Community Chat

[TheMemphisVette]

interesting thread for sure.

for me i manage my own morals.  i let others worry about their own.

when i meet my maker i will know if i managed mine well.

[tansy]

@Iluvhandbags:  And I believe we do not have a soul whether you choose to believe it or not.  

...We are NOT animals! We do in fact have complete control over our instincts. That's what sets us apart from the animals. Unlike animals, we have a soul whether you chose to believe it or not...

---

[Iluvhandbags]

---

@Tinkrbl44
Your original post was actually quite scornful of traditional marriage and more conservative values.

And we do have control over our instincts.....those survival instincts that you mentioned are always overriden when one commits suicide. Otherwise people wouldn't die, would they?

I'm not opposed to anyone having a different belief system than my own. That's the beauty of freedom of choice. But I do take great umbrage with being told that having said beliefs is narrow minded. That in and of itself is being narrow minded. I do not have a "membership" with God but I do have an awesome relationship with Him! Couldn't live without Him!

I also have no arguement with you. Hope you have a great day too!





@Tinkrbl44 wrote:

@Iluvhandbags

Oh brother ....  You are either just trying to put words in my mouth ... or you didn't even bother to actually read my post.   You misunderstood a few things .... 

Nowhere did I "scorn" the family unit ..... nor did I say fathers weren't necessary for human beings.   I did say that often fathers weren't necessary for animals, after procreation, but I guess you just ignored that in an attempt to make a point.   OF COURSE we are not animals .... and I don't see where I said we were.  Actually, I was pointing out the differences an anthropologist discussed in her book. 

No, we do NOT have complete control over our instincts.  Many don't even have complete control over their impulses ... which I think is the word you meant.   If someone is holding your head under water to drown you, your instinct is to fight back to get some air in your lungs.  I don't know how you think anyone can fully "control" that instinct and just give in to letting themselves drown.   

There are hundreds of religions in the world, and their teachings vary quite a bit.    Standing back and looking at a comparison, I do find it a bit amusing that every religion professes to have some special "in" with God ... probably to maintain membership.  They can't all be right, since their teachings are often contradictory.  Surely you can understand that point. 

You are entitled to your opinions, and to select the teachings of any religion you want.   However, not everyone thinks what you believe is "right" ....  it's just what you choose to believe.  No argument from me on that, so don't put words in my mouth.   Have a nice day.  

---

@Iluvhandbags wrote:

---

@Tinkrbl44 wrote:

 

---

@LinaL@Plaid Pants_2

Honestly, I find some of the rather narrow views here quite surprising.   We're aware (I hope) that animals engage in sexual activity when fertilization is imminent.  "In heat" is the term that comes to mind, and they do it without benefit of marriage, LOL.  (I hope that doesn't mean they are subject to eternal damnation, ha ha ha)

I remember a well known anthropologist commenting on the differences between sex for animals and for humans.   The gist of it was that Mother Nature (my reference) saw to the next generation differently with different species.  For animals, after impregnation, the father was rarely necessary.  Mom could have and nurture the babies on her own in most cases, and the kids were adults in less than a year.   Job accomplished!

For humans, continued loving bonding reinforcement was really necessary because the job of bringing babies to adulthood took almost 2 decades, and Mom continued to need Dad's help.   The sexual bonding had to continue without impregnation every single time, so it was likely Dad would stick around while his young were being raised.

Another interesting fact was that, going way back to the cave man days, human children that resemble Dad were more likely to survive because it was much more difficult for a man to abandon children that he could see himself in.     

Nevertheless, this was for the survival of the human species, and they didn't need to sign up and follow any of the hundreds of religions to know what to do.   Human nature overrode anyone's religious rule book.

---

Calling someone narrow minded because they follow religous beliefs different from your own is in fact as narrow minded as you claim them to be!

We are NOT animals! We do in fact have complete control over our instincts. That's what sets us apart from the animals. Unlike animals, we have a soul whether you chose to believe it or not.

Your scorn of the idea of a family unit and the absolute need for a father in a child's life is actually quite sad. The effects of fatherless children in our society today is disheartening and troubling. If this is survival of the fitness,  ???   no thanks! I'm not interested.

---

---

[Iluvhandbags]

---

@tansy wrote:

@Iluvhandbags:  And I believe we do not have a soul whether you choose to believe it or not.  

...We are NOT animals! We do in fact have complete control over our instincts. That's what sets us apart from the animals. Unlike animals, we have a soul whether you chose to believe it or not...

---

---

Your choice to believe or not!  But by the way.....many non-religious people also believe that we have a soul. Hugh Heffner himself was quoted to mention the belief of the body, soul and spirit. What happens to said soul after we die is a course for debate but many do believe.

[Noel7]

Science lists us as animals, in the mammal family.

And... those of us who are Caucasian are not 100 percent human. We are also part Neanderthal.

[QueenDanceALot]

I'm really wondering still what Hefner's "vision" wa, aside from seeing young women who he found sexually attractive, naked and fawning over him.

I know there were some good interviews in PLAYBOY, but let's be real, that wasn't the draw of hte magazine.  It was a standing joike, really.  "Oh, yeah, you bought if for the articles, HAHAHAHAHA"

I do think that Hefner was only slightly less odious that Guccione (just a purveyor of sleaze) and maybe a lot less than that mega sleazebag, Flint.  Ugh.

[Noel7]

I don't know if we can say we have control over our instincts.  Think of all the religious leaders and others who lost control at times.

[Free2be]

There hasn't been a period in time when women were not somehow objectified.  Some men find a way to profit from it.  Some women benefit, most others have or had no choice in the matter.  I'm no more offended by the magazines than by women denied a vote or treated as belongings like cattle or furniture from the beginning of time.

At least Larry Flynt won the right to free speech (re lawsuit by a religious profiteer) before the Supreme Court.  That's more than any other smut perveyor has done for society.

As for Mr. Hefner, he is resting in peace and nobody can take that away from him.  I'm sure the Mansion will be put to a different use by the owner, at least he was gracious to agree to Hefner's living there until he died.  People can be kind even if they have an interest in someone's demise and that speaks well of humanity in a noisy sea of condemnation.

[QueenDanceALot]

I see nothing wrong with the naked female form.  Not at all.

I find a lot wrong with sleazebags who exploit them, though.