|
Forget Cricket Talk about anything [within Board Rules, of course :) ] |
March 14, 2004, 07:36 PM
|
Test Cricketer
|
|
Join Date: June 30, 2003
Posts: 1,476
|
|
But can't you see that morals are just pretense? Now go and kill yourself.
(i am of course joking :P )
|
March 14, 2004, 08:19 PM
|
Cricket Legend
|
|
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069
|
|
Shubho, I don't know how you define "close-minded."
"faith=silly" has nothing to do with closeminded/openmindedness. faith is blindly believing in something. By definition, it is silly. Now, having faith, even though it is silly, can be beneficial or harmful to you in the long run. So, "faith=silly" has nothing to do with good/evil, benefit/loss, etc. It's an objective observation.
"morals = pretense" is also an objective observation and an extremely open-minded look at things. Morality itself is subjective. There is no objective standard of morality. Whetever subjective set of values we consider to be "moral", we "pretend" that they actually are "moral".
For example: Do you lie? Do you bribe? Do you consider lying and bribing absolutely immoral? Do you consider a certain level of lying and bribing as sort of a threshold value beyond which you won't go? What is that level? Do you think this level varies amonf different people? Do you think killing a person is immoral? Do you think the American soldiers that are killing innocent civilians in Iraq are immoral? Or do you think the lunatic terorists who kill the same American soldiers are immoral? How do you draw the line?
You can't.
It's all pretense.
There is only one rule in the game: "Chacha Apon Poran Bacha"
[Edited on 15-3-2004 by Arnab]
|
March 14, 2004, 11:04 PM
|
Cricket Legend
|
|
Join Date: September 20, 2002
Posts: 3,808
|
|
man, i give up. i might as well chat to a brick wall.
|
March 14, 2004, 11:17 PM
|
Cricket Legend
|
|
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069
|
|
Haha! Is it because you don't find anything objectionable in what I said?
|
March 15, 2004, 12:35 AM
|
Cricket Legend
|
|
Join Date: September 20, 2002
Posts: 3,808
|
|
do you seriously think so?
|
March 15, 2004, 01:43 AM
|
Cricket Legend
|
|
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069
|
|
I don't seriously think anything. I take it easy.
|
March 15, 2004, 01:48 AM
|
Test Cricketer
|
|
Join Date: June 30, 2003
Posts: 1,476
|
|
Arnab vs Shubho wrestlemania
Please please please STOP. Your constant bickering leads me to believe that you guys are married or something
|
March 15, 2004, 02:32 AM
|
Cricket Legend
|
|
Join Date: September 20, 2002
Posts: 3,808
|
|
bickering? neither of us has even exchanged insults yet, though he does seem to doubt my intelligence. but i'm not offended.
|
March 15, 2004, 02:40 AM
|
Retired BC Admin
|
|
Join Date: August 14, 2003
Location: pc near u
Posts: 8,021
|
|
When you sit for exam, you some how put your trust on that teacher's judgment.
When you travel, you put your life on line believing in pilot's skill.
When your teacher says e=mc*c, you believe in it even though you know it might be modified tomorrow.
When your doctor gives you those bitter pills you ....
When your mom says this is your dad, you .....
When your wife says this is your baby, you ....
See where I'm coming from? All faith or trust aren't that bad or silly, unjustified faith might be.
|
March 15, 2004, 11:36 AM
|
Cricket Legend
|
|
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069
|
|
All of those cases are not just silly trust, because it's not trust based on blind faith. It's trust based on probabilistic calculation. The doctors, teachers and pilots have to go through a rigorous qualification process before they enter their profession.
You don't consider people who sell those "jouno khomota bordhok molom" at Farmgate overbridge "doctors", do you?
The reasoning is so elementary. When you have a heart problem, do you go to a heart specialist or an ENT guy? Why? Because the heart specialist is QUALIFIED to address your heart problems. This is not "faith=silly" kind of trust. This is cold blooded, calculated, probabilistic trust.
Yes, you can blindly trust your mom that it's really is your dad. But if you have ANY doubt, and want to be sure, science is there to rescue you. Do a simple DNA testing.
|
March 15, 2004, 11:49 AM
|
Cricket Legend
|
|
Join Date: July 25, 2003
Location: U.A.E
Posts: 3,750
|
|
Quote:
Because the heart specialist is QUALIFIED to address your heart problems. This is not "faith=silly" kind of trust. This is cold blooded, calculated, probabilistic trust.
|
Heart specialist- He is also a tangible entity my wife can sue hard after praying hard all nightl.
P.S Needless to say, I also expect all banglacricket members to pray hard if that happens to me.
|
March 15, 2004, 01:49 PM
|
Retired BC Admin
|
|
Join Date: August 14, 2003
Location: pc near u
Posts: 8,021
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Arnab
Yes, you can blindly trust your mom that it's really is your dad.
|
Blind faith doesn't sound that silly afterall!
|
March 15, 2004, 01:57 PM
|
|
Cricket Legend
|
|
Join Date: July 25, 2002
Favorite Player: Tamim, Riyad, Ashraful
Posts: 5,835
|
|
Quote:
It's trust based on probabilistic calculation
|
Blaise's Wager!
Ekta post kotobar korbo?
|
March 15, 2004, 04:32 PM
|
Cricket Legend
|
|
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by chinaman
Quote:
Originally posted by Arnab
Yes, you can blindly trust your mom that it's really is your dad.
|
Blind faith doesn't sound that silly afterall!
|
It IS silly. It is also silly to expect a 5 year old child to know the nuts and bolts of DNA testing or even how his dad's sperm and his mom's egg made a zygote from which he came.
Did you know that about 10% people in the USA call someone their dad or mom who is really not their dad or mom? Think about it. One of 10 people out there don't know who their real dad/mom is.
But you are not supposed to talk about it. Taboos, as it appears, are also silly.
|
March 15, 2004, 05:38 PM
|
|
ODI Cricketer
|
|
Join Date: November 21, 2003
Location: Blue Moon
Posts: 509
|
|
So thats not the childs problem, if the real dad/mom does not care about the child why should he care who his parents are?
Anyway, you guys diagress, topic is Angels
Do you have faith in the humble electron that lets you read this? :duh:
|
March 15, 2004, 05:51 PM
|
Retired BC Admin
|
|
Join Date: August 14, 2003
Location: pc near u
Posts: 8,021
|
|
If blindly trusting mom or wife about dad and baby is silly, I think many can live with that silliness.
BTW, could you please give the source and link of that statistics?
|
March 15, 2004, 08:29 PM
|
Cricket Legend
|
|
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069
|
|
Quote:
If blindly trusting mom or wife about dad and baby is silly, I think many can live with that silliness.
|
Of course. I myself am living with all the religious people's silliness aren't I?
As for the statistic: I don't remember off hand, but it was from a book by Matt Ridley or David Buss. Could be from the book "Sperm Wars" too. I will check.
[Edited on 16-3-2004 by Arnab]
|
March 15, 2004, 08:43 PM
|
Retired BC Admin
|
|
Join Date: August 14, 2003
Location: pc near u
Posts: 8,021
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Arnab
Of course. I myself am living with all the religious people's silliness aren't I?
|
More appropriately, you are living with your own silliness (as you like to call it), unless of course you decide to pay a visit to lab or did you already? On the other hand, I live with my own faith (that's what I like to call) without complain of any kind.
|
March 15, 2004, 08:46 PM
|
Retired BC Admin
|
|
Join Date: August 14, 2003
Location: pc near u
Posts: 8,021
|
|
BTW, I'll be looking forward to know the source of that statistics with relevant info like link, year, conductor of that poll, etc you know what I mean.
|
March 15, 2004, 08:49 PM
|
Cricket Legend
|
|
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069
|
|
Yes yes. Blanket statements are fun.
Look, I have no problem with you living with your faith. Do whatever you want. But know that I think you are silly to have that sort of religious faith. This is not a complaint, a mere observation. I don't think it matters much what "I" think of the silliness of your faith. What matters is when you yourself will understand your silliness.
|
March 15, 2004, 08:57 PM
|
Cricket Legend
|
|
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069
|
|
Chinaman here\'s your source
From: http://www.ukmm.org.uk/issues/cheat.htm
BTW, I mistook the name of the country. It's UK not USA. But it happens pretty frequently in USA too. The second article in the following quote is an evidence of that.
Quote:
Women who cheat on their husbands
The Times 23 January 2000
One in seven fathers 'not the real parent'
Lois Rogers, Medical Correspondent
At least one in 10 children was not sired by the man who believes he is their father, according to scientists in paternity testing laboratories.
Some laboratories have reported the level of "unexpected" paternity to be as high as one in seven when they perform DNA genetic tests on blood samples from supposed parent and offspring.
There are now seven government-approved laboratories doing paternity testing. Cellmark Diagnostics in Abingdon is the largest and receives more than 10,000 requests a year. One in five of them is "private" and has not been ordered as a result of a court or Child Support Agency dispute.
David Hartshorne, spokesman for Cellmark, said that in about one case in seven, the presumed father turns out to be the wrong man.
"It is surprising how often the mother is wrong about the person she thinks is the father," he said. Marriage breakdown and more births outside marriage have increased disputes about paternity and the desire for testing, he added.
In addition to DNA evidence, other studies of mass blood samples suggest that increasing numbers of women are unsure if their husbands are the fathers of their children.
This phenomenon of misattributed fatherhood has been investigated in a newly published study by social scientists at the London School of Economics (LSE).
Oliver Curry, the principal researcher, said long working hours and commuting by fathers could contribute to uncertainty about whether children have been fathered by the man who is bringing them up.
"It can have major consequences for the way men treat their supposed children and the amount of time, money and emotion they invest in them," Curry said. "It can range through the entire spectrum from serious abuse to deciding not to pay for their education, or not buying them the latest expensive trainers."
The team from the LSE is calling for investigations to be set up by the government's new National Family and Parenting Institute. They believe that mistrust over paternity may be an overlooked factor in family breakdown. Women are driven by primitive urges to seek the optimum genes for their children, which can lead to them sleeping with a "high social-status Casanova" as well as their regular partner during the fertile period around ovulation, researchers claim.
David Buss, a psychologist from the University of Texas who is about to publish a new study on the subject, said: "A proportion of these misattributed fathers will believe that the child is genuinely theirs, and often the mother tries to foster that belief."
He also estimates that the tendency for women to shop around for the best genes leads to them making mistakes about who has fathered their child.
Soraya Khashoggi, 57, former wife of arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi, has revealed how DNA tests established her 18-year-old daughter, Petrina, to be the child of Jonathan Aitken, the disgraced former Conservative minister.
Khashoggi said her ex-husband had completely accepted Petrina: "He gave her his name without ever asking who her true father was," she said.
Paula Yates, the television personality, discovered at 37 that her real father was Hughie Green, the Opportunity Knocks star.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Dallas Morning News 31 October 1999
DNA TESTS ALTER LEGAL LANDSCAPE FOR DADS
Man supports sons not biologically his
By Brooks Egerton
BIG SPRING, Texas - You are not a cystic fibrosis carrier, the doctor says. Sounds like good news, but it has ripped his patient's life apart. Both parents must have a defective CF gene for their offspring to develop the deadly disease -- so how could Morgan Wise's youngest child be sick?
"I'm sorry to say there's a good chance he's not your boy," he recalled the physician telling him. In disbelief, he had DNA work done on all his kids. The staggering conclusion: His three sons were not his three sons, at least not biologically speaking.
"I cried," said Mr. Wise, a railroad engineer who'd been divorced 2 1/2 years when the testing nightmare began in early 1999. "It's like a death." When grief turned to rage against his ex-wife, he asked a court to free him from paying child support. More shock followed as he learned that DNA EVIDENCE OF PATERNITY -- THOUGH WIDELY USED TO ORDER PAYMENTS -- OFTEN IS NOT ACCEPTED WHEN TRYING TO STOP THEM.
A central reason is the U.S. judicial system's age-old, hard-to-rebut presumption that husband equals father. There's no easy place in the equation for the modern miracle of DNA testing, which in recent years has brought powerful new facts to bear on legal matters and has given families information they sometimes can't cope with.
As cases like Mr. Wise's have surfaced around the country, courts typically have made children's interests paramount, determined to keep them from becoming innocent victims of a high-tech blood feud. Financially and emotionally, the reasoning goes, minors need the man who has functioned as their dad.
"Put the children first," said University of Texas professor Jack Sampson, a nationally known authority on family law. "The question of who's the father is not just a biological one."
That's readily understood in, say, an adoption, in which a man freely consents to parental responsibility. But what if a husband is deceived, as Mr. Wise says he was, into acting as a father? How do you explain to him that he can't capitalize on the sort of scientific evidence that could be used against him if he fathered a child out of wedlock?
"Too bad," Mr. Sampson said.
John McCabe, legislative director and legal counsel for the National Commission on Uniform State Laws, is more reserved: "I don't have a good answer to that. I don't think anybody does."
The commission, led in part by Mr. Sampson, is redrafting its model parentage law to guide state legislatures, which are funding the effort. The drafters remain resolutely children-first in their approach and are talking about making it even more difficult to challenge the presumption of paternity.
Rise in testing
A key reason for the rewrite is the explosion in DNA testing and its ability to answer paternity questions with virtual certainty. Officials estimate that accredited labs -- those whose results can be used in court - will perform more than 250,000 such paternity tests this year. That's more than triple the number a decade ago.
The companies' experience shows that women, for whatever reason, misidentify the fathers of their children with some frequency. DNA Diagnostics Center, the Ohio firm that did Mr. Wise's tests and is an industry leader, says 30 percent of the men it tests prove to be misidentified.
Similar numbers come from the Texas attorney general's office, which enforces child support: About a quarter of the men who disputed paternity in the last year turned out to be right. In Florida, the proportion was one-third.
Many of DNA Diagnostics' customers are women seeking child support and men who want custody or visitation rights, spokeswoman Lisa McDaniel said. But the Wise family infidelity scenario, she added, "is not uncommon." Some married women "think they're going to get away with it," she said. "You never know how things are going to unravel."
Ms. McDaniel said the company got a surge in business this summer from billboards, posted in 10 cities, that featured a baby with a Pinocchio nose and asked, "Is his mother a liar?" Mr. Wise's attorney in Big Spring, Robert Miller, has learned enough to change his standard advice to men in divorce cases. "I tell every father, 'We'd better get DNA
tests,' " he said.
Support battle
Because Mr. Wise stipulated during divorce that the boys were his and didn't test until later, Mr. Miller said, there's little hope of ending his $500-a-month support payment. As a rule, courts bar people from relitigating a case once it has been adjudicated and the appeal window has closed. Mr. Miller is trying to pry the matter back open by alleging that his client's ex-wife fraudulently concealed her extramarital activity. But a state appeals court, in an unpublished December 1998 opinion, rejected just such an argument in a central Texas case that closely parallels Mr. Wise's. The same month, a Philadelphia man lost a similar fight before Pennsylvania's highest court and has since been unable to get a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Even if a husband tries to contest paternity before divorce, he may well fail. According to UT's Mr. Sampson, several states - including California but not Texas - allow no rebuttal of the fatherhood presumption unless the man can prove he was sterile, impotent or not cohabiting with the woman at the time of conception.
Other states do permit challenges such as DNA testing -- but only if it's done within five years of the child's birth, as currently recommended by the National Commission on Uniform State Laws. (Mr. Sampson and fellow drafters propose to cut the number to two years, writing that "a longer period may have severe consequences for the child.")
Texas now has no limit tied to birth. So could Mr. Wise have avoided child support by simply disputing paternity before his divorce was final? Not necessarily. He would have had to persuade a court to order DNA tests verifying the ones he had done -- something a judge could easily decide was not in the children's best interests, legal experts say.
Children's feelings
Mr. Wise's ex-wife, Wanda Fryar, now has primary custody of the three boys, who are 7, 8 and 10. A 14-year-old daughter, who tests show is Mr. Wise's biologically, also lives with her and her new husband in another part of Big Spring, a West Texas town of about 24,000.
The boys don't understand their father's attempt to disavow paternity, Ms. Fryar said. "If he had any concern for them at all," she said, "he would end it." She questions whether the DNA tests were done properly but sees no reason to have her own done. "The kids are his," Ms. Fryar said.
Under oath, she has given conflicting statements on this point. She testified during divorce proceedings in 1996 that she'd never had an extramarital affair. But at a hearing this spring, when Mr. Wise was seeking to revisit the support question, she admitted having sex with another man nine months before each of the boy's births and acknowledged that he could be the biological father. Ms. Fryar divulged the man's name after the judge ordered her to. So far, he has not become part of the litigation.
In an interview, Ms. Fryar conceded the liaisons, saying that Mr. Wise knew about them and that he had affairs, too. He denies both allegations.
'Why should I pay?'
Mr. Wise, who has also remarried, knows that some people will think he's punishing the boys unfairly. "But why should I pay for what she did?" he
asked. "I'm as innocent as the kids."
Does he still see them as his sons?
At one point he told a reporter yes, "because that's all I know and that's all they know." They still call him dad, he added. But when one had a birthday recently, "I didn't get him a card, because how do I sign it?" When he sees them these days, "I wonder who their father is. It's like I'm baby-sitting. . . . I'm like a significant other, like a stepfather."
Mr. Wise talked about how much he has cared for the boys, whose pictures remain on display in his living room; how he stayed up nights when the youngest, the one with cystic fibrosis, was struggling to breathe; how he fought for and won primary custody, back before DNA testing "just wiped my whole family out."
He said he wants to set up a college fund for the kids and help them in other ways, as long as Ms. Fryar can't touch the money. But his "death hate" for her, as he calls it, seems stronger than any parental love. If winning his legal battle meant he could never see the boys again, then so be it, he said.
"I don't care if I have to get a second job digging a ditch, I'm going to fight her all the way," Mr. Wise said. "I'll never get over it."
|
[Edited on 16-3-2004 by Arnab]
|
March 15, 2004, 09:09 PM
|
|
BanglaCricket Staff
|
|
Join Date: July 15, 2002
Location: 16th floor
Posts: 4,106
|
|
Irony!!!!!
Quote:
Look, I have no problem with you living with your faith. Do whatever you want. But know that I think you are silly to have that sort of religious faith. This is not a complaint, a mere observation. I don't think it matters much what "I" think of the silliness of your faith. What matters is when you yourself will understand your silliness.
|
Oh man! this is hilarious. You have crossed the realm of "cockiness" and sailed into the wonderfully "self-reaffirming" world of delusion. But you don't even know it. sigh! What a pity?!! While I am at it let me point out something to you Arnab in case you haven't been told this before. Despite feigning to be the champion of "fair argument", you have a great knack for "killing" and "derailing" arguements (perhaps you are even too deluded to realise it) with your arrogance and consequently often insulting comments. And please! do not assume/presume (even though "assumptions are fun") about others' tolerance levels. Please do not insult others and say oh its just your style and you never actually meant to insult anyone. Just keep it civil. Make your arguement and please stop passing judgement on your "opponents". Sigh! even I know all that I said now is in vain. Like Shubho bhai said "I am talking to a brick wall".
[Edited on 16-3-2004 by pompous]
|
March 15, 2004, 09:12 PM
|
Retired BC Admin
|
|
Join Date: August 14, 2003
Location: pc near u
Posts: 8,021
|
|
Thank you for the links. Will take a look when I get chance. BTW, you don't have to burden our eyes with those long articles, a simple link, small quotes would have been fine.
|
March 15, 2004, 09:20 PM
|
Cricket Legend
|
|
Join Date: June 20, 2002
Location: BanglaCricket.com
Posts: 6,069
|
|
Pompous: Whatever. You keep figuring out which "realm" I fall in. I will read your philosophical treatise on the "realms" of my life when I get 70 years old.
Chinaman: Whatever. You are the only one who wanted the source. I gave you the source. I even put the relevant sections in bold. Nobody is being burdened here.
[Edited on 16-3-2004 by Arnab]
|
March 15, 2004, 09:33 PM
|
Retired BC Admin
|
|
Join Date: August 14, 2003
Location: pc near u
Posts: 8,021
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Arnab
Look, I have no problem with you living with your faith. Do whatever you want. But know that I think you are silly to have that sort of religious faith.
|
Wow, wow! trusting parents or spouse is a religious faith? I called my faith a faith, it is you who like to call your faith silly. It is you who like to call other people's faith as silly too, but when it comes down to yourself, you conveniently choose to ignore it, don't wanna even mention it. Good going, brother.
Why you feel so shy? Say it out loud, I trust my parents and even if it sounds silly to anyone I'm happy to believe it. Trust me (or silly me?) you will feel much better.
Well at least you are right on one thing, it matters what I understand of my faith and what you understand of your silliness (as you call it).
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:59 AM.
|
|