Women With Suntans Will Be Arrested, Iran Police Chief Warns

My stance has never changed. My target has not moved.

I never said Christianity, or any other major religion, was evil. I said that it wasn't a good thing. Perhaps you only see things in black and white with no shades of gray. For some reason you take the statement, "organized religion is not a good thing for humanity" and turn it into some sort of a frontal assault on Christians and Christianity alone. I believe that to be true of all organized religion because it has lead to far too much suffering and dying......too many wars, too much persecution and too many martyrs.

People are born with mental defects, Aaron. It happens each and every day. It is very unfortunate and those children are still innocent. They are not evil. I said nurturing begins at conception, but again I used a broad use of the word "nurture". A baby is nurtured in a womb. What a pregnant woman consumes, what she inhales, and what she experiences impacts the baby she is carrying. It may be deliberate, as in a woman my choose to shoot heroine. It may be accidental, like if she suffers an injury or her water source is contaminated. It may even be something inherited, but I know of no child that asked to be born at all, much less with a defect of any kind, mental or otherwise.

We are all born innocent, even the Timothy McVeighs and Pol Pots of the world are born innocent. There is no crime in being born, Aaron. Something happened to make them what they became, but that doesn't excuse their behavior. I don't know how I can possibly be any clearer than that.

On the other hand, you think that ALL PEOPLE..........every human being on the planet, has "evil" lurking somewhere in their psyche. You profess yourself Christian therefore I know you believe this because this is one of the pillars of Christianity.

Sam says you were nurtured to believe this. Some call it a lot worse things, like brainwashed or programmed or indoctrinated or that your religion is simply ignorance or stupidity. I like the word nurtured because it is less insulting than most of the others. You were nurtured to belive every human being is inherently evil sounds a whole lot nicer than you were brainwashed to believe all people are inherently evil.

I'm trying to be as nice as I possibly can, Aaron. I really like the Christians that post here and don't want to insult them. For the record, I don't think any of you are stupid.

You profess yourself Christian therefore I know you believe this because this is one of the pillars of Christianity.

I've never professed myself to be a Christian.

I just wanted to correct another of your inaccuracies before I went to wash my bike. I’ll address the rest of them later.

Aaron wrote:My point is Christianity was not invented by Constantine at the council of Nicia, it was invented by God with the resurrection of Christ and there is nothing evil about it.

What comes of it, whether it be good, bad or indifferent comes from men like you and me, Cato and Mike, Sam and Keli take something that is pure and use it in a manner of our choosing.

You want to blame the religion instead of the person committing the acts and that is where you are wrong.

Aaron,

Are you not stating in the comment above that you believe in the resurrection of Christ?

Belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ = Christianity!

Chew on that while you wash your bike.

We're Christianity as simple as one believing in the resurrection of Christ as the defination of Christianity, you might have a point.

As you've proven with your "christianity is no good" thory, it's a bit more entailed then that thus you do not have a point.

And to correct you once again-it's becoming commonplace-no, I did not profess any belief in the post you quoted. That is another assumption on your part.

Now it's time to try and change the oil before I ride. Perhaps one day you could join me on a nice little jaunt out to Ripley, over to Ravenswood, and back down Leon-Baisden road and we could discuss how wrong you are on so many assumptions.

Oh, I'm dying to hear what you call belief in the supernatural resurrection of the man named Jesus Christ.

I call it Christianity. What do you call it?

What do you call Christianity?

I think we should conduct a poll.

Aaron wrote:In less then 1000 words if possible and definately without all the bells and whistles, what say you Sammy?

Aaron, I say, ….. ”.


.

Aaron wrote:I was referring to scientific brain scans and as my boys have never undergone that type of testing that I'm aware of, I can't say how they react to the same stimuli.

Well now, its no wonder you are divorced if you didn’t pay any more attention to you wife and kids that you don’t have a frigging clue how any of them react or reacted to environmental stimuli.

Or is it that you don’t have a frigging clue as to what "environmental stimuli" is?

Aaron wrote:No Sam, you haven't. I told Stephanie she was wrong, which she is, and you got all noble trying to impress her thus you came to her defense with pages of mumbo jumbo and thus far, I've not seen anything any different.

Now you sound like TerryRC when he cops his “Girly-man” attitude to CHA for his FUBAR rhetoric. Aaron, iffen you are good at what you do, you don’t have to strive to impress anyone. There will be those that will be impressed and those that will be pissed off, cop a pissy faced attitude and/or criticize those who are successful. The latter of the two being rampart within our Public School System.

Only those who are unsure of their own abilities or are obsessed, for whatever reason, with getting favorable approval ..... strive to impress others.

Aaron wrote:My point is and has been that despite all of that, there is a segment of society that will buck their nuturing and respond differently. You've yet to disprove that statement.

HORSESHIT, …… they will buck another person’s attempt to nurture them, ….. like you are doing with my attempts to nurture you, …….. but they won’t buck the way they have already been nurtured, …… again, like the way you have been responding on this thread.

Aaron wrote:I see through the smoke and mirrors you've posted for the past couple of days but you have managed to impress Stephanie, which I think we both know is your original agenda.

(repeat) but they won’t buck the way they have already been nurtured, …… again, like the way you have been responding on this thread.

Aaron wrote:Unless of course you want to address the original issue that Stephanie and I were discussing, which is that man is in born with the ability to do both good and/or bad. I say humans are, she states rather emphatically they are not.

NO, man is born with very little actual ability to do things, ..... but man is born with the ability to learn to do many different things. Man has to be cared for during the first few years of his/her life.

Now I already told you, that technically and/or scientifically, there is no such thing as “good actions” or ”bad actions” ….. because such actions are “social constructs” that are determined by the individual themselves and/or the ruling party of each culture.

Man is born with the ability to determine what he/she deems is good or bad, but he/she is not actually born with the ability to do good or bad. GEEEZUS, a person doesn’t even know what is bad until someone or something does it to them or they are told what is which.

Aaron, neither you nor anyone else was ever born with the knowledge of what acts or actions that the Christian Religion dictates are good and bad. And it doesn’t make a diddly shit if you believe you were or not.

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:How about YOUR mom, was she "inherently evil"?

No, she wasn't evil but she most certainly had the capability to be one mean, evil woman. She was self centered, manipulative and controlling and when she wanted to, she could make life miserable. I was one of the few who from an early age didn't fall for her tactics.

Written by the very person who doesn't think or believe that a child can be nurtured to have a bad attitude or disposition about life in general or specific entities in particular.

Aaron wrote:My point is Christianity was not invented by Constantine at the council of Nicia, it was invented by God with the resurrection of Christ and there is nothing evil about it.

It is quite obvious that such a declarative statement was made by a person who was nurtured to believe said about the Christian Religion ....... and which was not self-nurtured by the reading of Biblical histories.

In the 1st Century AD, those people who believed in the teachings of Jesus Christ, later to be called Christanity, comprised one of the many minor Religious believing groups of that time.

Christianity was the Obamanomics of its time, which attracted a following of the non-privileged, poor, repressed citizenry with promises of a better life in the future (hereafter). It didn't really start gaining in popularity until 100+- years after Jesus’ death when scribes and some of his followers starting writing stories and correspondences about him and portraying him as a martyr to attract more converts.

And Christianity was as fractionalized then as it is now, with different groups writing different things, preaching different things and believing different things ...... and fighting and arguing among themselves as to which was "true gospel" to be taught and believed.

And then Emperor Constantine came along and told them to “clean up their act, or else”, …. and they did, ...... starting with the 1st Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. And it was at that time they selectively chose which histories, writings and correspondences would be included in the bible.

The First Council of Nicaea is commonly regarded to have been the first Ecumenical council of the Christian Church. Most significantly, it resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Creed of Nicaea. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent general (ecumenical) councils of Bishops (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy— the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom.

The council did not create the doctrine of the deity of Christ as is sometimes claimed but it did settle to some degree the debate within the early Christian communities regarding the divinity of Christ. This idea of the divinity of Christ along with the idea of Christ as a messenger from the one God ("The Father") had long existed in various parts of the Roman empire. The divinity of Christ had also been widely endorsed by the Christian community in the otherwise pagan city of Rome. The council affirmed and defined what it believed to be the teachings of the Apostles regarding who Christ is: that Christ is the one true God in deity with the Father.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Three post Sam. Man, you REALLY hate to be questioned, don't you!!!

Even though in all your post you've said absolutely nothing of relevance, you win. You've out posted me and as a result bored the living daylights out of me. Congratulations, I hope your victory sufficiently strokes your ego for a day or two.

Aaron wrote:Three post Sam. Man, you REALLY hate to be questioned, don't you!!!

The 1st post was what you ask for, Aaron, it was less than 1,000 words.

The next 2 posts you didn't have to read and I doubt that you did. Like my other posts, you probably just "skipped" through them because you didn't like what I wrote.

Aaron wrote:Even though in all your post you've said absolutely nothing of relevance, you win. You've out posted me and as a result bored the living daylights out of me. Congratulations, I hope your victory sufficiently strokes your ego for a day or two.

Aaron, you could have just reposted this with modifications in that it is actually what you are thinking, to wit:

Aaron wrote: She Sam was is self centered, manipulative and controlling and when she he wanted wants to, she could he can make life miserable. I was one of the few who from an early age on didn't fall for her his tactics.

Aaron, I am not your Mother, those days are long gone and to quote an old High School Principal: "When I became a man I put away childish things".

Aaron, you need to change your nurtured mindset and rid yourself of that "defensive attitude" because I don't believe there is anyone on this Forum that is trying to control you or is telling you what you must or have to do.

Aaron, if I am wrong about something ..... then tell me I am (but provide proof when you do), ...... I want to know what is right because I hate being wrong, .......... but I don't get all pissy-faced, pouty and extremely defensive if and/or when I am proven wrong.

I strive not to make the same error twice and the only way that is possible is to learn from the mistakes one makes the 1st time. I do not just mimic what another person says, no matter how many people say it, because that will get you in trouble more often than not.

Aaron, I find it odd that you "wouldn't fall for your Mother's tactics" ....... but you have fallen for what complete strangers have said about sociopaths. Why so? ........ "Know thyself", .... or do I need to tell you?

One does not suffer dishonor or a loss of creditability if they are ignorant of a subject, ....... but they do if they choose to remain ignorant of said.

cheers

First Sam, you are wrong in that you think I've skimmed through your post. I read them all and regardless of what you think I have not got defensive, pissy, pouty or upset. If anything, I've found most of your responses humorous as they are pretty much what I thought they would be. Like it or not, you are nothing if not predictable and your responses were mostly what I knew they would be.

And I think you know your principal was quoting the Apostle Paul who in his letter to the Corinthians , I Corinthians 13:11 (KJV) said, "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

As for the rest, while I agree with most of what you say, I’ve read enough to know that while man can be nurtured to become many things, one doesn’t rise to the level of evil of a Dahmer, Gacy or even a Hitler without a predisposition for violence and evil that they are born with and its going to take a tad more then the opinion of Sam Cogar to convince me otherwise so on that, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Cheers

Aaron wrote:First Sam, I think you know your principal was quoting .....

No, I did not know who he was quoting.

Aaron wrote:I’ve read enough to know .... one doesn’t rise to the level of evil of a Dahmer, Gacy or even a Hitler without a predisposition for violence and evil that they are born with and its going to take a tad more .... to convince me otherwise

(exerted from) Profile of the Sociopath
This website summarizes some of the common features of descriptions of the behavior of sociopaths. http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

THE PSYCHOPATH NEXT DOOR (Source: http://chericola57.tripod.com/infinite.html)

Psychopath. We hear the word and images of Bernardo, Manson and Dahmer pop into our heads; no doubt Ted Bundy too. But they're the bottom of the barrel -- most of the two million psychopaths in North America aren't murderers. They're our friends, lovers and co-workers. They're outgoing and persuasive, dazzling you with charm and flattery. Often you aren't even aware they've taken you for a ride -- until it's too late.

Psychopaths exhibit a Jekyll and Hyde personality. "They play a part so they can get what they want," says Dr. Sheila Willson, a Toronto psychologist who has helped victims of psychopaths. The guy who showers a woman with excessive attention is much more capable of getting her to lend him money, and to put up with him when he strays. The new employee who gains her co-workers' trust has more access to their chequebooks. And so on. Psychopaths have no conscience and their only goal is self-gratification. Many of us have been their victims -- at work, through friendships or relationships -- and not one of us can say, "a psychopath could never fool me."

Think you can spot one? Think again. In general, psychopaths aren't the product of broken homes or the casualties of a materialistic society. Rather they come from all walks of life and there is little evidence that their upbringing affects them. (remember what I said about observing a child 24/7) Elements of a psychopath's personality first become evident at a very early age, due to biological or genetic factors (Well "DUH", if there's little evidence for nurturing.). Explains Michael Seto, a psychologist at the Centre for Addiction and Mental health in Toronto, by the time that a person hits their late teens, the disorder is almost certainly permanent. Although ….
----------------------------------------------------

Antisocial Personality Disorder Overview (Written by Derek Wood, RN, BSN, PhD Candidate)

Antisocial Personality Disorder results in what is commonly known as a Sociopath. The criteria for this disorder require an ongoing disregard for the rights of others, since the age of 15 years. Some examples of this disregard are reckless disregard for the safety of themselves or others, failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors, deceitfulness such as repeated lying or deceit for personal profit or pleasure, and lack of remorse for actions that hurt other people in any way. Additionally, they must have evidenced a Conduct Disorder before the age of 15 years, and must be at least 18 years old to receive this diagnosis.

People with this disorder appear to be charming at times, and make relationships, but to them, these are relationships in name only. They are ended whenever necessary or when it suits them, and the relationships are without depth or meaning, including marriages. They seem to have an innate ability to find the weakness in people, and are ready to use these weaknesses to their own ends through deceit, manipulation, or intimidation, and gain pleasure from doing so.

They appear to be incapable of any true emotions, from love to shame to guilt. They are quick to anger, but just as quick to let it go, without holding grudges. No matter what emotion they state they have, it has no bearing on their future actions or attitudes.

They rarely are able to have jobs that last for any length of time, as they become easily bored, instead needing constant change. They live for the moment, forgetting the past, and not planning the future, not thinking ahead what consequences their actions will have. They want immediate rewards and gratification. There currently is no form of psychotherapy that works with those with antisocial personality disorder, as those with this disorder have no desire to change themselves, which is a prerequisite. No medication is available either. The only treatment is the prevention of the disorder in the early stages, when a child first begins to show the symptoms of conduct disorder.

Ah so, for one to be diagnosed a "sociopath" they must have evidenced a Conduct Disorder before the age of 15 years …… and since there is little to no evidence that their upbringing (nurturing) caused their Conduct Disorder ….. then it just gotta hasta be the result of biological or genetic factors.

Given the above it seems that ..... said Conduct Disorder (sociopath) must be caused by their nurturing if it can be treated and cured when said person is a child ......... but said Conduct Disorder (sociopath) must be the result of biological or genetic factors since there is no form of psychotherapy treatment or prescription medication that will cure them after the age of 15 years.

Interesting, .... very interesting. After speculating that the cause is biological or genetic factors why would they even attempt psychotherapy treatment? Especially since they previously stated that said person with said disorder "has no desire to change themselves".

And some people think my thinking is confused.

And ps: this statement also pretty much describes many a Bible believing Creationist, to wit: "by the time that a person hits their late teens, this disorder is almost certainly permanent".

What I did was point out the good that is done in the name of Christianity and I stated that the bad that is done and blamed on Christianity is the result of individual actions and would happen if there were no Christian religion as all people are born inherently evil with the ability to become either good or evil.

Then why, as people are born with the ability to become either good or evil, is "the good that is done in the name of Christianity" not just as likely to happen if there were no Christian religion ?

ziggy wrote:

What I did was point out the good that is done in the name of Christianity and I stated that the bad that is done and blamed on Christianity is the result of individual actions and would happen if there were no Christian religion as all people are born inherently evil with the ability to become either good or evil.

Then why, as people are born with the ability to become either good or evil, is "the good that is done in the name of Christianity" not just as likely to happen if there were no Christian religion ?

No one said it wasn't.

Aaron,

I'm really tired of beating this dead horse, honestly I am. Still, I'm just itching to know, what you consider yourself to be if not Christian. You believe that God resurrected Jesus Christ. I got that part right. So what are you, if not Christian?

Stephanie wrote:Aaron,

I'm really tired of beating this dead horse, honestly I am. Still, I'm just itching to know, what you consider yourself to be if not Christian. You believe that God resurrected Jesus Christ. I got that part right. So what are you, if not Christian?

The most complicatd person you've likely met.

Be careful, or someone might accuse you of being a Unitarian, Aaron.

oh, be more precise with Aaron.............

Some might accuse you of being a Universalist Unitarian, or is that Unitarian Universalist........I can never get that straight.......

btw......I'm more confused than ever over my curriculum options!

It's Unitarian Universalism and I've been accused of worse. But that's not me. I believe in the Holy Trinity. Like I said, complicated.

So what are the curriculum options?

Well, ...... SURPRISE, SURPRISE

Results of recent Scientific Study pretty much proves that ..... inadequate nurturing of a child during their first 4 1/2 years ....... makes for a BAD kid who has learning problems.

But youse don't hafta believe this Study iffen youse already have your mind made-up to the contrary.

Low-quality child care can have lasting impact

Behavior, academic problems persist through age 15, major study finds

The federally funded study, which has been tracking more than 1,300 children since 1991, found that obedience and academic problems among those who received low-quality care in their first 4 1/2 years of life persisted through their 15th birthdays, suggesting the potential for lifelong difficulties.

Influence of family more important
The researchers previously reported that toddlers who received higher-quality care had fewer behavior problems than those receiving lower-quality care. The type of care, whether it was inside or outside the home, did not seem to matter, although day-care centers appeared to be related to more acting out among first- and third-graders. Kids who received high-quality care scored better on tests measuring math, reading and other cognitive skills throughout elementary school.

Researchers had speculated that the negative effects of lower-quality care would disappear as the influence of other factors, such as peers, teachers and maturation, overcame the early childhood experience. But in the latest analysis of the data, they discovered that teenagers who had received higher-quality child care were less likely to report engaging in problem behaviors such as arguing, being mean to others and getting into fights. Those who spent more hours in child care of any kind were more likely to engage in impulsive and risky behaviors. And those who received moderately high- or high-quality care scored higher on tests gauging cognitive and academic achievement.

"What was the surprise for us was that the effects at age 15 were the same size as we had seen in elementary school and just prior to school entry," said Deborah Lowe Vandell of the University of California at Irvine.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37147870/ns/health-more_health_news/

"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink", ........ right Aaron?


.

Interesting article Sam, none of which I have ever disagreed with or stated otherwise, by the way.

Now you sound like TerryRC when he cops his “Girly-man” attitude to CHA for his FUBAR rhetoric.

I see Sam is still a master of douchebaggery.

An "ounce" of prevention is often better than a "pound" of trying to cure.

So what are the curriculum options?

I've got it figured out, Aaron. Yippee for me. I modify everything, but we're beginning with Real Science 4-Kids Chemistry Level I, Teaching Textbooks Math 4, Institute for Excellence in Writing Teaching Writing & Style, Spelling Power, and Cantering the Country as the spine of of Social Studies program supplemented by Let's Discover West Virginia.

Gnostic?