Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

Sorry if it came off as rude, but this applies to a hell of a lot of things OW.

Like, drug use.

The well intentioned can say, "it does not matter that youu have no family, no home, no job, and do not diasadvantage the society in any way by your drug use, for your own protection and safety,  we have decided to place you in mandatory drug rehab, at your own expense."

because saving their lives is so paramount even when they dont want to be saved.

The religious version is just more well known.  you know, like converting gay people by force to save them from hell.  Same ideology, same pathology, different foot.

[wierd]

We arent arguing about facts here.

No we are arguing facts.  The specific facts we are arguing is what my beliefs are.  I am arguing that my beliefs are agnostic towards christian theology while you are telling me that are derived from christian theology.

Now seeing as you claim you dont believe in judging other peoples beliefs, isn't it absurd you are telling me what my beliefs are?

I asserted no such thing,  and challenge you to show where i did.  I did that to OW, but you and he are not the same.

[Orange Wizard]

u wot

The well intentioned can say, "it does not matter that youu have no family, no home, no job, and do not diasadvantage the society in any way by your drug use, for your own protection and safety,  we have decided to place you in mandatory drug rehab, at your own expense."

i never expressed that as my opinion

because saving their lives is so paramount even when they dont want to be saved.

establishing freedoms and quality of life so that people can do what they want to do rather than being forced into death camps, however

The religious version is just more well known.  you know, like converting gay people by force to save them from hell.  Same ideology, same pathology, different foot.

Forced conversions are terrible, 0/10 would not recommend

You're really doing a number to the poor strawman

[mainiac]

I asserted no such thing,  and challenge you to show where i did.  I did that to OW, but you and he are not the same.

Okay... so when OW says something it must be christian but when I say the exact same thing you deny claiming that?  I was confused about this because I was not reading OWs posts and thought you were replying to me.

[wierd]

When exactly *IS* it OK to force somebody to do or change something, given that you seem to feel forcing them into a new cultural norm is OK, but forcing sexual reprogramming is not?

Both are approached from the people doing it from the same angle: Saving people.

The difference I see is in weather you agree with their idea of what constitutes salvation, or in the threat they are saving people from.


Mainiac: Now you are just being disingenuous. I pointed out, crassly, that the ideology is the same as is used by christian fundies-- saving people, damn all else, because "damnit, I'M RIGHT!"

The christian fundie really does believe in an existential hell, and wants to help the gay people they try (and fail) to reprogram.  Their ignorant intention does not make the act right.

Neither does your ignorance make yours any more right.

Drawing a parallel is not the same as drawing an equvilancy, and your insistence it does is willfully disingenuous.

[Orange Wizard]

When exactly *IS* it OK to force somebody to do or change something

When it impinges on others' wellbeing. It's very simple. Homosexuality is, at worse, an irritation for conservatives and the like. It doesn't harm anyone.
Recreational drug use is also (generally) not harmful to other people. Ergo, it is acceptable.

Slavery is not okay. Torture is not okay. Mass murder is not okay. Raping children is not okay. If these things are acceptable in their culture, their culture is objectively inferior.

[Orange Wizard]

I'm mostly talking in relation to ISIS and other Islamic states that have a thing for sharia law. But yes, mutilation is also not okay.

[wierd]

The bible says homosexuality is an abomination, and that those that engage in it will not be in heaven.  It does not give wiggle room.

You simply disagree with the thesis behind this statement-- there is no heaven anyway, so being gay is unimportant.

The religious fundie does not feel that way.


You feel that equal human rights are very much a real thing.

The person who lives in a different culture feels otherwise.

Reconcile.


also, No. Not "Objectively."  Subjectively, as seen from the prism of your axiom set.


I point you to the rhetoric of the ancient greeks, concering the "obvious superiority" of their institutional pederestry. (no, seriously. I am. Because they did,  and did.)

[mainiac]

Mainiac: Now you are just being disingenuous. I pointed out, crassly, that the ideology is the same as is used by christian fundies-- saving people, damn all else, because "damnit, I'M RIGHT!"

You REALLY aren't understanding the veil of ignorance.  That is LITERALLY the exact thing that it is meant to address.

[smjjames]

Okay, how about this better example. The Aztecs and their blood sacrifices (as horrible as they are to us and the Spaniards that met them) vs the christian Spaniards?

To the Aztecs, they believe that they need to sacrifice blood (and the beating hearts of the sacrifice victims) to the gods or the sun won't rise next month (I've heard 'next day', but that's probably a stretch) or the gods will get angry and apocalypse the world.

Reconcile that with the christian Spaniards because while Jesus did shed blood, human sacrifice (in the Aztec sense) isn't a thing.

[Orange Wizard]

You feel that equal human rights are very much a real thing.

The person who lives in a different culture feels otherwise.

Reconcile.

They are wrong. By any reasonable metric, freedoms and prosperity for everyone is better than freedoms and prosperity for some.

Okay, how about this better example. The Aztecs and their blood sacrifices (as horrible as they are to us and the Spaniards that met them) vs the christian Spaniards?

To the Aztecs, they believe that they need to sacrifice blood (and the beating hearts of the sacrifice victims) to the gods or the sun won't rise next month (I've heard 'next day', but that's probably a stretch) or the gods will get angry and apocalypse the world.

Reconcile that with the christian Spaniards because while Jesus did shed blood, human sacrifice (in the Aztec sense) isn't a thing.

Honestly I'd say the Conquistadores were the greater evil there. Human sacrifice isn't pretty but at least they didn't annihilate entire civilisations

[smjjames]

You feel that equal human rights are very much a real thing.

The person who lives in a different culture feels otherwise.

Reconcile.

They are wrong. By any reasonable metric, freedoms and prosperity for everyone is better than freedoms and prosperity for some.

Okay, how about this better example. The Aztecs and their blood sacrifices (as horrible as they are to us and the Spaniards that met them) vs the christian Spaniards?

To the Aztecs, they believe that they need to sacrifice blood (and the beating hearts of the sacrifice victims) to the gods or the sun won't rise next month (I've heard 'next day', but that's probably a stretch) or the gods will get angry and apocalypse the world.

Reconcile that with the christian Spaniards because while Jesus did shed blood, human sacrifice (in the Aztec sense) isn't a thing.

Honestly I'd say the Conquistadores were the greater evil there. Human sacrifice isn't pretty but at least they didn't annihilate entire civilisations

I don't mean historical wise and what happened historically, I was trying to make a different example for the Veil of Ignorance argument thing.

[Orange Wizard]

Um... a bit of cognitive dissonance here?

Yeah

[wierd]

The viel of ignorance is a methodology to approach an ambiguous social dynamic whithout prejudices--

It presupposes the arguer to try to see how things work from all sides of the issue, without considering where in the society you will find yourself  because you are ignorant of that.

It has fatal flaws though.

1) Things that are considered unpalatable by the person pondering are still seen this way. Instead of trying to ponder how the unpalatable thing might be beneficial, they instead focus on avoidance of the unpalatable thing.  This is not agnostic. (Look at say, Nature's genuinely agnostic approach, and its adoption of solutions like Mantids eating their mates and most of their offspring. If we apply the veil of ignorance, we simply do not arrive at nature's actually neutral solution, because the majority get eaten. Your chances of being the lucky survivor simply are abysmally low-- but those odds being low, is good for the species.)

2) it does nothing to force people out of their ideological lines in the sand, and actually consider the implications of the above.

[smjjames]

Um... a bit of cognitive dissonance here?

OW meant that the Aztecs didn't destroy entire civilizations. Though they did terrorize the region and give the Conqistadors ample allies to fight the Aztecs with.

Or maybe I'm missing the cognitive dissonance? Maybe because I wrote the thing in the first place.

Also, we've gone way offtopic. Wheres the philosophy thread when we need it?