PREACHERS ARE TROLLS

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Look at your threads, now look at this thread.
Now look to your threads again. Now look at this thread again.

Anything is possible with a good sense of humor.

 

[televator]

That's ultimately the funny, yet sad, yet creepy, and ironic part. The child rape is in their minds, not ours...

 

[havanacat]

Sure....whatever.....

What did you want? A citation? :lol:
Everyone knows this through their own research, I'm sure - it's not my job to teach you and to do your research for you.

Ummm never asked you to...my only request is not be so emotional/reactive going forward .

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

What did you want? A citation? :lol:
Everyone knows this through their own research, I'm sure - it's not my job to teach you and to do your research for you.

Ummm never asked you to...my only request is not be so emotional/reactive going forward .

Trollbait, much?

I dropped it a long time ago - and there was no emotion in that beyond a chuckle, simply mocking a mockery.

 

[Demojen]

Just to reiterate a progressive post moving forward on the subject and help keep things on track:

I didn't "target" homosexuality. I actually have gay friends in my life. I do NOT want, however, any gay or, otherwise sexuality being "taught" to 2nd graders....tell my why you think that's a good thing.

What do you mean when you say taught? You don't want sex education being taught in second grade? Are you serious?
I'd like to know why, but I suspect I already know.

Without having actually done any research on the subject matter, you believe that education increases the likelihood of pregnancy in young adults. Would this be accurate?

Sex education doesn't teach you how to jerk off your friends or finger bang your girlfriends. Kids learn that stuff on their own and sex education only helps them Protect themselves in the event they do want to experiment but don't understand the consequences.

Here is some research for you.

Effective Sex Education Does NOT promote Sexual Risks

 

[Lallapalalable]

I was having funny feelings for years before I had sex ed. Coulda helped me out a bit. Hell, I should go naturist, raise my kids only knowing clothes at school and seeing nothing but skin at home (including wee-wees and naa-naas ).

 

[scorpion9]

I

At the same time, I don't think it's right that my property taxes support teaching homosexuality (or any sexuality) is ok to 2nd graders either....
...

...
I didn't "target" homosexuality. I actually have gay friends in my life. I do NOT want, however, any gay or, otherwise sexuality being "taught" to 2nd graders....tell my why you think that's a good thing.

Its only religious practice to feel aversion towards education and knowledge.
My guess is that this idea "teaching sex edd = bad" is also parasitic idea programmed by some cult leaders. Its quite surprising how few of their (religious fanatics) ideas are actually theirs.
How many children do you have havannacat? How many of them have gone "evil" because of sex ed.
How many children in your neighborhood have turned to the dark side because of sex ed?

Any real info behind your "conclusion" other that your cult leaders assertions?

I would advise you to back trace the origins of all your ideas related to atheism or other religions besides your main cult, and throw out any idea that does not have an adequate base in reality. Would you like to know that your brain is not the litter box for clergy?

You seem to have lots of ideas about atheists, but how many atheists have you ever met?
How many of them were evil/immoral, fornicating on the streets, murdering in front of your eyes, worshiping the satan or other book characters, etc etc?
If the answer is close to 0, then you can be sure that your head has been vandalized and full of mental feces.

 

[Demojen]

Its only religious practice to feel aversion towards education and knowledge.
My guess is that this idea "teaching sex edd = bad" is also parasitic idea programmed by some cult leaders. Its quite surprising how few of their (religious fanatics) ideas are actually theirs.
How many children do you have havannacat? How many of them have gone "evil" because of sex ed.
How many children in your neighborhood have turned to the dark side because of sex ed?

Any real info behind your "conclusion" other that your cult leaders assertions?

I would advise you to back trace the origins of all your ideas related to atheism or other religions besides your main cult, and throw out any idea that does not have an adequate base in reality. Would you like to know that your brain is not the litter box for clergy?

You seem to have lots of ideas about atheists, but how many atheists have you ever met?
How many of them were evil/immoral, fornicating on the streets, murdering in front of your eyes, worshiping the satan or other book characters, etc etc?
If the answer is close to 0, then you can be sure that your head has been vandalized and full of mental feces.

Aside from the fact you misquoted a post in this thread and make it look like I said things, that havanacat did, you're characterizing atheism as much as a Christian do.

Lots of satanists don't believe in the existence of God. There is nothing wrong with public displays of affection. If the worst thing people did was show affection in public, we'd be gold. Morals are not born in beliefs that are governed by faith, so turning a dime on the misconception doesn't change it. Like the religious, atheists murder people too.
The answer is nowhere close to 0.

I thank you for the spirit of your remark, but urge a calm head responding to this troll, less we become no better.

 

[scorpion9]

Aside from the fact you misquoted a post in this thread and make it look like I said things, that havanacat did,

Sorry about that.
It wasnt intentional. I got some error about max 2 quotes or something and just deleted one pair of quotes, didnt notice it marked you as the person i was quoting.

There is nothing wrong with public displays of affection.

Agreed, i didn,´t say otherwise

Like the religious, atheists murder people too.
The answer is nowhere close to 0.

Of course they do.
The point of that was to see how many of her ideas about atheism are based on reality. How much of atheist killings, crimes, immorality has she seen. On what do religious base the claim that atheists are more immoral than them.
Statistically it,´s the other way around.

 

[havanacat]

I didn't "target" homosexuality. I actually have gay friends in my life. I do NOT want, however, any gay or, otherwise sexuality being "taught" to 2nd graders....tell my why you think that's a good thing.

What do you mean when you say taught? You don't want sex education being taught in second grade? Are you serious?
I'd like to know why, but I suspect I already know.

Without having actually done any research on the subject matter, you believe that education increases the likelihood of pregnancy in young adults. Would this be accurate?

Sex education doesn't teach you how to jerk off your friends or finger bang your girlfriends. Kids learn that stuff on their own and sex education only helps them Protect themselves in the event they do want to experiment but don't understand the consequences.

Here is some research for you.

Effective Sex Education Does NOT promote Sexual Risks

What I mean is, neither the government (public schools) nor the religious (parochial schools) should be teaching any second grader about sex. That sort of instruction should come from within the child's home.

 

[Demojen]

What I mean is, neither the government (public schools) nor the religious (parochial schools) should be teaching any second grader about sex. That sort of instruction should come from within the child's home.

It does, if you have decent parents.
Again, please identify where teaching about this subject matter in schools has been demonstrated to be harmful, because all of the research I've seen concludes the opposite.

It would be nice to know where you're coming from, because it seems to be, you're implying sex education is too personal to discuss outside of your immediate family.

By that logic, chemistry shouldn't be taught by schools because it teaches kids how to make bombs and become terrorists. You've blown the issue out of proportion and painted all sex education as incompetent and invasive. If parents want to teach their kids about sex, great. That is no reason sex education should not be taught in public school.

If you don't like it, become a teacher and teach your kids at home. Public education doesn't forbid education because it irritates conservatives who misdiagnose sex education as sexual deviance.

 

[havanacat]

What I mean is, neither the government (public schools) nor the religious (parochial schools) should be teaching any second grader about sex. That sort of instruction should come from within the child's home.

It does, if you have decent parents.
Again, please identify where teaching about this subject matter in schools has been demonstrated to be harmful, because all of the research I've seen concludes the opposite.

It would be nice to know where you're coming from, because it seems to be, you're implying sex education is too personal to discuss outside of your immediate family.

By that logic, chemistry shouldn't be taught by schools because it teaches kids how to make bombs and become terrorists. You've blown the issue out of proportion and painted all sex education as incompetent and invasive. If parents want to teach their kids about sex, great. That is no reason sex education should not be taught in public school.

If you don't like it, become a teacher and teach your kids at home. Public education doesn't forbid education because it irritates conservatives who misdiagnose sex education as sexual deviance.

What is practiced in most public schools today vis a vis sex education is, in my opinion, not beneficial. I agree, if the child has crappy parents, it might be the only alternative. For those parents who take tge job seriously, I think most
agree, best the "teachers" left out of it.

 

[havanacat]

What I mean is, neither the government (public schools) nor the religious (parochial schools) should be teaching any second grader about sex. That sort of instruction should come from within the child's home.

It does, if you have decent parents.
Again, please identify where teaching about this subject matter in schools has been demonstrated to be harmful, because all of the research I've seen concludes the opposite.

It would be nice to know where you're coming from, because it seems to be, you're implying sex education is too personal to discuss outside of your immediate family.

By that logic, chemistry shouldn't be taught by schools because it teaches kids how to make bombs and become terrorists. You've blown the issue out of proportion and painted all sex education as incompetent and invasive. If parents want to teach their kids about sex, great. That is no reason sex education should not be taught in public school.

If you don't like it, become a teacher and teach your kids at home. Public education doesn't forbid education because it irritates conservatives who misdiagnose sex education as sexual deviance.

I'm not implying, I'm saying...a child should learn these things from parents, not teachers or other "interested parties".

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

I'm not implying, I'm saying...a child should learn these things from parents, not teachers or other "interested parties".

Parents these days don't want to be parents but the best friend of the child. They don't want to take the responsibility for raising their child properly. So it would only be natural for the schools to take this job and teaching students about sex. And this also prevent parents from doing bad sex ed. A school can properly teach what is best. Effective sex ed will prevent the spreading of STD's and will reduce pregnancy which is what sex ed is all about.

 

[scorpion9]

havanacat wrote:I'm not implying, I'm saying...a child should learn these things from parents, not teachers or other "interested parties".

could you give any specific reasons why?

What makes sex ed any different from other subjects?
The reality is that most parents know very little about sex ed. Mostly this knowledge is limited to knowing which hole goes the sausage.
Ask parents how to recognize STD,´s, what to do if you suspect having one, how to self diagnose, basic male/female anatomy,teenager,´s biological changes,statistics about STD,´s, contraception methods, periods and the cycle, the process of pregnancy etc etc etc.
These are just some topics i can remember from my sex ed class, and i doubt my parents could have explained any of these as adequately as professional teachers.
Most parents feel some sort of shame when talking about these topics so the cut corners about important things.

Sex ed in school gives the standard minimum knowledge about sex, so that everyone, even those whose parents are severely religious and think sex is the tool of the devil can get some real information.

 

[Vanlavak]

This thread is majorly biased

There is a strong case of confirmation bias here. When you say preachers are trolls, you imply that all preachers are trolls. Trolls are commonly young and foolish and many preachers are in middle adulthood with much more maturity and no incentives to troll. So you can easily conclude that because of increased maturity from statistical information on adult maturity levels, you will conclude that not all preachers are trolls.

Furthermore, the term preacher is not limited to christian people; the term preacher can be used in the context of the following: Christianity, Wicca, Islam, atheism, and any religion (in the sociological sense) that exist.

So how can all preachers be trolls? It is simply a false and bias statement to make to say that "preachers are trolls".

Please stop this bias, it just makes you look unintelligent.

 

[kenandkids]

Re: This thread is majorly biased

There is a strong case of confirmation bias here.

I'm not sure you understand the term "confirmation bias."

Trolls are commonly young and foolish and many preachers are in middle adulthood with much more maturity and no incentives to troll.

Citation? I ask because this sounds far more like an opinion with no basis in fact or evidence.

So you can easily conclude that because of increased maturity from statistical information on adult maturity levels, you will conclude that not all preachers are trolls.

What?

You do realise that you can't simply tell people what they will conclude... right?

Furthermore, the term preacher is not limited to christian people; the term preacher can be used in the context of the following: Christianity, Wicca, Islam, atheism, and any religion (in the sociological sense) that exist.

While Hytegia will be better able to say than I; I'm fairly certain that Wiccans do not have "priests."
I can say for certain that atheism does not have priests, as it is not a religion and has neither doctrine nor dogma to enforce.

 

[Vanlavak]

Re: This thread is majorly biased

kenandkids
You did a good job criticizing my post but you completely missed the point of the reply, so instead of explaining, I will simply give you the actual definitions of some terms you seem to have to need to brush up on.


Confirmation bias: The tendency to look for information that agrees with our opinions and therefore strengthens our bias.

Preach: To advocate.

 

[kenandkids]

Re: This thread is majorly biased

You did a good job criticizing my post but you completely missed the point of the reply, so instead of explaining, I will simply give you the actual definitions of some terms you seem to have to need to brush up on.

Very snarky and funny, perhaps you could sack up and actually support your statements.

Confirmation bias: The tendency to look for information that agrees with our opinions and therefore strengthens our bias.

And how was this exhibited?

Preach: To advocate.

Very good, you got a word right! Unfortunately, this isn't the word that was used or attributed. "Preacher" was the correct word.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/preacher
preach,·er   
[pree-cher] Show IPA
-noun
1.a person whose occupation or function it is to preach the gospel.
2.a person who preaches.
3.Friar Preacher.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/preacher
preach,·er (prēˈchÉ™r)

noun
1. One who preaches, especially one who publicly proclaims the gospel for an occupation.
2. Alaska A fallen tree or log submerged in a river and creating a hazard for boats.

It appears that apologies are due. I have no doubt that submerged trees are not trolls.

 

[australopithecus]

Re: This thread is majorly biased

There is a strong case of confirmation bias here. When you say preachers are trolls, you imply that all preachers are trolls. Trolls are commonly young and foolish and many preachers are in middle adulthood with much more maturity and no incentives to troll. So you can easily conclude that because of increased maturity from statistical information on adult maturity levels, you will conclude that not all preachers are trolls.

All you're doing is affirming a disjunct. Age or troll? They're older therefore they're not trolls. Age does not equal maturity, and of course they have incentives to troll. Just look at the Westboro Baptist Church or recently Mr Failed-Rapture Harold Camping.

Trolling is defined as acting in such a way as to provoke a negative emotional response, and a hell of a lot of religious preachers, priests, imams, rabbis... etc, fall into that category. You go around telling people they're going to hell, evil or just not right because they either have no faith in god or they believe in the "wrong" or they're sexual attracted to the "wrong" people then you're trolling. It's that simple. Age is irrelevant.

Furthermore, the term preacher is not limited to christian people; the term preacher can be used in the context of the following: Christianity, Wicca, Islam, atheism, and any religion (in the sociological sense) that exist.

I've highlighted your error. :facepalm:

So how can all preachers be trolls? It is simply a false and bias statement to make to say that "preachers are trolls".

I just explained how most of them are. Frankly whether all of them are is of no interest to me.

Please stop this bias, it just makes you look unintelligent.

lol, irony.