that you refuse to answer it because it pretty obviously should be an act of objectification given your kind of weird definition, for lack of a better word, of what objectification is.

[4588686]

What exactly is 'objectification' in your view, Lilllabett? What does it mean to reduce somebody to an object?