(Link to AcmlmWiki) Offline: thank ||bass
Register | Login
Views: 13,040,846
 Main | Memberlist | Active users | Calendar | Chat | Online users
Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album 		04-23-23 10:13 PM
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Silvershield
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
User Post
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 05-14-06 02:51 PM, in will you loove me? will you love me forevaaaaa?! Link
Originally posted by Snow Tomato
Who said I was giving him sex every time we hung out? Who said we've had sex? I don't/we haven't.
Your previous post implied that he keeps coming back because he has consistently had some sort of physical activity with you. Whether that's actually sex or just heavy kissing or whatever it may be, if you're giving him the sign that you're a physically or sexually open person, he'll expect you to offer him more sooner rather than later. So he pursues you.

Though I don't approve of any sort of sexual activity early in a relationship just on general principal, there's a practical reason as well: even if you don't exaclty sleep with him the first time you see him, if you're quick to make out or hook up with a guy then that sends a definite message about your willingness to be physical at all, and suggests semi-consciously (or maybe even fully consciously) that, if he pursues it for a minimal amount of time, he can expect more. So, you're shooting yourself in the foot.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 05-15-06 11:02 PM, in will you loove me? will you love me forevaaaaa?! Link
Originally posted by Skreename
Just adding a bit of context for part of what Silvershield saw... "hooking up" is a very vague term. It's pretty hard to judge what it means, particularly if it's supposedly done repeatedly.
Whether "hooking up" is actually sex or even something as minor as kissing, it works toward the same purpose. If you're ready to be physically intimate (read "heavy kissing") with a guy whom you've just met, it subconsciously says something about how soon you'll be willing to let him become even closer to you. Any person I know that hooks up with a person he or she barely knows has no qualms about allowing that relationship to become sexual; if you hooked up with this guy when you barely knew him, it isn't outrageous to propose that he assumes that he can expect more from you in the near future.

Not to preach, but what you "should" do if you're afraid of being used is to deny any sort of physicality whatsoever, beyond maybe innocent and controlled kissing. After a week (or ideally more), give him a bit more maybe, and gradually and patiently advance to whatever level you're willing to ultimately reach; if at any point he tries to rush you or criticize you for not giving as much as he'd like, that's a pretty good sign that he has other things on his mind.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 05-17-06 02:30 PM, in Gay Fairy Tale... Link
Originally posted by Reshaper256
You keep referring to homosexuality as though it were a religion - and of course it's not, it's a sexual orientation. What you mean when you say "teaching homosexuality" is actually teaching tolerance of other sexual orientations, which should definitely be allowed in schools. Teachers are not supposed to endorse any religion, but they *can* endorse the secular concept of tolerating other sexual orientations, which is what the teacher in question was doing when he read this book to his class. I have to admit that I, myself, would feel uncomfortable upon hearing that my child had been read this book, but that is because of my own, Christian *religious* beliefs. I would not have those beliefs imposed on the teacher or the students in the classroom. Teaching the tolerance of homosexuality or homosexuals (or simply tolerance of anyone who believes something you don't) isn't teaching religion - it may fly in the face of some religions, but there's nothing wrong with that.

And there's also nothing wrong with mentioning that "Christians believe this..." or "Muslims believe that..." as long as it's done on a purely factual basis, without religious motive. It's part of a teacher's role to teach children about other cultures, including their religions, and to rid children of their ignorance and intolerance without actually imposing other religions on them.
No, I'm hardly representing homosexuality as if it's a religion. You're missing the crux of my argument. I'm only placing sexual orientation in parallel with religious preference inasmuch as, regardless of the specifics of either, there are people who are opposed to them. And if those people have kids, they have the right as parents to prevent their kids from exposure to things that they find objectionable (until those children are of a certain age). I'm not trying to promote either homosexuality or Christianity as right or wrong - in fact, you can substitute any two other belief systems or behaviors in their places and it would change nothing - but am instead using them as examples to point out that neither is evil yet a parent still needs the personal right to choose what is taught in schools. Because if you allow one but prevent the other, you are making the statement that one is somehow tolerable while the other is not, even if that's not the intention.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 05-17-06 02:48 PM, in Gay Fairy Tale... Link
Originally posted by Reshaper256
So, in your opinion, should we...?

1. Disallow any discussion concerning sexual orientation/religion in schools.

2. Allow discussion of such in schools, promoting tolerance toward the beliefs and orientations, and those who believe or are oriented in such a way.

or...

3. (something else)
3. (something else)

Specifically, allow any subject matter that student's parents do not object to. If a parent does not want his kid to learn about homosexuality, the child should not learn about homosexuality. If the parent does not want his child to learn about Christianity, that shouldn't be mentioned either. Kids are in school to be educated in academic matters - the basic science, math, history, English deal - not to learn "life skills." Those are the parents' domain, and include any sort of beliefs, whether for better or worse.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 05-17-06 05:13 PM, in Gay Fairy Tale... Link
Originally posted by drjayphd
Only problem with the "allow any subject matter that student's parents do not object to" approach is then it gets to the point where you can't really teach much of anything. That'd rule out plenty of books which, say, the wingnuttier types might regard as dark-sided, so you're not getting the full English spectrum. And besides, kids may not necessarily have the same beliefs as their parents. Probably not at that age, but down the line, they might very well have formed their own opinions on those subjects.
[Also in response to Reshaper256]

There's a difference between removing utterly subjective content and removing content that has objective value. Evolution, while rejected by many extreme rightists, has scientific academic value. Huck Finn (and similar literature), while objectionable due to racial issues, has literary academic value. Christianity as a reason for Pilgrims to emmigrate to America has historical academic value. Homosexuality as an impetus for legislation has academic value in regards to civil law.

Teaching tolerance, while unnecessarily "good," has no academic value; it does not belong in schools. You shouldn't have the right to force parents to teach their kids specific values - such as tolerance of homosexuals - even though those values are virtually unquestionable. Because, unquestionable as it may be when framed in the context of our society, it is impossible to draw the line at which values should be allowed and which shouldn't.

And if I were more familiar with human child development, I'd propose an age at which this whole system should fall apart - once students are of a certain stage of maturity, there's nothing wrong with introducing material that is open to interpretation rather than sticking to the hard facts. But not for seven-year-old kids.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 05-17-06 08:44 PM, in Gay Fairy Tale... Link
Originally posted by Reshaper256
Although I doubt we'll ever agree on this, I hope you can see where I'm coming from.
No doubt. I wish I were on your side, because intolerance is a sad reality of modern society, but I can't bring myself to disregard the definite interest that other groups have in this issue. Namely, those who are anti-homosexual: to play Devil's advocate for a moment, why do you and I have the right to teach children that their point of view is wrong? According to their (extreme view of) religion, God certainly disapproves of homosexuals, so we are essentially discarding their religion by allowing this material. And there's a difference between not promoting a specific religion and outright forcing children to deny its precepts.

To frame it differently, is it the right of the school system to teach children the character of medical procedures such as blood transfusions, even if the parents of those children are Mormon (I think that's the one) and do not believe in such things? Is it right for a young child to be exposed to birth control as a necessary and desirable thing if his parents are strict Catholics? Both blood transfusions and birth control save lives, but are each religions' reasons for rejecting them actually "wrong?"
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 05-20-06 02:02 AM, in Gay Fairy Tale... Link
Originally posted by Arwon
God, some of you people are anal about what should and shouldn't be taught. Lighten up... education isn't about indoctrination and people aren't automatons. Education's about teaching ways of thinking and giving people mental tools for dealing successfully with life. It's not about carefully choosing what people do and don't get expoed to.

Whatever happened to the concept of a comprehensive liberal education? Maybe we should just turn everything back over to the fucking Jesuits.
Fine, my religion will be taught to our nation's seven-year-old kids too. And if you object, then you're being anal about it.

I'm all for a comprehensive liberal arts education - I attend a liberal arts college, in fact - but I'm eighteen. You're overlooking the age of the students in question.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 05-20-06 03:52 PM, in Gay Fairy Tale... Link
Originally posted by Arwon
[long tangent]
Thanks for ignoring the absolute crux of what I've been saying: there's a difference between teaching certain things to an adolescent audience and teaching that same material to a classroom of seven-year-old kids.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 06-08-06 02:17 PM, in Assuming Jesus had a child... Link
The Da Vinci Code is fiction. Don't be one of the drooling masses who believe everything they read without careful examination.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 06-11-06 02:40 AM, in Assuming Jesus had a child... Link
Originally posted by Jomb
If sex isn't a sin, explain why it is referred to as the "origional sin"?
It's not.

"Original sin" references Eve's consumption of the forbidden fruit, and Adam's association with the act; simply, the first humans' refusal to obey their creator stands as a crime whose consequences are inherited by all their progeny. Sex was never considered a sin - God told Adam and Eve, quite directly, to be sexually prolific.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 06-11-06 04:53 AM, in Assuming Jesus had a child... Link
Originally posted by Kario
Childbirth is womans punishment for the first sin.
According to whom?
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 06-11-06 05:13 AM, in Assuming Jesus had a child... Link
Sure, I'd like an exact quote. Because that defies any sort of theology I'm familiar with.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 06-11-06 02:16 PM, in Assuming Jesus had a child... Link
In any case, citing the Old Testament as evidence to support any modern Christian claim is a bit of a stretch. In many ways it stands as a sort of law book more than a book of worship, setting guidelines that are so far removed from the modern world that they are essentially obsolete. That's not to say that it has no value - as the first half of the holy text, it is certainly significant - but for a less misleading perception of modern Christianity, the New Testament is what you'll need to use almost exclusively.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 06-12-06 01:00 AM, in Assuming Jesus had a child... Link
Originally posted by Jomb
Maybe I'm wrong, heck i'm not even a christian, but i did take a college class on comparative religions. In that class i was taught that in christianity, eve's eating of the apple was symbolic of knowledge of sex, which is the origional sin.
Could've been a matter of a particular professor's perception of the issue. I've had my share of teachers who profess specific views that are somewhat less than plausible, or at least less than popular, and sometimes they need to be taken with a grain of salt.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 06-12-06 01:39 AM, in The Soccer Thread! (Bet you weren't expecting THAT when you saw "Stefan Postma" and "sex tape".) Link
I'm in it for Germany, Trinidad and Tobago, Argentina, Mexico, the US, Brazil, South Korea, and Spain, for each of groups A through H respectively. I love Germany's keepers; I'm pulling for an underdog in T&T (though their chances are slim); I'm a huge fan of the Latin American style of soccer as opposed to its European counterpart, which accounts for Argentina, Mexico, and Brazil; I'm a fan of America, of course; and South Korea and Spain are essentially arbitrary choices.

Just to comment, has anyone witnessed some of the glorious saves that have been made in just the first two days of competition? Angola's keeper pulled out a few good ones, but there was also a beautiful touch by the one from...Trinidad? I don't even remember which nation it was, to be honest.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 06-12-06 02:55 AM, in Assuming Jesus had a child... Link
Originally posted by Billiards Koopa
I find that God not wanting us to have sex is like handing a Crack Addict some Cocane and punishng him for snorting it. Retarded!
...to repeat, no sane theologian will tell you that God does not want use to have sex.

Originally posted by beneficii
Er, this thread seems to be veering off-topic chotto (a bit). It seems like it's becoming a discussion just about sex being the original sin, which is fine as part of the subject, but you must remember there are other portions of the subject to discuss, such as whether the Gnostics were true. This discussion, unfortunately, seems to be getting into a discussion of sex as the original sin for its own sake. Please veer back or start a new thread on sex being the original sin.
Maybe that's just an indication that the original topic has either been exhausted or is simply not as engaging as what the thread's become. Why is it such common practice to encourage members to discuss a topic that, if left to themselves, they would not pursue? Why is it the job of the moderator to tell posters what they should or should not be writing about? It's not as if the thread starter is complaining that his topic has been hijacked or anything like that, so why not just leave well-enough alone?

(In retrospect, that sounds a bit aggressive, even though it's not intended to. So, don't read too far into it.)
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 06-19-06 03:51 AM, in Assuming Jesus had a child... Link
Which leads me to wonder why Catholicism is so frequently targeted, to the exclusion of most other Christian sects. And I mean that legitimately, not just as some sort of indignant comment: why is anti-Catholic sentiment more accepted, or at least more widespread, than criticism that targets Protestantism or even most other mainstream religions?
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 06-19-06 07:43 AM, in Assuming Jesus had a child... Link
Thank you for contributing nothing.

Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 06-25-06 10:55 PM, in Assuming Jesus had a child... Link
Originally posted by Jomb
Isn't the commandment "thou shall not covet thy neighbors wife"? That sounds more like "dont lust after someone else's woman". If it was no sex till marriage, would'nt the commandment be more like "though shall not covet any other than they wife"?
It's not as if every sin there is is covered directly in the Ten Commandments. Just because it doesn't appear specifically does not mean it's perfectly alright. I don't recall "thall shall not torture kittens," but you can be fairly certain that our God is not a god that delights in the suffering of adorable little animals.

Essentially, sex is not itself a sin, but it becomes one if abused or if performed outside of allowable boundaries. Specifically, extramarital sex is forbidden, not because of the act but because of the context; contact of that sort is disallowed without the commitment of marriage.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 5920 days
Last view: 5908 days
Posted on 06-26-06 01:40 AM, in elder scrolls oblivion rating change Link
The thing is, the nudity was provided by the developers. It took a third party mod to unlock it, but it was there. Which befuddles me, because I can't imagine why the creators would need to provide that sort of thing when, first, they knew the kind of trouble it would lead to, and second, an equivalent mod would certainly be released by the community within a brief period of the game's release.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Silvershield


ABII

Acmlmboard 1.92.999, 9/17/2006
©2000-2006 Acmlm, Emuz, Blades, Xkeeper

Page rendered in 0.036 seconds; used 459.48 kB (max 592.61 kB)