Master in public?

[JMohegan]

If someone feels the need to justify their actions to another, what justification should they use? One that will fall on deaf ears? Or one that will at least be listened to, if not supported? I go with the latter and tailor the explanation to the audience.

Joe Stranger doesn't need to know details, they need to understand the concept. Most people in Western culture will at least understand the Biblical explanation or arguement and will listen.

People where I live are good & freakin' tired of listening to arguments that sound like: "I know this is right because God told me so."

We don't want to hear God's word used as justification for slamming airplanes into buildings, assaulting gays, refusing marriage rights to lesbians, withholding Sex Ed from teenagers, or teaching Genesis alongside Evolution in the Science classrooms of the public schools.

You're worried about deaf ears? In blue state, liberal, urban America, people like me are stone cold deaf when it comes to religious justification for *anything*.

And with good reason.

We're fed up.

It doesn't matter who or what your source of justification is. The arguements of Marx, or Neitzsche or Yung, or Freud, or Woody Allen or Al Sharpton or Charlton Heston, or Eleanor Roosevelt will only be believed by "those who already believe in the sanctity of what is being espoused."

Personally, I choose the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

YMMV.

 

[RJMasters]

As I view it, it is. I live in a society that claims to espouse egalitarian principles, whether it lives up to them or not, is anyone's guess, but settling your disputes in a relationship by unilateral decision rather than compromise will not have any mainstream shrink on board with that. Ergo - it's a perversion. Like being gay or non-Christian or anything else that doesn't have the mainstream stamp of approval on it.

When told a few months ago that my daughter's shcool would be having a gay couple as guest speakers to speak about acceptance and awareness of the gay lifestyle, it makes your above comment seem like a warrior without a battlefeild upon which fight. The notion that a mainstream shrink would have a view that being gay equates to perverse is hard to swallow Netz. The last time I checked, those who claim to be christian were viewed with much less tolerance than those who didn't. I am not arguing here as much as i am just pointing out observations. Unlike being gay or christian or unchristian which are more black and white issues, submission has a range of expression, where some forms are accepted where as perhaps extreme froms of expresions might not be. I grant you that as you add in gender reversal, it further deviates from the norm and terms such as henpecked and such are applied sterotypically due to the inability to accept at face value the reality that exists in such a relatioship where the gender roles are reversed.

Could blame Feminism, Voltaire, Jefferson, the Quakers or whatever you like. But "obedience" isn't up there with "rugged individualism."

I disagree. The reason I disagree is because the present culture does make the choice of being submissive or obeidient a difficult choice. Men who have desired to submit have always faced this choice in one way or another, however increasingly women today find it very hard to live up to the expectations being placed on them. Some women thrive in that while others are hopeless miserable because of it. The choice to be submissive in my opinion is on many levels a rugged individualistic choice. Even if a woman were say in a group or gathering of "church" type ladies where they accept the concepts of a woman submitting to her husband, were a woman to actual say that out loud and actually mean it, would earn her some very questionable looks from the other ladies around her. But hypocrasy in religious circles is nothing new as I am sure you know.

Sure, but if that's all you think you're doing is mirroring something there if you pop wood when she's on her knees, you're disingenuous or delusional in some measure. The Bible doesn't say anything nice about the surging lust that is *my* desire, or that of most sadsitc D's if their descriptions are to be taken at face value. If it does, please correct me, I'm not a fan of the sequel to part 1 as you know, but I'll bite.

You'll bite? Grinz.

From my perspective both part 1 and part 2 are from a historical aspect a collection of books which cover a broad spectrum of many things. Some are more devoted in documanting historical events, some are devoted in teachings principles about life, and some deal a lot in explaining about relationships.

It has a lot to say about lust and suprisingly you will find that much of the so called legalistic mindedness is more of a creation of man than it is supported by the text.

Show me anywhere it says that S/m activities that are shared within the context of a relationship is wrong. Show me anywhere it is implied. You can't because its not there. The text does have a lot to say about relationships, but it leaves the expression of lust and love upto the two in the relationship. No where does it say that a man or woman must have sex in the missionary position only and only for creation.

There are countless passages which describe the passion, the jealiousy, devotion, submission, etc... that are a part of relationships, but no where does it say the taing a single tail and whipping a person is considered wrong. Infact my understanding is that when two people are in a relationship they are to fulfill each other and meet one another's needs. Again no where does it say that a Masochist's need for pain is wrong or the desires of a sadist is wrong. My knowledge leads me to the understanding that what would be considered ssc aligns with what the text actually says. Now that could be my interpretation blah blah blah and me seeing it because that's what i want to see blah blah blah, but I am still waiting for anyone to show me from the text where it says or shows its wrong for two people in a relationship to satisfy one another sexualy or from a S/m standpoint.

Let me show you something interesting...

The word "Sin" immediately brings up a lot of negative feelings which are normally associated with judgemental accusations ect...ect...

The word sin actually means, "to seperate". That's all it means. The idea is when a person does something wrong or hurts another person, it brings about a seperation and division.

Thus a correct use of the word would be if you did something against me such as stole something from me or lied to me and as a result I ended up being hurt over it, then you have "sinned" against me. I am angry at you.

An uncorrect usage of the word "sin" would be to say that whipping someone is wrong and therefore a sin. On what grounds is it based that whipping someone is wrong? What if the person being whipped enjoys it and wanted it? By whipping them have you hurt them? No. So then where is the bases for sin? The whipping didn't cause a division or hurt the other person(not speaking in a physical sense here but in a relational sense).

The problem is that much of religious thought today has adopted an inccorrect use or concept of what "sin" really means.


I know the text pretty good from cover to cover as I studied it for years. Nothing in all the years I have studied it is in conflict with my own views of D/s or practicing BDSM within a relationship.

To me, the biblical spin on D/s is like when serious masochists try to explain to a scared vanilla "it's just like massage, really." No. No it's not. If it is, I'm missing it altogether. Or you're doing something really different from what I'm doing.

I am not spinning anything. your operating from the idea that "normal biblical" teaching assumes that beating someone is wrong" and that those so called BDSM christains are just spinning it to their view. I am saying that there is no basis to claim that a masochist's desire for pain or a sadist's desire to inflict with or without sexual attachments, is wrong from a biblical standpoint. I have never believed that and think those who try to make the bible say that are just people with too much time on their hands trying to impose their idea of right and wrong onto others.

I don't know anyone with a gentle and quiet spirit, there's too much modernity and need to make cash. Except for a few Buddhists in St. Paul. And they're really annoying.

Quiet and gentle spirit doesn't consititute the idea of a woman who doesn't speak up nor does it imply that she doesn't stand her ground. The idea here is that between her and her man she is not the dominant one in the relationship. There are many submissives here on this board which are neither quiet or gentle lol, but that doesn't imply that they are not submissive. It goes back to the idea that a person is not submissive to just anyone. So to say that a person has a quiet and gentle spirit is akin to say they are not dominant in nanture but submissive, the rules of how they interact with the worl at large still apply. Remember the reference was i the context of a woman being in a relationship to her husband and called him Master within that relationship.

OK, you're right, I probably err on the opposite side of the spectrum. I also see a really deep divide in social and D/s-personal orientation. I'm more likely to sniff the potentially submissive aura in a doctor who's way too tightly wound or a middle manager who's way too overburdened with conflicting demands - people totally failing to project placidity or peace.

Nods, I think the words use are a bit misleading as I don't think the idea of a person who is scerine is what is being eluded to here. There are many who hold down a career and live life in the fast lane but within their relationships they are more submissve, or within their relationship they have a queit and gentle spirit, where as their partner is the dominate one. This is of course true not only of women, I am sure that there is a beauty which comes from the man who is submissive to his Mistress/Domme/Wife.

 

[RJMasters]

People where I live are good & freakin' tired of listening to arguments that sound like: "I know this is right because God told me so."

We don't want to hear God's word used as justification for slamming airplanes into buildings, assaulting gays, refusing marriage rights to lesbians, withholding Sex Ed from teenagers, or teaching Genesis alongside Evolution in the Science classrooms of the public schools.

You're worried about deaf ears? In blue state, liberal, urban America, people like me are stone cold deaf when it comes to religious justification for *anything*.

And with good reason.

We're fed up.

Personally, I choose the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

YMMV.

Please JM,

Evolution is junk science and is not even based upon scientific fact.

The aregument is not about teacing genisis in schools, its called "Intelligent Design". Its a valid theory that claims that all that was created was done so by design rather than by chance. The theory does not espouse teaching religion in scool or even that God is the creator or devine being that was the one who did the design.

I have sat through a wekk long debate of both sides of the issue listening to both sides argue. The bottom line is that scientists do not have the slightest clue where or how the origin of humankind, earth and the universe began. Evolution is at best a poor theory which has been proven to be faulty.

IMO if they are going to teach one theroy they should allow the other theory as well because it does have just as valid arguemnts. If they are not going to allow other theories well then I guess its the scientist that are teaching everyone that the world is flat this time around.

I think evolution should not be taught as science but more as philosophy.

And so your clear that I am not espousing a position of religion in anyway here you go:

“This is illustrated by the second law of thermodynamics which can be summarized as saying everything moves toward disorder or entropy. This brings in the concept of cause and effect and because of the second law of thermodynamics every cause will have a lesser effect. It is scientifically impossible to have an effect greater than its cause.”

“Natural selection culls through countless mutations over time, eventually producing specified complexity. As the need for survival helps organisms evolve, new information is created and they ratchet their way up into new forms.
The problem with this scenario, according to ID theorists, is that mutations do not produce new information. Natural selection has slim pickin's to choose from, even when it picks the fittest. Without an intelligence to produce new information, no amount of re-shuffling of genes will result in a new organism.”

Congressmen Souder:

"One senses here not a defense of science but rather an effort to protect, by political means, a privileged philosophical viewpoint against a serious challenge.... As [members of] the Congress, it might be wise for us to question whether the legitimate authority of science over scientific matters is being misused by persons who wish to identify science with a philosophy they prefer."

As long as the scientific community continues to present the unproven Evolution theory as the only acceptable and credible scientific view, there will always be a bias that will prevent us from sailing across the “scientific blue”. It makes me wonder what Columbus would have to say on this debate.

 

[the captians wench]

Okay, I thought I posted here before but I guess I didn't...my personal opinion...I do wear my collar out, and it is a leather dog collar bought at Pet Smart complete with a little purple heart tag. Now when I first started wearing the collar, my tag said "slut property of Jounar", but he and I later agreed that it wasn't very apropriate for public, so my tag now says "if found please return to Ireland" which every one at work thinks is just too cute, whether they know of my kinkiness or not. I also, when the mood strikes, will wear my manicles out. Again leather, very thick, and very obvious. However, when I wear them, I'm almost always in gothy clothes and most people just shrug them off as some weird fashion statement. I tend to wear chokers with more dressy or prissy clothes. This how every is not something that is required of me, it's my choice to do it or not, and from impressions I've gotten from him, I don't think I will be wearing my collar much less the manicles out in public when I'm with him, at least not around crowds.

Now my leash I only wear out if I'm going to the goth/kink night club that I frequint. While a collar can be viewed as a fashion statement, and people can dismiss as such if they choose, a leash just doesn't go un noticed as easily.

As for calling some one "Master" in public, I think that's not very appropiate. Sir can go unnoticed, and a whispered Master might as well, but like some one else said, there is no reason to force a parent to answer questions they may not be ready for.

And public groping...I'm all for it. No nudity, no hands under clothing, no hands on genitles above clothing, and boob touchage would be kept to a min, but make out sessions in an area where there isn't a chance kids will stumble upon you, that's good stuff. I am a very affectionate person, and I will not hesitate to cuddle and snuggle infront of people. But there are limits, and children is a big factor.

welp, that's my view on things anyway.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I think I am with JM in not wanting to refer to the Bible to justify or explain what we do and why. I do not believe children should be taught about one religion only, especially in schools....if they are to be educated about religion I think it should be about all religion's without bias toward one, and not taught as a way to justify anything and everything that happens and is done in this world. Frankly, the lifestyle we have chosen has nothing to do with the Bible and though I am not a Catholic as F is, I find it highly offensive when people pull out biblical reasons for justifying D/s.

It should also be noted the Bible has been fiddled with by so many people through the ages who felt it their right to correct what they saw as mistakes or unacceptable, using it as a justification is treading on shifting sand IMO.Add to that it was written in a time which did not correspond with our own present day understanding of the world (I don't know anyone who lived over 900 years, do you, yet you see it in the bible), nor is it written about a culture we now live in or understand, instead trying to connect it to present day as if it is no different...it is very different and the way of communicating that knowledge is far different...people prefer to not take that into account and then try and justify their actions based on a language and lifestyle far removed from our own.

As to evolution, I think discounting it as rubbish is a very biased and limited viewpoint and if you listen to many of the scientists who have conducted years of research into the subject with an open mind you can find some value in exploring it and that it is not denying anyone's right to read the bible and believe some of what you read there either. Many of those scientists are Christian or from other religions and have not seen any reason to discount evolution or their beliefs....in fact, many have found remnants of biblical artifacts they went searching for to prove religious theory as well as scientific. It is not necessarily an either/or situation, but it does require understanding and an open mind which is not easily achieved when people are set in their ways and fanatical that nothing else is real or true.

Catalina

 

[FurryFury]

Scopes Trial part 2?

Did the play already.

Bored now.

*yawns*

Incidentally, try finding a good solid science program that isn't based on some "Christian" POV when looking through home schooling resources, seriously, try.

Fury

 

[RJMasters]

I think I am with JM in not wanting to refer to the Bible to justify or explain what we do and why. I do not believe children should be taught about one religion only, especially in schools....if they are to be educated about religion I think it should be about all religion's without bias toward one, and not taught as a way to justify anything and everything that happens and is done in this world. Frankly, the lifestyle we have chosen has nothing to do with the Bible and though I am not a Catholic as F is, I find it highly offensive when people pull out biblical reasons for justifying D/s.

It should also be noted the Bible has been fiddled with by so many people through the ages who felt it their right to correct what they saw as mistakes or unacceptable, using it as a justification is treading on shifting sand IMO.Add to that it was written in a time which did not correspond with our own present day understanding of the world (I don't know anyone who lived over 900 years, do you, yet you see it in the bible), nor is it written about a culture we now live in or understand, instead trying to connect it to present day as if it is no different...it is very different and the way of communicating that knowledge is far different...people prefer to not take that into account and then try and justify their actions based on a language and lifestyle far removed from our own.

As to evolution, I think discounting it as rubbish is a very biased and limited viewpoint and if you listen to many of the scientists who have conducted years of research into the subject with an open mind you can find some value in exploring it and that it is not denying anyone's right to read the bible and believe some of what you read there either. Many of those scientists are Christian or from other religions and have not seen any reason to discount evolution or their beliefs....in fact, many have found remnants of biblical artifacts they went searching for to prove religious theory as well as scientific. It is not necessarily an either/or situation, but it does require understanding and an open mind which is not easily achieved when people are set in their ways and fanatical that nothing else is real or true.

Catalina

Intelligent design is not based on religious beliefs Cat.

--------
Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for evolution. Intelligent design stands in opposition to conventional biological science, which relies on the scientific method to explain life through observed physical processes such as mutation and natural selection. According to a 2005 Harris poll 10 percent of adults in the United States subscribe to intelligent design.[21] Although the concept has substantially influenced public opinion in the United States, it has little support in other parts of the world.[22]

The stated[23] purpose of Intelligent Design (ID) is to investigate whether or not existing empirical evidence implies that life on Earth must have been designed by an intelligent agent or agents. William A. Dembski, one of intelligent design's leading proponents, has stated that the fundamental claim of intelligent design is that "there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence."[24]

Proponents of intelligent design look for evidence of what they term "signs of intelligence": physical properties of an object that point to a designer (see: teleological argument). For example, if an archeologist finds a statue made of stone in a field, he may, ID proponents argue, justifiably conclude that the statue was designed and then reasonably seek to identify the statue's designer. He would not, however, be justified in making the same claim if he found an irregularly shaped boulder of the same size.

The most commonly cited "signs of intelligence" include irreducible complexity, information mechanisms, and specified complexity. Design proponents argue that living systems show one or more of these, from which they infer that some aspects of life have been designed.

Intelligent design proponents say that although evidence pointing to the nature of an "intelligent cause or agent" may not be directly observable, its effects on nature can be detected. Dembski, in Signs of Intelligence, states: "Proponents of intelligent design regard it as a scientific research program that investigates the effects of intelligent causes. Note that intelligent design studies the effects of intelligent causes and not intelligent causes per se." In his view, one cannot test for the identity of influences exterior to a closed system from within, so questions concerning the identity of a designer fall outside the realm of the concept.


--------

And I don't think religion should be tuaght in school, but neither do I think evolution which is not based on scientific fact.

For the exact "same reasons" scientists reject the Intelligent Design theory when applied to evolution, makes it just a faulty and impossible to be viewed as science.

And its not with a closed mind i make the comments, I have looked into it and I do acknowledge some of the things which have been put forth to validate the "thereoy of evolution". The problem is.... the scientific evidence which clearly shows that the foundations upon which the evolutionary theory hangs is not possible.

Evolutionary steps cannot be observed.
Evolutionary steps cannot be reproduced.
You cannot tase touch smell or hear evolution.
Even with our advance sceience into stem cell, cloning etc.... we cannot create or generate anything that supports evolutionary teachings.

The only ones with closed minds are the ones who claim to be scientific, yet not willing to apply the same standards to their own theories. We are not waiting around still hoping to find the missing link, evolution has already been proven scientifically that it cannot be true in its present form.

Perhaps there is a mixing of intelligent design and evolution...I don't know...if I did I would ask for my Nobel Peace prize now.

What I am sick of is people who are so religious-phobic that they can't even have a decent discussions. Especially when Intelligent Design has nothing to do with espousing religion. Its the same people who will tell others they have to learn a lie or some philosophic theory they thought up, but are unwilling to allow any other theories to be put for and accepted with any credibility.

 

[BeachGurl2]

Wow, this thread really got off track, didn't it? It's always interesting to me to see the level of emotion displayed whenever religion is brought into the mix of any philisophical discussion. One thing that I find frustrating when discussing religion is that many people leave their brains at the door and only deal in emotion. I'm not saying that anyone here has done that, because I think that everyone has touched on things that are more academic, but it still gets your blood boiling, doesn't it?

I think that for many people who use the Bible to justify actions in their lives, it is a way to justify actions that go against the socially accepted. That is one reason why so many people are fed up with anyone who uses the Bible to justify things. Like much of great literature, everyone reading it interprets it based on their own perceptions - how they were raised, what purpose religion held in their formative years, and where they are in their lives now.

I had a Pastor when I was growing up who would literally cringe when I walked into his office because he knew that I was coming to debate some verses with him. I was a bit precocious as a teenager and young adult, and I learned as I read through the Bible that everything in it contradicts itself numerous times in both the old and the new testaments. And so I would seek out verses that contradicted either itself or things that were socially accepted and preached in church and head into his office to get him to justify those contradictions. And he often welcomed the debate - the reason he cringed was because I was a bit relentless with the whole thing, not because he didn't enjoy the debates that ensued. But his bottom line always was this - everyone interprets the Bible to say what they believe should be right. So while he might interpret a section as saying one thing, the Baptist preacher down the street would interpret it in an entirely different way, as would the Methodist, the Catholic and so forth (I was raised Lutheran, btw). And he is 100% right about that. Everyone interprets everything to fit their own needs. That's human nature.

For myself, I look at it all a bit more academically than most. The Bible that most of us grew up with and use today was translated at a time in history when social norms were incredibly conservative and patriarchal. As a woman, when I read sections of the Bible that talk about how women are to behave, it is difficult for me to separate those two things. I know that women were at that time largely considered to be the property of men. It was common for men to be sexual creatures, common practice for men to have mistresses and affairs, and women were largely to be seen and not heard. Did that influence how the Bible was translated? Of course it did, how could it not? Every history text ever written was influenced by the social norms of the time and by whoever was in power at the time. Because of that, it is hard for me to see the use of the Bible in justification of anything to do with today's society. But then again, I'm not a literalist when it comes to the Bible. I believe it is a combination of a history text and a parable about life. Blasphemy, I'm sure to some. But that is how I see it. Like our Constitution, a framework within which to find common ground from which to operate in order to avoid chaos. Nothing more, nothing less.

Very interesting discussion in this thread. Very interesting indeed.

 

[Zinfandel]

I'm sorry to bore Fury , but I'd just like to add my 2 cents.

Please JM,

Evolution is junk science and is not even based upon scientific fact.

The aregument is not about teacing genisis in schools, its called "Design". Its a valid theory that claims that all that was created was done so by design rather than by chance. The theory does not espouse teaching religion in scool or even that God is the creator or devine being that was the one who did the design.

I have sat through a wekk long debate of both sides of the issue listening to both sides argue. The bottom line is that scientists do not have the slightest clue where or how the origin of humankind, earth and the universe began. Evolution is at best a poor theory which has been proven to be faulty.

IMO if they are going to teach one theroy they should allow the other theory as well because it does have just as valid arguemnts. If they are not going to allow other theories well then I guess its the scientist that are teaching everyone that the world is flat this time around.

I think evolution should not be taught as science but more as philosophy.

Speaking both as a scientist who works in human DNA research as well as a person who is religious, I assure you that evolution is not junk science. Perhaps I'm being nit-picky, but I would suggest any argument on the subject use a dictionary definition of evolution:

ev·o·lu·tion
–noun
3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

By this definition, I can assure you that evolution is fact. It is not a theory - evidence that evolution occurs can be seen in the phylogenies of every taxa ever studied on a genetic level.

The origin of living matter on the earth is a different topic, and one that should not be referred to as "evolution". Yes, there are various scientific theories as to how this occured, some more widely accepted than others - and I believe most scientists would agree that they are theories. I don't see anything wrong with teaching public school students that scientific explanations for the origin of living matter on earth are theories. But the concept of "Intelligent Design" implies a Designer, which implies a higher power of some sort - someone/thing with the ability to design and the power to make it happen. This is not a scientific theory, and has no place being taught in science classes in public schools.

 

[Penalt]

Folks, I am an old hand at the creation vs evolution, religon vs science debate and goodly number of their variations. For the sake of harmony, at least on this thread can we please take that debate to another thread please. If you really want to debate that start a thread on it. I'm sure it will be popular.

Its just that I know of few things that can match that topic for causing rancor, flame wars and bad feelings unless it is moderated with a Bat-o'-Doom (tm), and I like you all way too much to see that happen.

 

[RJMasters]

I'm sorry to bore Fury , but I'd just like to add my 2 cents.



Speaking both as a scientist who works in human DNA research as well as a person who is religious, I assure you that evolution is not junk science. Perhaps I'm being nit-picky, but I would suggest any argument on the subject use a dictionary definition of evolution:

ev·o·lu·tion
–noun
3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

By this definition, I can assure you that evolution is fact. It is not a theory - evidence that evolution occurs can be seen in the phylogenies of every taxa ever studied on a genetic level.

The origin of living matter on the earth is a different topic, and one that should not be referred to as "evolution". Yes, there are various scientific theories as to how this occured, some more widely accepted than others - and I believe most scientists would agree that they are theories. I don't see anything wrong with teaching public school students that scientific explanations for the origin of living matter on earth are theories. But the concept of "Intelligent Design" implies a Designer, which implies a higher power of some sort - someone/thing with the ability to design and the power to make it happen. This is not a scientific theory, and has no place being taught in science classes in public schools.

Ok you make a good point, however the point I am arguing is that they are teaching evolution with decpetion.

You know as well as I do that there are barriers which cannot be crossed and have not be crossed such as from one speiceis to another. the closest that has ever come to this is the mule.

And to be clear I don't think the "THEORY" of evolution should be taught in a scientific classroom. I will agree that intelligent design doesn't belong there either, but if they are going to allow one faulty theory that is not based on scientific fact to be taught, then they should allow other theories to be taught as well. That's my point.

 

[RJMasters]

Folks, I am an old hand at the creation vs evolution, religon vs science debate and goodly number of their variations. For the sake of harmony, at least on this thread can we please take that debate to another thread please. If you really want to debate that start a thread on it. I'm sure it will be popular.

Its just that I know of few things that can match that topic for causing rancor, flame wars and bad feelings unless it is moderated with a Bat-o'-Doom (tm), and I like you all way too much to see that happen.

Your probably right...I'm done.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Intelligent design is not based on religious beliefs Cat.

--------
Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for evolution. Intelligent design stands in opposition to conventional biological science, which relies on the scientific method to explain life through observed physical processes such as mutation and natural selection. According to a 2005 Harris poll 10 percent of adults in the United States subscribe to intelligent design.[21] Although the concept has substantially influenced public opinion in the United States, it has little support in other parts of the world.[22]

The stated[23] purpose of Intelligent Design (ID) is to investigate whether or not existing empirical evidence implies that life on Earth must have been designed by an intelligent agent or agents. William A. Dembski, one of intelligent design's leading proponents, has stated that the fundamental claim of intelligent design is that "there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence."[24]

Proponents of intelligent design look for evidence of what they term "signs of intelligence": physical properties of an object that point to a designer (see: teleological argument). For example, if an archeologist finds a statue made of stone in a field, he may, ID proponents argue, justifiably conclude that the statue was designed and then reasonably seek to identify the statue's designer. He would not, however, be justified in making the same claim if he found an irregularly shaped boulder of the same size.

The most commonly cited "signs of intelligence" include irreducible complexity, information mechanisms, and specified complexity. Design proponents argue that living systems show one or more of these, from which they infer that some aspects of life have been designed.

Intelligent design proponents say that although evidence pointing to the nature of an "intelligent cause or agent" may not be directly observable, its effects on nature can be detected. Dembski, in Signs of Intelligence, states: "Proponents of intelligent design regard it as a scientific research program that investigates the effects of intelligent causes. Note that intelligent design studies the effects of intelligent causes and not intelligent causes per se." In his view, one cannot test for the identity of influences exterior to a closed system from within, so questions concerning the identity of a designer fall outside the realm of the concept.


--------

And I don't think religion should be tuaght in school, but neither do I think evolution which is not based on scientific fact.

For the exact "same reasons" scientists reject the Intelligent Design theory when applied to evolution, makes it just a faulty and impossible to be viewed as science.

And its not with a closed mind i make the comments, I have looked into it and I do acknowledge some of the things which have been put forth to validate the "thereoy of evolution". The problem is.... the scientific evidence which clearly shows that the foundations upon which the evolutionary theory hangs is not possible.

Evolutionary steps cannot be observed.
Evolutionary steps cannot be reproduced.
You cannot tase touch smell or hear evolution.
Even with our advance sceience into stem cell, cloning etc.... we cannot create or generate anything that supports evolutionary teachings.

The only ones with closed minds are the ones who claim to be scientific, yet not willing to apply the same standards to their own theories. We are not waiting around still hoping to find the missing link, evolution has already been proven scientifically that it cannot be true in its present form.

Perhaps there is a mixing of intelligent design and evolution...I don't know...if I did I would ask for my Nobel Peace prize now.

What I am sick of is people who are so religious-phobic that they can't even have a decent discussions. Especially when Intelligent Design has nothing to do with espousing religion. Its the same people who will tell others they have to learn a lie or some philosophic theory they thought up, but are unwilling to allow any other theories to be put for and accepted with any credibility.

Problem is when people begin to discuss religion and politics and use their religion (whatever it is) to justify their beliefs and rights, they forget they were created with an intelligence and become a robotic being sprouting out the words that have been hammered into their consciousness without the benefit of unbiased examination and free thought, or even rational thought. I can discuss religion till the cows come home, unless it is with someone who has a very narrow viewpoint on it which they will not allow to be questioned or examinied and refuse to do so themselves. The reason I get tired of religious discussions is because of the hypocrisy of most of it in this age...any number of religions use their faith to justify killing others who do not share their belief and ways, and to dominate anyone who is not like them, Bush being at the top of the self appointed sainthood list and a prime example of lack of intelligence...seems these type make up a huge number of fundamentalists in all faiths which make them a cause for concern for the future of evolution and humanity.

Catalina

 

[MasterPhoenix]

**SNIP**

Bush being at the top of the self appointed sainthood list and a prime example of lack of intelligence...

Catalina

Thats the truth...

 

[catalina_francisco]

**SNIP**

Thats the truth...

LOL, the so called good book didn't warn the millions to be on the lookout for such pretenders as these for nothing...just people get dazzled by false power and dare not question it's authenticity or level of reality.

Catalina

 

[Netzach]

Bertrand Russel. Teapot.

if evolution is junk science ID is junk philo.

Meh, anyway, horrid hijack. My point is probably don't leap out of the closet if you expect universal approval. Which is kind of a "duh."

If you're going to be in your face, own it, wear it, accept that people are going to talk shit at you. Or stay in the closet. Your choice, really.

 

[JMohegan]

Is it safe to call someone Master in public? Around people who aren't even in the lifestyle? What risks does that include?

Im more concerned about people who think thy know better and report bdsm-ers for abuse n stuff... I mean I've read some pretty horrific stories about what the authority can do.

You are wise to be concerned.

From the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom:

Why Should You Care?

Because your sexual expression:

- Can result in discrimination, prosecution, and even violence against you
- Can cause you to lose your children
- Can cause you to lose your job or your income
- Can lead you into a maze of antiquated laws and regulations you never even knew existed
- Is arbitrarily criminalized by state and local authorities
- Is used by the radical right to marginalize minority groups
- Can result in the invasion of your privacy by the government, both within your own home or in educational, social and group environments


To answer your first question, Kitten, I'd say that having a waitress or random person in the mall/bar/whatever overhear you referring to your partner as "Master" carries very low risk of criminal prosecution or material adverse consequences.

However, if you've got an ex-husband and minor children, a spiteful co-worker, etc., then you should probably be very careful about what you disclose and to whom.

Click on that NCSF link to learn more, or better yet - to donate $ to the cause.

 

[callinectes]

Ya know..gravity is only a theory too. Just sayin'.

 

[incubus'_sub]

Little Kitten, it's usually not considered necessary, unless your Master is a redneck oaf, to advertise & declare your submission to all & sundry. As pointed out by many others, it's considered rude & inappropriate behaviour to involve & confront the general public & can get you into trouble.

Exhibitionism is a kink all on it's own, but often goes together with others very well. The trick is to practice this in the appropriate place, private parties with like minded friends, fetish clubs or even kink friendly pubs. D/s is about respect for your Master & others & discretion is the key rather than overt display.

I don't see religion or the Bible as having anything to do with this, even as an excuse. Put it down to own free choice & leave it at that. The Bible was written ages ago & doesn't specifically mention "don't drive fast & dangerously"or "don't eat too much fat at McDonalds" either, so I don't like specific passages being brought up to explain / excuse other forms of behaviour either.

My thoughts on intelligent design may be found in the Cafe (where they truly belong).

 

[Little_Kitten]

Quite and interesting discussion going on there ... I can't add anything to it, but interesting though.

Oh and thanks for the link JMohegan.

And thanks to the rest of you for the responses.
I also think myself that it would not be wise to "show off" your relationship amongst people you know, and it's not what i intend to after all... Just wanted to know how safe it is and stuff to carry your lifestyle out there without being too concerned, but if it's seen as inappropriate and respectless, maybe it's not a good thing to do. I wouldn't want to create a bad image for the lifestyle.
But on the other hand, maybe more subtle things could be carry out.. Maybe if lifestylers do that and slowly increase it an inch after some time, people will get used to it and not be so prejudiced... but i guess thats what is being done anyway.
I would love to be able to be myself amongst the vanilla people but I guess that wont be possible just yet....

 

[the captians wench]

Quite and interesting discussion going on there ... I can't add anything to it, but interesting though.

Oh and thanks for the link JMohegan.

And thanks to the rest of you for the responses.
I also think myself that it would not be wise to "show off" your relationship amongst people you know, and it's not what i intend to after all... Just wanted to know how safe it is and stuff to carry your lifestyle out there without being too concerned, but if it's seen as inappropriate and respectless, maybe it's not a good thing to do. I wouldn't want to create a bad image for the lifestyle.
But on the other hand, maybe more subtle things could be carry out.. Maybe if lifestylers do that and slowly increase it an inch after some time, people will get used to it and not be so prejudiced... but i guess thats what is being done anyway.
I would love to be able to be myself amongst the vanilla people but I guess that wont be possible just yet....

There is always a fine line between being yourself and being apropriate, be it in this form or in vanilla forms. You wouldn't go to a 5 star restaraunt in blue jeans, or talk about the fabulous sex you had with your guy at the dinner table with his parents. Tho you might choose to sit next to your date insted of across from, and you may hold your guys hand after dinner while sitting on the couch and talking to his folks. By all means be yourself, but be apropriate.

Like I said, I do wear my leather collar, and cuffs (tho not as often), and let me tell you they don't get half the looks my corset does. Infact I've worn my collar to family things as well. And my two year old niece gets rather upset when I don't have it on because she's so used to seeing it. And her 5 year old brother thinks it's the coolest thing in the world, and is perfectly happy when I answer his question of "why do you wear a dog collar" with "because it means a lot to me and I like wearing it."

I remember one dinner where my great grandmother showed up. This 80+ year old woman sat next to me, looked me over, then looked a bit harder. She then turned to my grand father and said "Who has this girl locked up so tight?" *giggles*.

So you don't have to hide who you are, but be very aware that not every one will accept this you, and some who do may surprize you.