Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
Online
78 guest(s) and 0 member(s)
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
VideoGamesSuck.com :: View topic - mastubation views in religions
Some teachers and practitioners of Traditional Chinese medicine, Taoist meditative and martial arts say that masturbation can cause a lowered energy level in men. They say that ejaculation in this way reduces "origin qi" from dantian, the energy center located in the lower abdomen. Some maintain that sex with a partner does not do this because the partners replenish each other's qi. Some practitioners therefore say that males should not practice martial arts for at least 48 hours after masturbation while others prescribe up to six months, because the loss of Origin Qi does not allow new qi to be created for this kind of time.
Taoists strongly discouraged female masturbation. Women were encouraged to practice massaging techniques upon themselves, but were also instructed to avoid thinking sexual thoughts if experiencing a feeling of pleasure. Otherwise, the woman's "labia will open wide and the sexual secretions will flow." If this happened, the woman would lose part of her life force, and this could bring illness and shortened life.[28
_________________ follow me or get out of the way
Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 1:19 am
_Master_
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 18, 2009
Posts: 1711
berzerker wrote:
Quote:
Masturbation (istimna [استمناء] in Arabic) is not forbidden in the Qur'an or the Sunni Sahih hadith. Nevertheless, it is frowned upon by some scholars, who maintain that it should only be done if one fears of committing illicit sex (fornication or adultery); even then alternatives such as getting married or fasting are preferred, as suggested in hadith
Getting married is an alternative to masturbation, right.
"In Islam, sexual engagement outside of marriage is a major sin, which cause the doer to be punished in this life and the Qiyama. Yet if one's desire is so overwhelming one might perform a greater wrong by having sex outside marriage, masturbation becomes permissible as a necessity but in that case it will be like eating the flesh of pig when no other food is available"
what a metaphor! at this step several questions might be arising in your mind bezerker. do you think the comparison is valid?
"In Islam, sexual engagement outside of marriage is a major sin, which cause the doer to be punished in this life and the Qiyama. Yet if one's desire is so overwhelming one might perform a greater wrong by having sex outside marriage, masturbation becomes permissible as a necessity but in that case it will be like eating the flesh of pig when no other food is available"
what a metaphor! at this step several questions might be arising in your mind bezerker. do you think the comparison is valid?
It seems OK to me. It is based on the beliefs that
- masturbation is wrong
- sex outside marriage is worse
- eating pork is wrong
- dying of starvation is worse.
If that's what you believe, the analogy seems valid to me.
Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:07 am
_Master_
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 18, 2009
Posts: 1711
lets go back to the burka issue, where you implied
"why ban burka when other security threats exist?"
which is based on your reasoning that
-banning the burka is not required because other ways to exploit security also exist
OR
-burka must be banned only if all other security threats are addressed
now lets look at these metaphors
"why have a door when it can be broken down?"
"why have walls when it can be jumped?"
"why have locks when they can be broken?"
but they seem ok to me, based on your very similar line of reasoning
"why have a door when it can be broken down?"
-having a door is not required because other ways to exploit security also exist
OR
-a door must be present only if all other security threats are addressed
"why have walls when it can be jumped?"
-having a wall is not required because other ways to exploit security also exist
OR
-a wall must be present only if all other security threats are addressed
"why have locks when they can be broken?"
-having a lock is not required because other ways to exploit security also exist
OR
-a lock must be present only if all other security threats are addressed
From the above logically placed derivations using your interpretations, one can conclude that
1. your comment
looks fine to me. you said
"The claim that a burka is a security threat of such serious nature that it warrants a far reaching measure like a ban, is simply falsified if many other objects exist that have similar effects and are not considered security threats at all."
which obviously implies
"why ban burka when other security threats exist?"
seems right on target, looks like your already trying to evade the discussion even before getting into it.
_________________ follow me or get out of the way
Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:31 am
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
_Master_ wrote:
berzerker wrote:
_Master_ wrote:
lets go back to the burka issue, where you implied
"why ban burka when other security threats exist?"
looks fine to me. you said
"The claim that a burka is a security threat of such serious nature that it warrants a far reaching measure like a ban, is simply falsified if many other objects exist that have similar effects and are not considered security threats at all."
which obviously implies
"why ban burka when other security threats exist?"
seems right on target
No, it is essential to add "against which no measures are taken or even considered to be taken".
So you have several alleged threats of similar seriousness, yet you single out only 1 of those, the burka. If it is not necessary to take measures against those others, logic dictates the alleged threat is not sufficient cause for a burka ban.
Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:57 am
_Master_
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 18, 2009
Posts: 1711
berzerker wrote:
No, it is essential to add "against which no measures are taken or even considered to be taken".
okay this was something that you had never brought up so far, in fact you just brought this up right now. i have several times clearly told you that you cannot directly compare a burka to a helmet and gave the differences. if you do a threat assessment of both, burka would be something that is potentially more difficult for security officers to deal with compared to a helmet.....Again this is a digression and you know it pretty well, my excerice here is to point out that you do infact fully understand those metaphors that i posted earlier.
berzerker wrote:
So you have several alleged threats of similar seriousness, yet you single out only 1 of those, the burka. If it is not necessary to take measures against those others, logic dictates the alleged threat is not sufficient cause for a burka ban.
ok thats good, i think this is heading in the right direction. Ok lets nail this now.
you said
Quote:
1. you have several alleged threats of similar seriousness, yet you single out only 1 of those, the burka
2. If it is not necessary to take measures against those others, logic dictates the alleged threat is not sufficient cause for a burka ban
if i may take 1+2 and rephrase it it would indeed be
"why ban burka when other security threats exist?"
so now that's established and i know you have understood that too, go back in this topic where i compared the metaphors and gave a very close similarity among them, the same way you did for the initial pork metaphor and its very clear you have been conveniently pretending not to understand my metaphors when you all along very well have understood them.
From our discussion here any reasonably intelligent reader would deduce the same, although you may still pretend not to and as usual deviate from the discussion
_________________ follow me or get out of the way
Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:06 am
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
18. Pot calling the kettle black
_Master_ wrote:
From our discussion here any reasonably intelligent reader would deduce the same, although you may still pretend not to and as usual deviate from the discussion
Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:38 am
_Master_
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 18, 2009
Posts: 1711
berzerker wrote:
18. Pot calling the kettle black
_Master_ wrote:
From our discussion here any reasonably intelligent reader would deduce the same, although you may still pretend not to and as usual deviate from the discussion
presenting something insignificant as significant
Either way i think this topic shall always be remembered in the history of VGS exposing charlatans like you and puk. From time to time netizens will revisit this holy shine of a topic and reflect back at the aeons of delebrate manipulation and diabolical impulses of such charlatans. They will also realize how one man stood up against these established frivolous characters and exposed the rot in their underbellies.
and now its time for papapapapapaapaaaaaaaa closure ha ha ha
_________________ follow me or get out of the way
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 7:18 pm
Dick_In_Your_Ass
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jul 03, 2009
Posts: 957
Location: iCarly Studio
revisited
tl;dr
cannot give a fuck
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 2:53 am
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
Dick_In_Your_Ass wrote:
cannot give a fuck
That makes sense, if you cannot give a fuck masturbation is your second best option, right?
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:27 am
Dick_In_Your_Ass
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jul 03, 2009
Posts: 957
Location: iCarly Studio
berzerker wrote:
Dick_In_Your_Ass wrote:
cannot give a fuck
That makes sense, if you cannot give a fuck masturbation is your second best option, right?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
