Print

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

[kaenneth]

I just frankly have gotten sick of being told what I am is an "abomination" or a "sin," by people who I don't particularly feel are very moral in the first place.

You only are what you are because you chose to be, if you didn't want to be a sinful abomination you shouldn't have chosen to go to law school. 

[SalmonGod]

Face-punching analogy:  You're a bad person if you don't at least try to explain to people that they need to be face-punched, and obtain permission from them to do so.  If you don't at least try, you're either insincere in your beliefs or just don't care about others.  You're also a bad person if you do so without permission or badger excessively, because pretty much all human interaction should take place within the context that all participants are equally capable of being wrong, so there should be reasonable effort taken to avoid doing things that wouldn't be appreciated if the justification for them turned out to be incorrect.

[Reelya]

Didn't know it was that old.  Surprised I haven't encountered it before, if so.

Link below may or may not be the site i read it on, so long ago i don't remember, though this atheist site's been up since 1996 and some of the other stuff seems familiar. He talks about having the wording corrected by readers (on the moon theory) so i am 100% that the below link is the original creator's website

http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php

[Willfor]

Further of note for the mormon baptism thingy, the baptisms can be done after the rapture, they just do some now in order to presumably reduce some of the paperwork needed later. So doing said baptism here and now isn't really required, and as such they can avoid the insensitivity without damning people.

... Mormons don't believe the in the rapture. .___.

[kaijyuu]

They call it the "second coming" (of christ).

Name's different, details are different, similar concept.


I live in Utah dude

[MaximumZero]

Face punching saves souls? This just in, I am the messiah.

[kaijyuu]

Please don't save me.

[penguinofhonor]

I just saw "How far will Santorum's surge carry him?" on CNN.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Somewhere, a CNN technician is laughing.

[FearfulJesuit]

You know, I think I was always fated to be a liberal, but I've only now determined that the reason I'm a socialist is that my family is Old Money without any of the money, and I go to a school with a lot of members of the Nouveaux Riches, and I really don't like them.

[Truean]

-stuff about post mortem babtism-

Well, besides from being insensitive jerks, it doesn't hurt anything.
While on their side they believe they are right, so if you have a baptism (even after death, although I don't know if god would care about that or once your destination is decided if it matters what happens on earth), even a 1/1000 chance of a person not going to hell (or leaving hell for heaven) because of it seems to justify the jerk part entirely.

A completely undefined chance of a positive effect of an action justifies being a jerk? Cool. What if I decide that me punching you in the face will send you to Heaven when you die? Or that swearing at people on the street will do the same for them? Would it justify those actions too?

If you knew that punching me would save me a infinite amount of pain then yes, anything besides punching me would be a terrible thing to do.

Obviously there has to be limits, because almost everyone is guaranteed to be wrong about religion (because only a single group can be right), but the case in question is just them being jerks and not hurting anybody, or even really having any affect besides making some people outraged (and while slightly disrespectful, not really that bad at all compared to the legions of other worse things that crazier religious people do).

A friend just shared this with me.  Coincidentally, it looks like a good time to share it here.

I'm pretty sure the people involved would absolutely say it hurts something: namely them. Anyone punches me like that without absolute, 100% indisputable proof and I make it my hobby to make their life a living hell, because I believe it would be better for everyone else that way. <-- What about this belief? Would I be justified in ruining them in every detailed way I know how to because I believed this? Of course I can't prove it but hey, neither can they.

What if I think that by killing them, I will have altered a future timeline to prevent the birth of someone who murders someone else who otherwise would cure cancer? What if I believe this and that ruining them would prevent this from happening? What's infinite suffering of one soul compared to having nobody in the future ever getting cancer again? What's one death compared to never having anyone ever have cancer again? Who is to say? It's a calculation you don't want to go into....

The belief that people who don't believe in a certain religion (isn't it funny how people always think that right religion is the one they follow) rightfully go to hell for all time is offensive. Its interesting, "God loves you but if you don't listen, then he'll have you sent away and tortured forever...." . Do not "save" me. Do not pray for me, especially while condemning me. <-- This doesn't help anyone in a world of physical problems. If there is a hell, then I fully and knowingly assume the risk of going there. That is no one's business but my own.

[Descan]

I've seen these object lessons, in movies, philosophy classes, and television that it's better to not kill a person, even if that person living would lead to a thousand other guaranteed deaths. That's always felt like alien thinking to me. But everyone I've talked to has said I'm a monster for thinking this way, that I'm horrible for thinking I'd be able to kill someone in that circumstance, and that I'm terrible that I think it's the best choice out of many bad choices.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, after all...

I don't know if I articulated this correctly, or if this is the place to put it. But what truean said reminded me of this, and I wanted some opinions. :3

[Reelya]

Isn't war all about that? They kill 100,000's of innocents to stop one "bad guy", and call it "collateral damage".

Stopping one bad guy to save 1000's of innocents should be a no-brainer, compared to the "real world" ethics we see carried out. Those other people sheep and Hollywood is drowning them in false morality.

[Truean]

Isn't war all about that? They kill 100,000's of innocents to stop one "bad guy", and call it "collateral damage".

Stopping one bad guy to save 1000's of innocents should be a no-brainer, compared to the "real world" ethics we see carried out. Those other people sheep and Hollywood is drowning them in false morality.

That doesn't make it right, that just makes it what happens.

[Reelya]

Interesting related ethics question - and also about the line between inaction and action.

Say there's a train about to hit 10 people, and you can pull a lever and divert it so it only kills one person? Should you do that?

Alternatively, the trains heading for the 1 person, and pulling the lever would make it hit 10 people.

In each case you're making the same basic choice between the life of 1 and the lives of 10 ... but we call one choice "inaction" and one "action". The only difference is how / whether your arm moved.