The Gaming Den

PhoneLobster wrote:The whole reason NFP is OK is because it's inconvenient, hard to do, and unreliable. Sex should be a dangerous chore, ESPECIALLY for the girls, don't EVER imagine Tzor and his ilk have any other motivation. Their "openess" and "respect" language is very deliberate Orwellian double speak. They choose those words particularly because they know the actions they are defending are the direct opposite and deeply disrespectful to women and their well being.

I think this quote is very telling. I don't believe Tzor was actually saying he believed it, but from the context I believe he was admitting that the people who make the rules for him do. Or at the very least the people who originally made the rules, which have not been changed, believe that:

The general argument is that the natural state of a woman should be mostly pregnant or nursing.

Tzor may not be that much of a sexist fucker. But the ideals he perpetuates are.

He is arguing in favor of the Catholic position, he endorsed it in his first post on the matter and his response to my pointing that out was not a denial but rather an elaboration.

He can feel free to go and denounce his own last two or three pages of posts if he wants, but I'm pretty sure he stands by them in all their bumbling crazy.

Just my personal take on the general issue: I try not to take advice about sex from virgins.

PhoneLobster wrote:The whole reason NFP is OK is because it's inconvenient, hard to do, and unreliable. Sex should be a dangerous chore, ESPECIALLY for the girls, don't EVER imagine Tzor and his ilk have any other motivation. Their "openess" and "respect" language is very deliberate Orwellian double speak. They choose those words particularly because they know the actions they are defending are the direct opposite and deeply disrespectful to women and their well being.

Believe me, I am well aware of that. I have extensive dealings with these types of fuckers.

I was pointing that specifically out, and that is the sole reason I keep pushing this issue, because 'openness' is a just a smoke screen for their real goals. Some of them are so crazy that they have confused the means for the goals at some point, but religion only exists in the first place because some people got confused about cause and effect, so it's not surprising that they'd do it again in other matters.

PhoneLobster wrote:The whole reason NFP is OK is because it's inconvenient, hard to do, and unreliable.

It doesn't have to be - as I linked to before, they make cool little computers that do all the work for you. They're comparable in price to normal birth control, and they claim the same efficacy rate as the pill.

PhoneLobster wrote:He is arguing in favor of the Catholic position, he endorsed it in his first post on the matter

He didn't endorse anything. I asked Tzor - because he's knowledgeable on the subject of Catholic Churchness - about the Church's stance on a subject, and he repeated it. He wasn't arguing. He wasn't endorsing it. He was answering my question.

And rather than accept the fact that it was an objective answer to a question, and not, in fact, tzor's personal opinion, people jumped up and started shouting, "Nuh-uh!" as though their yelling at one Catholic guy on an obscure message board was going to mysteriously change the fact that the Catholic Church has the official stance that it does.

And really, I should have been forward thinking enough to realize that asking a question about the Catholic Church is going to result in the same tired shit-flinging responses that always arise when the subject of Cathol comes up. My bad, Tzor.

Maj wrote:He didn't endorse anything. I asked Tzor - because he's knowledgeable on the subject of Catholic Churchness - about the Church's stance on a subject, and he repeated it. He wasn't arguing. He wasn't endorsing it. He was answering my question.

And rather than accept the fact that it was an objective answer to a question, and not, in fact, tzor's personal opinion, people jumped up and started shouting, "Nuh-uh!" as though their yelling at one Catholic guy on an obscure message board was going to mysteriously change the fact that the Catholic Church has the official stance that it does.

And really, I should have been forward thinking enough to realize that asking a question about the Catholic Church is going to result in the same tired shit-flinging responses that always arise when the subject of Cathol comes up. My bad, Tzor.

Yes he did. He explicitly said that it is a more proper attitude towards procreation.

He also explicitly made a series of big ass posts about how right it was and made it very clear that it is his actual position. When PL asked him specifically if it was his actual position, he never felt the need to deny this at all, and continued stating not "The Catholic church says X is right." But "X is right."

Cielingcat wrote:I think this quote is very telling. I don't believe Tzor was actually saying he believed it, but from the context I believe he was admitting that the people who make the rules for him do. Or at the very least the people who originally made the rules, which have not been changed, believe that:

The general argument is that the natural state of a woman should be mostly pregnant or nursing.

Tzor may not be that much of a sexist fucker. But the ideals he perpetuates are.

First and foremost, there is a general difference between the principle and the application of the principle. The Church also does not believe in sex outside of marriage. On the other hand if you are having sex outside of marriage and not using a condom you are either stupid or you love playing Russian Roulette (that’s an inclusive “or” by the way).

I am simply promoting an ideal and the teaching of the Church. I would never say “no condoms under any circumstances.”

As for the second statement I will say this, medically speaking, it certainly is starting to look as though that seems to be the case. Not that I’m saying that’s some sort of ideal; it ain’t. But given this medial situation and the potential for serious medical shit to happen if you seriously start to mess with the design (from long term complications due to iron loss from excessive regular periods to potential increase of breast cancer from not lactating) you have to consider the medical steps necessary to compensate for pushing the body outside of the normal operating parameters.

I have one more comment but I will add it to the appropriate quote.

Neeeek wrote:Just my personal take on the general issue: I try not to take advice about sex from virgins.

Good point.

What about virgins who do signifciant study on the web for purposses of writing National Novel Writing Month novels?

No again? Never mind.

Kaelik wrote:Yes he did. He explicitly said that it is a more proper attitude towards procreation.

Two points:

"towards procreation" ... not "towards sex"

The "attitude" is openness as opposed to a self centered attitude towards sex. The willingness to be open to the needs of your partner, for any reason, as opposed to the "I want sex and I want it now!" (You remember that old sitcom ... I really felt sorry for that poor guy.)

This does not imply that you can't have that attitude with condomns, only you can just as well have the opposite attitude.

tzor wrote:This does not imply that you can't have that attitude with condomns, only you can just as well have the opposite attitude.

And you can just as well have the opposite without. It is completely disconnected with the use of birth control, and to even suggest the tiniest link is intellectually dishonest.

Wait a moment.

Tzor is seriously directly linking the openness to the needs of the partner to procreation. (correct attitude to procreation... open to the needs of your partner) Is this another link to the natural state of women being pregnant and in the kitchen, and the basic need for procreation?

Does this mean homosexual sex automatically ignores one of the basic needs of the partner and as such is automatically unsatisfying? Koumei? You ever left feeling unsatisfied because you know theres no chance of getting pregnant? (Rhetorical question)

And wait, excessive regular periods causing iron loss health complications? Don't women lose a whole lot more iron during pregnancy? Something like 20% of women and 50% of pregnant women having anaemia sort of contradicts that the periods are the main problem.

Meanwhile Tzor still hasn't resolved the basic idea that NPF is still not being open to procreation because you know the woman won't get pregnant.

First of all, I'm just the messenger; all I am trying to do is to highlight the way they look at the problem.

I believe the Church's teachings towards homosexual sex is "gravely disordered" and that can be derived from the base teachings (although it does at times sound no more than "ewwwww gross" from a bunch of 5 year olds). Personally speaking I can't see why it can't be centered on the needs of the other.

And since NFP is designed for when to abstain from sex instead of when to have sex I am deliberately not going into the question you raise. Having sex during infertile periods is not the equivalent of having sex with a condom during fertile periods.

Almost forgot, the notion of iron loss due to excessive periods was something I recall reading from an argument that single women should be generally on reduced (or zero period) birth control pill regemens, something I don't think the Church would agree with at all. (Although it is a great principle of double effect.)

tzor wrote:And since NFP is designed for when to abstain from sex instead of when to have sex I am deliberately not going into the question you raise. Having sex during infertile periods is not the equivalent of having sex with a condom during fertile periods.

"I'm going to avoid talking about the thing that makes it obvious I'm retarded." is not an appropriate response to someone asking you that.

I'm not allowed to claim that Catholics eat babies and then turn around and refuse to get into the question of whether or not Catholics eat babies.

Having sex during infertile periods is exactly 100% identical to having sex with a condom while she is fertile. It is also 100% identical to her just not being fertile at any point.

You are specifically choosing to not have children, and you don't get to cop out of that and claim that you are open to procreation when you are specifically not having children because you are not open to having children.

tzor wrote:First of all, I'm just the messenger; all I am trying to do is to highlight the way they look at the problem.

You have yet to deny your earlier endorsement. And your current stance seems to be deliberately not stating whether you support the position on birth control you are describing or whether you oppose it. Some motherhood statement about OTHER topics of sexuality you politely but not specifically disagree with the church on doesn't really cut it.

So I ask you flat out. Do you support this position you so lovingly describe or not?

A yes or no answer will suffice otherwise we can safely put together your endorsement, your lame diversion over "sex" and "procreation" semantics like that meant anything, and your continued reluctance to actually make any kind of definitive statemenssentially as your approval of the whole thing.

All be it a shy kind of approval where you don't dare be caught actually approving of.

Considering your stance on abortion I would be incredibly surprised to find your stance on contraception to be anything other than you are describing.

So double dare, Yes or No, do you agree with the church on this Tzor or is the Pope wrong, stupid and evil?

Having sex during infertile periods is not the equivalent of having sex with a condom during fertile periods.

So when you were having sex during infertile periods it would clearly be totally OK to wear a Condom then just to be sure. Right?

Kaelik wrote:

tzor wrote:And since NFP is designed for when to abstain from sex instead of when to have sex I am deliberately not going into the question you raise. Having sex during infertile periods is not the equivalent of having sex with a condom during fertile periods.

"I'm going to avoid talking about the thing that makes it obvious I'm retarded." is not an appropriate response to someone asking you that.

I do see his point. Tzor mentioned earlier that the way you're supposed to use NPF is to help getting pregnant, not to avoid it. It's sort of like guns in this case (or fire, or any number of other things). It can have "good" and "bad" uses. So, the Catholic church can advocate NPF for helping to get pregnant, but they can't adovcate using it to avoid getting pregnant.

Of course, not being Catholic, I don't agree with the stance, but I do finally see what Tzor was trying to say earlier.

PhoneLobster wrote:So I ask you flat out. Do you support this position you so lovingly describe or not?

There comes a point where one really has to ask, "do you really want the personal opinion of a 48 year old single male?" I support the position as a base, a point on which to start from. Exceptions are made to the rule on an as needed basis. If she wants sex, and she wants it now, and extended foreplay isn't going to cut it and this isn't a good time to get pregnant, (when you are born in july in a culture that gives gifts to you on two dates; your birthday and December 25 the value of a summer birth cannot be underestimated) then I'm using a condom.

PhoneLobster wrote:So when you were having sex during infertile periods it would clearly be totally OK to wear a Condom then just to be sure. Right?

Understanding that if you are not married you should always use a condom, without exception, I think that in general it depends, but I have no objections to it.

RobbyPants wrote:I do see his point. Tzor mentioned earlier that the way you're supposed to use NPF is to help getting pregnant, not to avoid it.

Technically the Church accepts NPF for the "spacing" of pregnancies. It does not promote it to avoid pregnancy for a very extended long term period all together.

RobbyPants wrote:I do see his point. Tzor mentioned earlier that the way you're supposed to use NPF is to help getting pregnant, not to avoid it. It's sort of like guns in this case (or fire, or any number of other things). It can have "good" and "bad" uses. So, the Catholic church can advocate NPF for helping to get pregnant, but they can't adovcate using it to avoid getting pregnant.

Of course, not being Catholic, I don't agree with the stance, but I do finally see what Tzor was trying to say earlier.

Except as I already pointed out. Tzor earlier, the NFP link, and Tzor's quote of the US Catholic Bishops Council all suggest using NFP to avoid getting pregnant.

They don't suggest using it to just get pregnant. They specifically suggest using it to avoid getting pregnant, and then specifically talk about how avoiding choosing very specifically to not get pregnant when having sex because you are not open to procreation is better and more open to procreation than condoms.

And they do it by arguing with analogy, because that's how all people who are totally wrong argue.

Kaelik wrote:Except as I already pointed out. Tzor earlier, the NFP link, and Tzor's quote of the US Catholic Bishops Council all suggest using NFP to avoid getting pregnant.

Oops. Missed that!

So then you support the churches position.

Unless you really want to break it.

Then you throw in a quick extra marital diversion, which not only contradicts your first statement but also means nothing to us unless we know your position on tha acceptability of extra marital sex.

Which I suspect will turn out to be you support the churches position unless you really want to break it.

I know that the "unless you really want to" position you are taking is stupid but I accept it as a traditional Catholic position. They are big on the nudge and the wink and the confessional as a means of bending their own intolerable and insane rules.

I recall seeing once a debate between a Catholic priest and some layman Catholic lady. The lady was all "condoms never you fucking sinners" and the priest was "It's wrong but so are a lot of things, just confess and I'll smooth it all over for you with God".

PhoneLobster wrote:I know that the "unless you really want to" position you are taking is stupid but I accept it as a traditional Catholic position. They are big on the nudge and the wink and the confessional

Yeah, like boy fucking, and cruel beatings. They are wrong, but no ones perfect, so if your priest rapes you, he's really sorry and you should not pursue any action.

Hair shirts are never going to be the rage.

If only going bareback were as popular.

-Crissa

Look, I know all you people have a hate-on for religion, that's fine. I'm not religious myself.

Here's the thing though, Tzor's not going to change his mind because you're flaming him. You're not going to magically change his mind with LOGIC! I'm pretty sure he's heard most of these arguments before, 99% of the Gaming Den members aren't really innovative as much as hateful and antisocial with delusions of eloquence. Seriously, this discussion is getting old.

PhoneLobster, you seem to be of a more Old Testament mindset that all sins are equal and if you break any one to either a minor degree you’re screwed; end of story. That is not the attitude in the New Testament. Not all transgressions are equal and if you repent and try to reform your life, even the most grievous sin is forgivable. Consider that the number one Apostle, who probably would have been called “Rocky” today practically committed treason and was forgiven.

The Church does set high standards, but the Church (the people of God, not the building) also consists of sinners. We try, we fail, we fall, we get up, and we try to do better.

Contrary to popular opinion, marriage is not a “sex license.” It is a sacrament (a sign instituted by Christ for the transmission of grace) of mutual love that leads to new creation. Paul likens the relationship to that of Christ and his Church (whose love led to the cross). Thus the openness to children is a part and parcel of the whole marriage deal. Reasonable attempts to space this openness is acceptable; flat out rejection of the openness is a violation of the entire spirit of the sacrament. The whole thing revolves around the attitude around the process and not the process itself. This is why there are exceptions to the rule because you can have the wrong attitude towards NPF and the right attitude toward a condom.

Count_Arioch_the_28th wrote:Here's the thing though, Tzor's not going to change his mind because you're flaming him. You're not going to magically change his mind with LOGIC!

Count, this isn’t really an argument (a lively debate perhaps) about logic. It is a question of perspective. PL and Kaelik (while trying to get the occasional anti-Religion jab in) are arguing based on end result. I am trying to argue based on the attitude behind the means.