Discuss your Opinion!

[BTGBullseye]

Sometimes if I find something that rings profoundly with me, I think "That'd be nice as a tattoo". But I'll likely never get one. It's the permanent-ness. I guess I haven't found something I'd want tattooed yet. It would need to be something I'd want to carry on me for the rest of my life, and that means it needs to be incredibly personal and significant to me. Maybe I'll come across something when I'm older.

 

Other people can get tattoos if they like. Their body and such.

+1

 

Whilst this thread is about opinions, I do feel the need to point out here that the initial claim was yours and he refuted your sources as insufficient. The burden of proof lies with you to better prove your claim, not for him to dispute it.

So if he decides he doesn't want to accept any sources, that means I must be wrong? There are limits to the burden of proof when it comes to non-judicial proceedings. If this 'burden of proof' was a valid functioning practice throughout history, then the world would still be officially flat, and anything that was even the slightest bit controversial would be thrown out because people didn't want to believe that someone had any knowledge about it.

 

I'm done with this section of discussion though, and won't post about it again.

[Reverend_UshankaCat_]

I think tatoos look best if they are about something that is very important to you, as opposed to just being for decoration. So generally whether getting a tattoo is a good or a bad thing depends on the tattoo itself.

That being said, for me the only thing I'd have tattoed (and I'm sorry for bringing religion into this AGAIN) is a symbol of my christian faith. I have some cool ideas for the design and where I'd put it, but the problem is that on the other hand there's a bible passage that says tatoos are bad [citation needed!].

I'm not gonna think worse of a person just because he/she has a tattoo though, its just something I personally wouldn't do.

[rliant1864]

I think tatoos look best if they are about something that is very important to you, as opposed to just being for decoration. So generally whether getting a tattoo is a good or a bad thing depends on the tattoo itself.

That being said, for me the only thing I'd have tattoed (and I'm sorry for bringing religion into this AGAIN) is a symbol of my christian faith. I have some cool ideas for the design and where I'd put it, but the problem is that on the other hand there's a bible passage that says tatoos are bad [citation needed!].

I'm not gonna think worse of a person just because he/she has a tattoo though, its just something I personally wouldn't do.

 

Leviticus 19:28. At least it isn't vague, the accepted translation is tattoo or mark in almost every version.

 

Just a quick Google search, not an actual Biblical scholar.

[BTGBullseye]

Leviticus 19:28. At least it isn't vague, the accepted translation is tattoo or mark in almost every version.

 

Just a quick Google search, not an actual Biblical scholar.

The way I always read that was that you shouldn't mark your body in a way detracts from God. All of the markings from that time were for other gods, so it would make sense to say "don't mark yourself" as a way of saying "quit worshiping false gods". (just my 2¢)

[rliant1864]

Leviticus 19:28. At least it isn't vague, the accepted translation is tattoo or mark in almost every version.

 

Just a quick Google search, not an actual Biblical scholar.

The way I always read that was that you shouldn't mark your body in a way detracts from God. All of the markings from that time were for other gods, so it would make sense to say "don't mark yourself" as a way of saying "quit worshiping false gods". (just my 2¢)

 

That's true. When I get around to reading the Bible I'll probably go once through as word of the law and then another as spirit of the law and see how different those end up being. Maybe I'll write a paper on it or something for my own entertainment.

[BTGBullseye]

Yeah, you need to do a lot of history research to get an accurate feel for the spirit of the law, and even then you'll have biblical scholars that'll argue with you over it to no end. (ironic isn't it?)

[rliant1864]

Yeah, you need to do a lot of history research to get an accurate feel for the spirit of the law, and even then you'll have biblical scholars that'll argue with you over it to no end. (ironic isn't it?)

 

Haha, but isn't it a rite of passage as a true Bible reader to create my own interpretation? It's what everyone else does. Maybe I'll found my own church for those sweet donations, just need a cool otherworldy name for it.

[BTGBullseye]

Good luck with that... I'm going to stick to Catholic myself. (BTW, the different orthodox churches are still Catholic, and most of them acknowledge this)

[Vapymid]

Crikey... So much stuff went on here in my absence...

 

Jeb, as you're the owner of this thread and a mod as well - a few questions:

- is that OK if I'll post on some of the older topics here?

- also, if yes, should I cram all in one post or can I post more than once (that may look like multiple posting by me in that case, if nobody else will post anything in between)?

 

Regards

[Jeb_CC]

Semi-important update: I am going to edit the first post of this thread, adding a sort of contents page. :3 If somebody wants to refer back to a past subject, they can! As long as they say something like; "In regards to: subject #10 - ..." That way if somebody misses out, they can easily just continue talking about it, and it'll keep everything all nice and organised!

 

I answered before you questioned! So yeah, go ahead. X3

I recommend just adding a post... then editing that post whenever you want. :3 Whenever you have time to look at one of the subjects and reply to. So like... respond to the latest topic. X3 Then edit that post with; "In regards to Subject#9..." Or something similar. :3 It's just more convenient. And knowing you'll be editing that specific one post frequently, I'll be more inclined to re-read it. X3

[Vapymid]

Alright! I'll do as you say, Ma'am

 

Subject #8 Anti-vaccinators

 

In general, I consider vaccine "refuseniks" either simple-minded or ignorant. More the former, because one has to be a bit stupid in these days and age to believe in anti-vaccine conspiracies when you can just easily go and learn what vaccines are and how they work and realise why they are needed.

 

But of course, all it not so simple. There is a balance of a very small risk of a reaction to a vaccine + its efficacy against the potential damage that an unopposed infection may do. The more serious the disease - the better the argument for vaccination because the consequence of infection are so dire - like tetanus, for example.

 

For other diseases - like flu - the risk of the damage is low and the efficacy of vaccines is also extremely low, so there is a very poor case for total vaccinations.

 

In addition, there is also what's called herd immunity - which is basically the group protection that arises when enough people are vaccinated against a disease. In that case even if an unvaccinated person gets the disease, the chances are that he/she won't meet another unvaccinated and the disease won't spread.

 

What happens when the vaccinations are low - the recent outbreaks of measles in the UK are perfect examples.

 

So, that's why governments are so keen on vaccinations. However, the ideas like refusing unvaccinated people the use of public transport are clearly moronic. They are stupid, ineffective and unenforceable. They are usually cultivated by ultra-left and ultra-right fringes and normally never get to be even voted on...

 

Vaccinations are unhealthy for the immune system, I think. Our immune systems are best left to fend for themselves. It's the only way they can get stronger

 

This is not how our bodies work. Vaccines as similar to computer anti-virus definitions. Your anti-virus will only catch those infections that are included in your definitions file but it will catch them before they can do any damage. If you get infected by a totally new virus - it will deliver its payload before you can find it is even there. Because your anti-virus doesn't look for it - it doesn't have its signature. And then you will have to remove it manually and if it's a crypto - it's way too late. You are going to have to pay the ransom or kiss goodbye to your data.

 

Same is with our immune system. Infections for which our immune system already has anti-bodies will be dealt with quickly, before they have a chance to spread. But new infections will invade your body unopposed and by the time your immune system responds and creates new anti-bodies, the infection may overwhelm your body's ability to sustain itself and you die. So, yes, your immune system will eventually create a cure but what good does it do if you're already dead?

 

Take Ebola - a perfect example.

 

So, no, vaccines are amazingly effective and important tool protecting us from early and gruesome deaths or life-long disabilities. It simply needs to be used properly.

 

Regards

[Alyxx Thorne]

Alright! I'll do as you say, Ma'am

 

Subject #8 Anti-vaccinators

 

In general, I consider vaccine "refuseniks" either simple-minded or ignorant. More the former, because one has to be a bit stupid in these days and age to believe in anti-vaccine conspiracies when you can just easily go and learn what vaccines are and how they work and realise why they are needed.

 

But of course, all it not so simple. There is a balance of a very small risk of a reaction to a vaccine + its efficacy against the potential damage that an unopposed infection may do. The more serious the disease - the better the argument for vaccination because the consequence of infection are so dire - like tetanus, for example.

 

For other diseases - like flu - the risk of the damage is low and the efficacy of vaccines is also extremely low, so there is a very poor case for total vaccinations.

 

In addition, there is also what's called herd immunity - which is basically the group protection that arises when enough people are vaccinated against a disease. In that case even if an unvaccinated person gets the disease, the chances are that he/she won't meet another unvaccinated and the disease won't spread.

 

What happens when the vaccinations are low - the recent outbreaks of measles in the UK are perfect examples.

 

So, that's why governments are so keen on vaccinations. However, the ideas like refusing unvaccinated people the use of public transport are clearly moronic. They are stupid, ineffective and unenforceable. They are usually cultivated by ultra-left and ultra-right fringes and normally never get to be even voted on...

 

Vaccinations are unhealthy for the immune system, I think. Our immune systems are best left to fend for themselves. It's the only way they can get stronger

 

This is not how our bodies work. Vaccines as similar to computer anti-virus definitions. Your anti-virus will only catch those infections that are included in your definitions file but it will catch them before they can do any damage. If you get infected by a totally new virus - it will deliver its payload before you can find it is even there. Because your anti-virus doesn't look for it - it doesn't have its signature. And then you will have to remove it manually and if it's a crypto - it's way too late. You are going to have to pay the ransom or kiss goodbye to your data.

 

Same is with our immune system. Infections for which our immune system already has anti-bodies will be dealt with quickly, before they have a chance to spread. But new infections will invade your body unopposed and by the time your immune system responds and creates new anti-bodies, the infection may overwhelm your body's ability to sustain itself and you die. So, yes, your immune system will eventually create a cure but what good does it do if you're already dead?

 

Take Ebola - a perfect example.

 

So, no, vaccines are amazingly effective and important tool protecting us from early and gruesome deaths or life-long disabilities. It simply needs to be used properly.

 

Regards

I kinda prefer not getting sick with a really serious disease... regardless if it's natural or not...

[Binky The Rabbit]

All the beer, curry, cookies, and points to Vapy.

[Vapymid]

Aw, thanks, man! And the beer goes to you!

 

Subject #9: Arranged marriages

 

Just to clarify - by arranged marriage I mean the practice where parents choose a partner for their child themselves and impose their will on them, disregarding the child's own feelings and opinion.

 

I don't think there is a worse form of personal abuse than such practice apart from actual rape and murder. And it goes beyond just making the lives of one or two people miserable. It creates or perpetrates a society built on hatred at the core of the key unit of it - the family. Couples who live in hatred towards each other will also hate their children and will also see their children as a commodity to sell to the highest bidder. And their children will be like that too...

 

Once you have a society built on that, it becomes a tumour of humanity. It eats the resources around it but contributes nothing. Nothing creative or new or progressive comes out of such culture.

 

So, I suppose the short answer - I'm totally against it!

 

Now, if we are talking about parents simply arranging for contacts with potential suitors for their child, while the latter still has the last word - that's totally different. I'm OK with that, no problem, even though I personally won't do that...

 

Ah, Jeb... Sorry, I disobeyed your instructions this time, but I thought as Alyxx and Binky replied, posted after me - it would be more appropriate for me to make a new post. I'm sorry. Feel free to slap me for that.

*turns his cheek to you, closes eyes, winces in expectation*

 

Regards

[Jeb_CC]

D'aw. >w< *readies to slap, but ends up just giving your cheek a gentle playful pat*

Nah, it's alright. I didn't think that people might want to respond to your stuff. XP How silly of me! This works out fine though. :3

 

Out of everyone in an arranged marriage, I feel more sorry for the child! They're the one that has to legally grow up with them till they're 18. :I Whereas, if the marriage goes really sour, one of the partners could just walk out if they wanted to. Of course, there'd be complications. But at least they'd have money, whilst a child would have nothing. If that makes any sense. X3

[Vapymid]

I would say in the societies where arranged marriage is acceptable the divorce is usually not -as it is seen as defiance of parental will and a "dishonour" to the family. The punishment is often death or disfigurement at the hands of close relatives.

 

But I agree about the children. It must be soul-crushing to live in the world in which you appeared unwanted and hated by those who conceived you in the first place...

 

OK, and now - Subject #10: Technology for kids

 

It's a difficult one... There are aspects of learning and getting familiar and comfortable with technology and those are good and necessary. Then there are elements of obsession and when the use of devices replaces the other parts of the child's life - those are bad.

 

But the reason for the obsession? I've been trying to determine for myself what makes children and people in general so attached to the new comms technology... I think it's not really the technology itself. It's the connection with other people. Be it through games or through chat or forums - it's the communication with people that is addictive, not the devices themselves.

 

I remember myself in my youth - there was a period when I could spend hours on the phone with friends - and that was an old-fashioned phone. One-to-one fixed line. The phone itself looking a bit like this:

 

 

And those were friends I would see daily face-to-face anyway. And we still used the phone... So, I spent in total the same amount of time communicating as kids do today but more of it was face-to-face doing stuff together or being at school.

 

Really, it then comes down not to whether technology takes too much out of child's time but what kind of interaction they should have with other people - direct face to face or technology - a question of a different balance. A question of whether our social life in the newly connected world should be concentrated online at the expense of real life experiences or should more efforts be made to prioritise the IRL part?

 

I don't know. Based on my own experience - I'd say real life should be the priority. But time will tell. We are living through a big experiment... At some point our civilisation will collect enough data about that and it will either accept the situation or cause us to make changes...

 

Regards

[Vapymid]

Subject #11 - "Playing" with the dead

 

Ah. I think there are two ways to look at it. One is my personal perspective on my own dead body. Well, I really don't care what happens to it when I'm gone. You can cut it, burn it, eat it, feed it to animals, take out organs for transplantation or whatever - I won't mind in the least.

 

However, I know that for a lot of people a dead body represents a symbol around which they build their own coping mechanism. They feel a strong need for some form of "respect" to be shown to that symbol as for them it transposes into respect towards the deceased person.

 

I can understand some of it - to show outward respect feels a proper thing to do, to placate the mourners and to satisfy their sense of attachment to the person who is now dead. Basically, doing that to the body we in fact are helping the living to cope. I can certainly accept that.

 

I totally don't understand objections against organs donation though... For me it's inconceivable why anyone should be upset if a portion of a body could be salvaged to help another living human - especially, as otherwise that portion of the body will be completely wasted or burned to ashes.

 

Also, I don't understand the whole thing about "closure". Why are people so hung up about it? Why do they need to see at least a piece of a body to move on? Is it really a part of human psychology or is it a result of some cultural indoctrination? For me there was never any need for any "closure". If someone is dead - they're dead, that's closure enough for me...

 

Subject #12 - Spirits

 

Well, that's going to be a short one for me The only spirits whose existence I recognise and believe in are those found in bottles...

 

Anything "paranormal" simply doesn't exist for me in reality. I don't mind too much if I come across it in a book or a movie if that's a plot device in an otherwise interesting setting... But if someone tells me seriously they are in touch with spirits - all they get from me is an ironic remark or a condescending smile... Sorry!

 

And, yes, it is now known that human senses of presence can be affected/triggered by natural or technogenic phenomena such as infrasound. That accounts for the feelings of "hauntedness" or phantom touches. Everything else - mediums talking to the dead, ectoplasm, invocations - is invariably proven as scams and fraud and is not worth spending brain cells on thinking about.

 

Regards

[Jeb_CC]

X3 I love what you have to say about things. So interesting!

 

@#10: What I really hate is when people say; "Stop using your phone so much and be social." - That's like... alright to say if you're in company with other people. But it's rude. X3 So don't say it that way in the first place. But if I'm in a room with 5 other adults drinking alcohol, talking about their career, and I've got nothing better to do - I WILL go on my phone to talk to other people. So don't say; "Get off your phone. Be social." When I see myself having absolutely no contribution to the conversation what-so-ever. XD It pisses me off, dammit. And what, do you think me looking at a phone screen means I'm 100% oblivious to you guys? I see you waving your fucking hand behind my phone you twat. I'm not blind. I'm just choosing to ignore you cause you're being a dick.

X3 Okay, sorry. This is turning into a rant now. XD But really, isn't it such an amazing thought to be able to whip something out of your pocket and see something that somebody said all the way across the world? That's freaking awesome! And it's addicting to see... to hear... to be able to share stories with other people all around the globe. And with technology being given to kids... it's giving them more opportunities to be actually decent at this stuff. XD There are so many jobs today that rely on technological skills. My friends who were not brought up with technology, dammit, they're so dumb with computers. XD If there's ever a computer problem, they come ask me. Then there's me, who started playing video games on the PC at 5 years old. XP And then I'd whine at my dad and brother for not letting me play Half Life and Team Fortress 2! XD Oh boy was I innocent.

 

@11: I've never actually met anyone who was bothered by the thought of somebody taking their organs for the good of someone else. X3

"Is it really a part of human psychology or is it a result of some cultural indoctrination? For me there was never any need for any "closure"." Perhaps people do it because of denial? You know, if somebody dies, it's usually like; "NAH MATE. THEY'RE GOOD. THEY'RE AAALL GOOD." X3 And that will last for a few days - unless you really see the full hard truth in front of them, which usually snaps them out of it. XP

 

@12: I always feel so awkward when people start talking to me about their beliefs of spirits. XD I just kinda nod and go; "Yeah, hmm... yeah." As if I could relate to them - which I can't. XP Sorry. Ouija boards... I always think it's bollocks. X3 But that's just me. I haven't tried one before, don't plan on trying either. Not because of ignorance... but because apparently if I do, I'll release evil spirits. XD So even though I don't believe in that stuff, I'd rather not risk pissing off the anti-Christ.

 

Now Vappy, would you mind if I started a new subject? Would you still be able to catch up then? Or do you want me to wait? I'll wait for you. I've had to wait for you before... *growls* X3 It's alright though... this waiting will probably be more bearable. I just want to know, in case others want to get on with this thread and start discussing something new!

[Vapymid]

@Jeb - no, I don't mind at all. Go ahead with the new subjects!

 

Re #10. There are plenty of situations when using your phone would be rude. Mostly, when you are expected to participate in the social or business discussions that are happening around you and pay attention. Using your phone in such situations, unless it's an emergency - will be quite rightly taken as disrespect.

 

Examples would be a formal dinner or a board meeting.

 

If you are not an active participant - I don't see the harm in using the phone though. Usually, there is an unspoken line dividing those sitting around the table from those elsewhere in the room. In situations like this, though

But if I'm in a room with 5 other adults drinking alcohol, talking about their career, and I've got nothing better to do - I WILL go on my phone to talk to other people.

I'd say you should use your phone - just to show the rest of the company that you are not involved and don't want to be involved in their socialisation, the way they are going about it.

 

Re #11 Well, apparently there are a lot of people like that. They refuse to allow their deceased relative's organs to be used, as if it was their inheritance somehow. Beats me, why?

 

And closure - I understand some degree of denial may exist. But if your loved one was on a plane that was last heard from several months ago - what else do you need to accept that they're dead and to move on?

 

Re #12 Hehe This

Ouija boards

is invariably a scam... Try to look under the table and see the panicked reaction of the "Medium"

 

Subject #13 - Physical punishment

 

I accept, to a degree, the need to physically punish children. However, I only find it acceptable for parents to do it and only to their own children. Not for anyone else - not teachers, not relatives, nobody.

 

Also, the purpose of the punishment should be snapping out of a tantrum or deterring from dangerous behaviour - not inflicting pain as such. Beating for pain - that would just be child abuse for me.

 

Also, the age is important. Once the child is mature enough - the physical punishment becomes humiliating, more than anything else. And this is totally counterproductive. It just generates resentment and resistance, more than compliance. Basically, by the age of 10 - 12 maximum, that should stop. I'm talking about boys - have no idea about girls though. Wouldn't probably spank a girl older than 6 or 7...

 

Also, once the child knows the concept of getting a clip round the ear or being spanked - a mere reminder or a threat will work in most cases and - that's important - whether it's actual punishment or a threat, it must only be used as the last resort and very sparingly. Otherwise, if it becomes routine, the child will be desensitised and the punishment will be pointless.

 

Finally - no slaps on the face.

 

I suppose, my attitude may sound a bit archaic here

 

Regards

[Jeb_CC]

I suppose, my attitude may sound a bit archaic here

Regards

 

Of course it is! How old are you now? What was it... 254 years old? XP

Jokes, jokes. XP

 

Subject #15 - Exotic Pets

You've heard of people owning pet lions and tigers, even bears! But should we? I'm sure, these animals can be tamed, I'm quite sure. But is it a good idea? X3 I think... if the animal is commonly seen in a zoo, you shouldn't keep it as a pet. These animals need an environment to run around in and be able to stretch. Unless you own a very large plot of land and keep it in a safe place, then sure, go ahead. X3 Why the hell not. But keeping it in like, your house, or your backyard - I find that just rather cruel. Not to mention, cats and dogs - they get violent sometimes, but they're far easier to handle than having a bear mowing down your ass.

Smaller exotic pets though... they're nice. X3 I guess pet snakes are sorta on the fence when it comes to 'exotic'. The world hires people to specifically handle rogue snakes! It's not exactly a common household pet. But snakes are nice, they're lazy. XD Animals like these are I'd say okay to keep. But I guess as far as my ideas go, the bigger the animal, the less likely you should be allowed to keep it. XP Size-ism?