Bannasidhe wrote: » My son told everyone in school he had two mammies because it is normal and the truth. It is normal because it was part of his perfectly normal life. Some kids have two daddies. Some kids have neither mammy or daddy. Some kids have just a mammy or a daddy. Some kids have a daddy and a mammy of different ethnic backgrounds. Some kids have a granddad or grandmother who parent them. For each one of those children that is their normal. Telling children that there are different kinds of families is not foisting anything on anyone. It is recognizing the reality one kind of family may be the majority type but it is not the only type and other kinds are just as valid. How dare anyone turn to a child and say 'your family isn't normal' :mad: - a person filled with such arrogance, lack of empathy, and understanding should be kept well away from children in my opinion.
Hedgelayer wrote: » I'm a GAY man myself and a family consists of a unit of guardians and one or two parents. You have one dad and one mom, nothing more. Suggesting to kid's they've two daddies or mummies is like telling them there's a Santa or Easter bunny.I've come across lesbian and gay couples parenting and most of them do a pretty dam good job at it without undermining the fact that the kid also has a biological father or mother too. You have a parent and a partnership in those relationships, nothing more or nothing less. Thankfully for my son's sake his dad myself is a masculine gay man into surfing, fishing, bushcraft and hiking camping etc so he was able to benefit from that and have a normal upbringing... But I cannot understand this whole two mummies and daddies thing it's not factually correct. It's undermining the integrity of a family unit.
antiskeptic wrote: » If one mammy or daddy, a mammy & daddy, two mammies or daddies.... all constitute 'normal', what about 3 mammies and a daddy or two?
ILoveYourVibes wrote: So why do people?
Bannasidhe wrote: » You may be a GAY man who is super butch and masculine and all that (go you!) but you seem to have contradicted yourself there. No one has said children do not have a biological mother and a father (even when those two people may never have actually met each other or even know each other's names) however that does not make them parents in the day to day caring for a child sense or any kind of a family unit. If a child is being raised by 2 mammies, 2 daddies, 1 mammy, 1 daddy - then that is the family unit of that child.
Hedgelayer wrote: » Less of the super butch bullsh1t I heard that one before lol super butch , it's not a particularly nice way to describe a guy. Would you like if I suggested you're a bull dyke ?
Bannasidhe wrote: » You wouldn't be the first or the last to use that description. It depends on if you mean it to be offensive or not - even then water + ducks back. I don't considering calling someone who describes themselves as very masculine as "super butch" to be inaccurate but I apologise if I offended you in any way.
smacl wrote: » Why do you think a god is equivalent to a spaceman? After all, man largely makes gods in his own image for the most part, occasionally cutting and pasting in a bit of another animal or a few extra arms or legs. In my mind, gods are solely a creation of our own imagination.
antiskeptic wrote: » 'We' don't teach our kids. Some teach their kids some things - according to their belief system. Others, other things. Your position rests on the 'majority flavour of the moment' (there have been other majority flavour of the moments). This is turn rests on your belief in the onwards and upwards march of humanity. As we have seen, that belief (e.g the supposed progress in human rights, whilst we witness Italy taking further steps to ensure those whose rights have been trampled on will drown in the Med) is anything but established. That 'beliefs ought not be foisted upon other beliefs' only seems to work one way in your world: where it concerns belief you don't share being foisted on beliefs you do share. This is problematic. What I find crass is your employing flat earth comparisons with beliefs you don't share when your own dangle from the same set of sky hooks.
Dean Broad Mound wrote: » Better question is why not?
And maybe any 'god' can make man somewhat in his own image, rather than vice-versa, not that this is important. Modifying DNA isn't such a difficult science afterall. In your mind you consider a 'god' type entity as an human (constant) imaginative charachter. Whereas in fact any visitor to Earth from one of the { 40,000,000,000 (x) 1,000,000,000 } I.e. '4E19' habitable '40,000,000,000,000,000,000.00 planets' in the (observable) Universe, (or other dimension), would certainly be conidered 'god-like' by any age of our civilisation including this current modern one.
smacl wrote: » While there might be any number of habitable planets in the universe
smacl wrote: » none of them might be reachable from any other one without faster than light travel.
Dean Broad Mound wrote: » Fine so it comes boils down to a matter of 'transport'.
smacl wrote: » Pretty much. Transport as in energy and time.... ...where does the energy come from?
smacl wrote: » I think you're essentially comparing religion with science fiction rather than science here.
Dean Broad Mound wrote: » I think you're essentially disregarding high factors of basic scientific probability, with our limited current understanding, surrounding the matter of 'transport' factors.
smacl wrote: » Perhaps you'd care to quantify some of these high factors of basic scientific probability so,....
smacl wrote: » And for my money I'd have about as much faith in Trump's UFOs as leprechauns at the bottom of the garden.
Dean Broad Mound wrote: » This was in regards to life outside of our planet, which we both have already agreed was 'likely'. Given the sheer amount (4E19) of likely habitable planets.
A potentially habitable planet implies a terrestrial planet within the circumstellar habitable zone and with conditions roughly comparable to those of Earth (i.e. an Earth analog) and thus potentially favourable to Earth-like life.[citation needed] However, the question of what makes a planet habitable is much more complex than having a planet located at the right distance from its host star so that water can be liquid on its surface: various geophysical and geodynamical aspects, the radiation, and the host star's plasma environment can influence the evolution of planets and life, if it originated.[2] In November 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarfs in the Milky Way,[5][6] 11 billion of which may be orbiting Sun-like stars.[7] A 2015 review concluded that the exoplanets Kepler-62f, Kepler-186f and Kepler-442b were likely the best candidates for being potentially habitable.[8] These are at a distance of 1,200, 490 and 1,120 light-years away, respectively. Of these, Kepler-186f is similar in size to Earth with a 1.2-Earth-radius measure and it is located towards the outer edge of the habitable zone around its red dwarf.
Dean Broad Mound wrote: » The Navy acknowledged a “number of reports of unauthorized and/or unidentified aircraft entering various military-controlled ranges and designated air space in recent years.
smacl wrote: » 40 billion is 40,000,000,000 or 4E11 not 4E19, so your figure there would be out be out by a factor of 100 million. .
smacl wrote: » Any reason you put this in the smallest font size available, and what exactly makes you think unauthorized and/or unidentified aircraft are UFOs or spaceships from another planet? We have all sorts of drones of all shapes and sizes flying all over the place at this point in time. There's no reason to assume an unauthorized and/or unidentified aircraft is a UFO.
mulbot wrote: » You can't disprove someting that hadn't been proven to exist in the first place. Using that logic, you could literally claim anything to be true without any evidence.
smacl wrote: » All sounds about as plausible as watching a couple of episodes of Ancient Aliens from where I'm sitting.
Hedgelayer wrote: » I haven't watched that,is it worth a look ?
Santino Ancient Disk wrote: » I could say the opposite. I've yet to see an atheist prove that God doesn't exist.
Dean Broad Mound wrote: » Pretty much indeed. Assuming that is, the current limitations or understanding of energy and time as we as a simple primitive war like civilisation, plagued by poverty, disease and inequality, would currently understand such matters. Bear in mind we've gone from the 1st ever plane flight (of 18mins) just over 100yrs ago, to landing on the moon 50yrs ago, to NASA considering the X3 ion-propulsion as a means of establising a base on Mars circa 2030. All less time than it takes for a fairly young oak tree to grow.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Do you have any evidence Free Will actually does exist though? It is quite the contentious claim these days. It is certainly by no means a given.
Fourier wrote: » I was just wondering about this. Is there more recent evidence beyond Libet's experiments (and variants) in this regard?
