Cheeze_Pavilion said:
In many cases, that's not true: look up the difference between connotation and denotation.
Yes, they're opposites. Denotation meaning the literal definition where connotation is the implied definitions based upon context, such as "rest" being either relaxing, sleeping or death. Where does 2x =/= 2x? (harkening back to the mathematics) Anyway, this is getting off topic.
I am not aware of any that do so. Maybe I'm just wrong--if so, my apologies. My guess is you're confusing "disregard" with "believing the full message of Love is captured in the legalistic aspects.
I was involved with a Lutheran church for about 6 months that never once spoke of the Love of Christ. Instead the congregation spoke only of hellfire and of the Law. There was no personal relationship with God or Jesus, there was only walking the straight and narrow. Now, granted, this is most likely a result of the pastor and church elders, etc. and probably shouldn't be generalized with the entire denomination, but churches such as this exist. Once again, off-topic at this point. My original statement still stands that their particular idea of Christianity could have bearing on the overreaction. Leave the statement at that. If you don't like
how I said it, too bad? Take the context and get over it.
You're accusing me of nitpicking and arguing semantics just to not deal with what I have to say--see how unproductive those sorts of baseless accusations are?
Aye, true! ^_^ About as unproductive as twisting my words out of context or misunderstanding the connotation used. :shrug:
Not necessarily--they might not want to be philanthropic, but still want to be a good parent. They might want to fulfill their duty, but don't have the kind of feelings that other good parents do.
You're confusing someone having a duty with someone being incapable of not doing something. We all "have" to pay our taxes, but that doesn't mean we don't have a lot of tax evaders.
In my frame of thinking, someone who doesn't provide good clothing, healthy and varied nourishment, a proper education (preferably post-secondary), a loving, nurturing and caring environment, etc... to the best of their ability is a bad parent. One who does provide those things is a good parent. What's the argument here?
"Generally a parent is responsible for support of a minor child. This responsibility encompasses the essentials of food, clothing, and shelter, as well as education and medical care.
The parent has the obligation to furnish a home for the child. A parent has the right to use Corporal Punishment, but it must not be so excessive as to constitute child abuse.
A parent's power over his child includes the authority and obligation to oversee medical treatment. A parent will most likely be held guilty of criminal neglect if he disregards the health requirements of his child."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Parent+and+Child
Not once does it list the state of which the clothing, food or shelter must be in (besides basic furnishings).
That doesn't mean you've expressed yourself clearly--maybe they misunderstood you as I did, but they simply agree with the misunderstanding that they came away with.
Or maybe they didn't.
I don't even know what your religion *is* beyond the fact that you're a Christian like me.
It's funny too, because this discussions could take place at almost the exact same level even with out the healthy dose of religion it has.
k...
It always made sense: I just don't think you can compare what the OP said with your scenario about Mortal Kombat--proper analogy would be if they told you there were arms being ripped off and spines being torn out, but that most of the game was punches and kicks and energy balls. The kid didn't fail to mention that there's killing by just watering it down to 'swordfights' the way you did with 'battles' in your example.
Maybe being a parent myself gives me a unique perspective on the situation since I've actually experienced similar scenarios with my own children as this. Any time there is a downplaying of something such as "oh, it's not so bad, really see look!" with an emphasis on a new direction, it generally means there's some funny business going on. Actually, I can't think of one time where there wasn't something fishy going on that that hasn't happened, kind of like slight of the hand that magicians use, except slight of the... video game content? Of course, I only have my own experience to go on and she may be nothing like my boys, but that's all I have to go off of.
This entire debate is a matter of opinion and personal experience. You and I don't see eye to eye on if she mislead her parents. I feel she did because I've heard "descriptions" incredibly similar to her own that had just enough truth but intentionally left out information because of a desire to deceive. Most kids have done that with their parents actually. I know I did, I didn't get away with it though, and neither has she, in my eyes.
No, 'granting that for the sake of argument' assume, not the kind of assumption you're talking about.
k...
