Can you accept this? [Archive]

Qwerty Dvorak

16th January 2007, 16:43

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+January 16, 2007 03:31 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ January 16, 2007 03:31 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2007 10:24 pm

Different people will come to different conclusions about what is best for them, and they should be able to act on those conclusions to the maximum extent possible.
It's odd to hear a "political pragmatist" such as yourself spewing anarchist shit like that.
Explain. [/b]
Well it's just that, as I understand it, the statement is suggesting (demanding, rather) that individuals should be free to act on their own subjective conclusions as regards what is best for them. The statement doesn't include any conditions or limitations on the ability of the individual to act upon their own interests.

MrDoom

16th January 2007, 17:40

Jazzratt

16th January 2007, 17:44

So you assume that there is no objective definition of beneficial? It all rests on your strange subjective morality, that makes you feel better about yourself but creates a less than optimal society.

No wonder it's fucking hard to take you seriously.

(Welcome back you infected goat gonad, by the way.)

Pow R. Toc H.

16th January 2007, 17:49

I'd agree with that, as long as it didnt interfere with anyone else or what they wanted to do.

I woud also say that, just for kicks, more often than not religous people think they know whats best for everyone else or why would they pray for non-believers?

t_wolves_fan

16th January 2007, 17:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 05:44 pm
So you assume that there is no objective definition of beneficial?
Yes.

You cannot prove that forcing someone to give up religion will make them better off.

In anticipation of your response: I am sorry, I know you are incredibly brilliant and enlightened, but your opinion is not evidence.

Do you have anything besides your opinion?

t_wolves_fan

16th January 2007, 17:52

Originally posted by Pow R. Toc [email protected] 16, 2007 05:49 pm
I'd agree with that, as long as it didnt interfere with anyone else or what they wanted to do.

I woud also say that, just for kicks, more often than not religous people think they know whats best for everyone else or why would they pray for non-believers?
Sure they do, which is why I ask them the same questions when they attempt to explain why their way of life is better for me than what I already do.

Praying though doesn't really bother me, so I can't see how or why I could try to stop it.

Tell me, do you think there is a right to not be offended?

Qwerty Dvorak

16th January 2007, 17:58

Jazzratt

16th January 2007, 17:59

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+January 16, 2007 05:50 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ January 16, 2007 05:50 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2007 05:44 pm
So you assume that there is no objective definition of beneficial?
Yes. [/b]
Then you're an idiot. Come back here when you realise we're in an objective reality with truth and falsehood in it, rather than a liberal wishy-washy "self harm if you want to" society.

You cannot prove that forcing someone to give up religion will make them better off.

In anticipation of your response: I am sorry, I know you are incredibly brilliant and enlightened, but your opinion is not evidence.

Do you have anything besides your opinion? Religion is a flasehood. Teaching people a falsehood, by definition, is harmful. People need the truth, no matter how brutal.

t_wolves_fan

16th January 2007, 17:59

I do not see how it's up to you to determine whether or not religion is stunting another's potential, given that every single person is free to abandon religion rather early on in their life.
Not likely when they are indoctrinated as children (overtly or covertly) into the religious perception.

Children are never free from indoctrination. Your system would indoctrinate them to be atheists and communists, would it not? Yes, it would.

Here's the difference: in the present system, a child can reject religion at any time and turn atheist or find another religion. In your system, it's quite obvious that a child wouldn't be permitted to reject atheism and he'd spend some time in the gulag for trying.

Quite obviously he has more freedom in the present system than he would in yours.

By 'stunting of potential', I mean overt coercion and supression, such as repression of women and children.

Based on criteria of your own determination that I'm sure I'd find quite humorous.

Where have I ever shown or implied that?

In your next statement:

As a technocrat I'm all about allowing self-determination and choice. I just don't think superstition should be diverted public resources so long as members of our continent live in poverty, hunger, and homelessness. The material in those churches could go into urbanates and living space.

Translation:

"I'm all for choice, except that people shouldn't get to choose to use resources in ways I disagree with because I think it's silly."

I know you see that, you've just convinced yourself that it's different when you do it because you're right.

Qwerty Dvorak

16th January 2007, 18:06

*ahem* <_<

t_wolves_fan

16th January 2007, 18:13

You cannot prove that forcing someone to give up religion will make them better off.
No, but preventing someone acting on their religious beliefs can in some cases benefit society as it would help prevent public acts or displays of homophobia (among other unpleasant effects of religion)

That's your opinion and there's no objective evidence that it would benefit society as a whole.

, and removing religion as a major influence in society would help lift certain social stigmas which would result in less suicides and better mental health for people such as homosexuals, and would also encourage women to become active and productive members of the work force.

Thankfully, the stigma surrounding homosexuality is already disappearing without violating people's individual rights to practice and express their religious beliefs. There are some stats out there I could bring up that would suggest society is not better off as a result, you understand.

Your nonpoint about women is hilarious. The state's need for productive workers outweighs the individual woman's right to choose to stay home or not?

Why again do you people complain when I joke about being issued a green work outfit complete with little green cap to wear at my work assignment, again?

:lol:

Pow R. Toc H.

16th January 2007, 18:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 05:52 pm
Tell me, do you think there is a right to not be offended?
Im not sure I know what you mean here. If your saying that I shouldnt be offended by people praying, well Im not. I was just pointing out that as a whole, religous people usually think that they have the answer to all of society's prolems.

t_wolves_fan

16th January 2007, 18:17

Originally posted by Pow R. Toc H.+January 16, 2007 06:15 pm--> (Pow R. Toc H. @ January 16, 2007 06:15 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2007 05:52 pm
Tell me, do you think there is a right to not be offended?
Im not sure I know what you mean here. If your saying that I shouldnt be offended by people praying, well Im not. I was just pointing out that as a whole, religous people usually think that they have the answer to all of society's prolems. [/b]
Right, which is why the worst of them aren't any different from the worst leftists.

Jazzratt

16th January 2007, 18:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 06:13 pm
Your nonpoint about women is hilarious. The state's need for productive workers outweighs the individual woman's right to choose to stay home or not?
They can have the right to choose to stay at home without the coercive influence of religion making them think that a life being productive for someone other than their "holy" husband or their sky-fairy is somehow less worthwhile than one spent in such servitude, that is a possibility.

Why again do you people complain when I joke about being issued a green work outfit complete with little green cap to wear at my work assignment, again?

:lol: You know that joke just shows how ignorant you are of communism? It's not really that offensive being it's absurd to the point of being surreal. The joke is more what you think communism entails than the uniform thing.

Tell me, do you think there is a right to not be offended? No. There isn't. Be as offensive as you fucking well like.

Qwerty Dvorak

16th January 2007, 18:24

That's your opinion and there's no objective evidence that it would benefit society as a whole.
Many religious are actively opposed to homosexual practices, much to the detriment of practicing homosexuals. That's an objective fact.

Thankfully, the stigma surrounding homosexuality is already disappearing without violating people's individual rights to practice and express their religious beliefs. There are some stats out there I could bring up that would suggest society is not better off as a result, you understand.
That's because religion is vanishing as a major influence in society. So you haven't really proven anything.

At this point it should be noted that I don't believe in banning religion outright, just further restricting it and helping it on its way to extinction.

Your nonpoint about women is hilarious. The state's need for productive workers outweighs the individual woman's right to choose to stay home or not?
You need to improve on your basic comprehension skills. I never suggested the state remove the right of the woman to stay at home. I simply stated that the stigma against working women (among other things) is an example of religion's detrimental effect on society.

Pow R. Toc H.

16th January 2007, 18:34

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+January 16, 2007 06:17 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ January 16, 2007 06:17 pm)
Originally posted by Pow R. Toc [email protected] 16, 2007 06:15 pm

[email protected] 16, 2007 05:52 pm
Tell me, do you think there is a right to not be offended?
Im not sure I know what you mean here. If your saying that I shouldnt be offended by people praying, well Im not. I was just pointing out that as a whole, religous people usually think that they have the answer to all of society's prolems.
Right, which is why the worst of them aren't any different from the worst leftists. [/b]
Agreed. Or the worst capitalists.

I mean there are always going to be people that think they have the best intentions when in all reality they infact, do not.

t_wolves_fan

16th January 2007, 18:39

That's your opinion and there's no objective evidence that it would benefit society as a whole.
Many religious are actively opposed to homosexual practices, much to the detriment of practicing homosexuals. That's an objective fact.

So long as the state does not adopt the beliefs of the religious in this regard, I could care less. Obviously here in the U.S. we have a ways to go on this issue, but it's getting better without demolishing churches.

Thankfully, the stigma surrounding homosexuality is already disappearing without violating people's individual rights to practice and express their religious beliefs. There are some stats out there I could bring up that would suggest society is not better off as a result, you understand.
That's because religion is vanishing as a major influence in society. So you haven't really proven anything.

:lol:

There's nothing to prove. If people are accepting homosexuality more because they're voluntarily rejecting certain parts of religion or religion as a whole voluntarily, then so be it. I'm glad. That has nothing to do with whether or not people should get to individually believe in religion.

At this point it should be noted that I don't believe in banning religion outright, just further restricting it and helping it on its way to extinction.

So then you favor increasing restrictions on what people may do and say because you think you know better than they do what's good for them.

You need to improve on your basic comprehension skills. I never suggested the state remove the right of the woman to stay at home. I simply stated that the stigma against working women (among other things) is an example of religion's detrimental effect on society.

That's your opinion and I notice you don't offer much in the way of any objective criteria of how society would be "better off". More women in the workplace means more workers means more supply for possibly the same demand, doesn't it?

There is objective data that says children do better when one parent stays home especially early in life. Given the physical nature of child rearing, this often means mom, does it not?

Or consider this: if more women in the workplace is good, wouldn't abortion be bad? After all we can assume that 51% of all abortions are women, meaning less women in the workplace.

Which brings us to another angle: should objective improvement always trump individual choice?

t_wolves_fan

16th January 2007, 18:41

Originally posted by Pow R. Toc H.+January 16, 2007 06:34 pm--> (Pow R. Toc H. @ January 16, 2007 06:34 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 06:17 pm

Originally posted by Pow R. Toc [email protected] 16, 2007 06:15 pm

[email protected] 16, 2007 05:52 pm
Tell me, do you think there is a right to not be offended?
Im not sure I know what you mean here. If your saying that I shouldnt be offended by people praying, well Im not. I was just pointing out that as a whole, religous people usually think that they have the answer to all of society's prolems.
Right, which is why the worst of them aren't any different from the worst leftists.
Agreed. Or the worst capitalists.

I mean there are always going to be people that think they have the best intentions when in all reality they infact, do not. [/b]
I totally agree.

We should get a beer sometime.

:D

Qwerty Dvorak

16th January 2007, 19:11

So long as the state does not adopt the beliefs of the religious in this regard, I could care less. Obviously here in the U.S. we have a ways to go on this issue, but it's getting better without demolishing churches.
Yes, homophobia is decreasing, so we shouldn't do anything to try and combat harmful acts against homosexuals. The people are very slowly starting to accept abortions, so we should allow religious fanatics to go around killing abortionists. :rolleyes:

As regards your demolishing churches things, refer back to my point about banning religion outright. Perhaps I actually had to specify that this means I do not support the forced destruction of places of worship.

There's nothing to prove. If people are accepting homosexuality more because they're voluntarily rejecting certain parts of religion or religion as a whole voluntarily, then so be it. I'm glad. That has nothing to do with whether or not people should get to individually believe in religion.
I'm glad too, that doesn't mean I''m going to tolerate criminal and anti-social acts.

So then you favor increasing restrictions on what people may do and say because you think you know better than they do what's good for them.
In the same way that I oppose murder, yes.

That's your opinion and I notice you don't offer much in the way of any objective criteria of how society would be "better off".
Well this is only true insofar that I believe that women should be able to make personal, unbiased choices as to whether or not they want to work outside the home. In retrospect I guess the women example was a bad one, as it allowed you to play the subjectivity card (that is, that the "greater good" is largely a subjective concept). That's a different argument really.

More women in the workplace means more workers means more supply for possibly the same demand, doesn't it?
They can work in our newly established abortion clinics and pre-marital lesbian pornography studios ;)

There is objective data that says children do better when one parent stays home especially early in life. Given the physical nature of child rearing, this often means mom, does it not?
Refer back to my point about giving women a choice to stay at home, and while you're at it have a quick read over my point about improving your basic comprehension skills.

Or consider this: if more women in the workplace is good, wouldn't abortion be bad? After all we can assume that 51% of all abortions are women, meaning less women in the workplace.
More women in the workplace is not inherently good, allowing women the choice to work and allowing them to make it based on what is best for them and their families is good. It also happens to be pro-individual, doesn't it?

t_wolves_fan

16th January 2007, 19:20

That's your opinion and there's no objective evidence that it would benefit society as a whole.
Many religious are actively opposed to homosexual practices, much to the detriment of practicing homosexuals. That's an objective fact.

The level of detriment is debatable. Simply having a person not approve of your lifestyle doesn't affect your life a whole lot. If they can put into effect some kind of law or social norm you'd have a point. If not, who cares?

Qwerty Dvorak

16th January 2007, 19:48

It doesn't have to be a social norm, all it has to do is develop into a stigma. Why exactly do you think that homosexuals are classified as a "high risk group" in terms of youth suicide?

t_wolves_fan

16th January 2007, 20:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 07:48 pm
It doesn't have to be a social norm, all it has to do is develop into a stigma. Why exactly do you think that homosexuals are classified as a "high risk group" in terms of youth suicide?
Social norm, stigma, same thing as far as what I meant.

Johnny Anarcho

16th January 2007, 21:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 09:48 pm
"Different people will come to different conclusions about what is best for them, and they should be able to act on those conclusions to the maximum extent possible."

Acceptable

or

Unacceptable?
Acceptable as a community but not for limitless individual use.

Qwerty Dvorak

16th January 2007, 22:23

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+January 16, 2007 08:56 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ January 16, 2007 08:56 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2007 07:48 pm
It doesn't have to be a social norm, all it has to do is develop into a stigma. Why exactly do you think that homosexuals are classified as a "high risk group" in terms of youth suicide?
Social norm, stigma, same thing as far as what I meant. [/b]
Okay then, remove my first sentence and answer my question.

Ol' Dirty

16th January 2007, 22:56

People should have the right to choose their religions affiliation (or non-affiliation); they should not have the right to impose their beliefs on anyone else through coercive means or otherwise. State atheism means coercive application of conformity with an atheist ideological view. This is just as bad as any Theocratic application of conformity. Coercive conformism does not lead to, in any way shape or form, a freer society.

Please don't call me a liberal. I simply don't think that anyone should be coerced into a belief.

Guerrilla22

16th January 2007, 23:03

To a certain extent. Actions you take affect others. Therefore, if someone wants to engage in an activity that could potentially be harmful to others, then it is not acceptable.

t_wolves_fan

17th January 2007, 14:44

Originally posted by RedStar1916+January 16, 2007 10:23 pm--> (RedStar1916 @ January 16, 2007 10:23 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 08:56 pm

[email protected] 16, 2007 07:48 pm
It doesn't have to be a social norm, all it has to do is develop into a stigma. Why exactly do you think that homosexuals are classified as a "high risk group" in terms of youth suicide?
Social norm, stigma, same thing as far as what I meant.
Okay then, remove my first sentence and answer my question. [/b]
Stigmas are going to exist whether we like it or not. Do you pretend you can legislate away social norms?

Do you expect me to believe that the anti-religious on this board (yourself included) would oppose a stigma against religion? If it was the religious who felt bad about being stigmatized instead of the gays, would you feel as sorry for them? Of course not, your hypocrisy would cause you to say "good! serves them right!" just as some religious fundamentalist would say the same thing about gays.

Stigmas cannot be legislated away, only changed with time. And stigmas, pleasant or not, do not actually prevent anyone from doing anything unless they're weak. If people have a problem with your behavior and it doesn't have any effect on them, that's their problem.

To answer your specific question, gay youth have high suicide rates because they're afraid to come out. That is terribly unfortunate and they should not have to be afraid to live as they see fit. That does not mean that religious or moral opinion can or should be oppressed.

Now, how about that second question: can or should objective improvements always trump personal choice?

t_wolves_fan

17th January 2007, 15:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 06:22 pm

They can have the right to choose to stay at home without the coercive influence of religion making them think that a life being productive for someone other than their "holy" husband or their sky-fairy is somehow less worthwhile than one spent in such servitude, that is a possibility.

How high were you when you wrote this? I ask because it makes no sense.

Do you think people have a right to believe in or follow a religion even if you disagree with it?

manic expression

17th January 2007, 22:24

People can act as they will, provided their actions are not a detriment to the community. IF acting on those conclusions hurts others or causes problems for society, those actions are unacceptable.

Therefore, people should be able to follow religion, but privately, not in the public sphere.

Jazzratt

17th January 2007, 22:25

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+January 17, 2007 03:54 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ January 17, 2007 03:54 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2007 06:22 pm

They can have the right to choose to stay at home without the coercive influence of religion making them think that a life being productive for someone other than their "holy" husband or their sky-fairy is somehow less worthwhile than one spent in such servitude, that is a possibility.

How high were you when you wrote this? I ask because it makes no sense. [/b]
:huh: It's written in fairly standard english, it could just be you're a fialure.

I haven't had a dealer in a while, so posting high is not feasable to me.

Do you think people have a right to believe in or follow a religion even if you disagree with it? Yes, although they should seek immediate treatment for their delusion.

t_wolves_fan

17th January 2007, 22:30

:huh: It's written in fairly standard english,

Actually it's quite the run-on sentence. But I guess I will allow for a dialectical difference considering you're across the pond.

it could just be you're a fialure.

Coming fom you, that means little to me.

I haven't had a dealer in a while, so posting high is not feasable to me.

No wonder you're so angry all the time.

Do you think people have a right to believe in or follow a religion even if you disagree with it? Yes, although they should seek immediate treatment for their delusion.

So disagreeing with you makes one insane? That's pretty arrogant.

Jazzratt

17th January 2007, 22:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 10:30 pm

Do you think people have a right to believe in or follow a religion even if you disagree with it? Yes, although they should seek immediate treatment for their delusion.

So disagreeing with you makes one insane?
Believing in something that isn't there is what makes religious people insane. In the same way that if I believed there was a giant squid on the moon spying on me I'd be considered insane.

That's pretty arrogant. I'm not arrogant. I'm right.

t_wolves_fan

18th January 2007, 13:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 10:33 pm
Believing in something that isn't there is what makes religious people insane. In the same way that if I believed there was a giant squid on the moon spying on me I'd be considered insane.

That's pretty arrogant. I'm not arrogant. I'm right.
1. We don't know for sure that he/she/it/they doesn't/don't exist.

2. That's no different from your belief in a fairy-tale system that doesn't work.

You're assumption that you're right for other people is what makes you arrogant.

Why do you not allow others to decide for themselves whether God exists or not?

t_wolves_fan

18th January 2007, 13:53

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 17, 2007 10:24 pm
People can act as they will, provided their actions are not a detriment to the community. IF acting on those conclusions hurts others or causes problems for society, those actions are unacceptable.

Therefore, people should be able to follow religion, but privately, not in the public sphere.
Another poster said that it's detrimental to society to discourage women from being in the workplace.

Abortion keeps women out of the workplace, so objectively it is detrimental to society, yes?

Objective data shows that STDs hit certain populations the hardest, putting a greater strain on our health care system. Objectively, their behavior should be banned, should it not?

Where is the line to be drawn between benefitting society and personal choice? Is there such a line, or does one always trump and if so, which one? If one does not trump, should one be given a priority?

Jazzratt

18th January 2007, 18:17

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+January 18, 2007 01:49 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ January 18, 2007 01:49 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2007 10:33 pm
Believing in something that isn't there is what makes religious people insane. In the same way that if I believed there was a giant squid on the moon spying on me I'd be considered insane.

That's pretty arrogant. I'm not arrogant. I'm right.
1. We don't know for sure that he/she/it/they doesn't/don't exist.
[/b]
Logically, we do.

2. That's no different from your belief in a fairy-tale system that doesn't work. Fuck off, seriously what the flying fuck did that vacuous and empty-headed comment add to the debate?

You're assumption that you're right for other people is what makes you arrogant.

Why do you not allow others to decide for themselves whether God exists or not? This all rests on the idiot assumption made by people today that 'opinion' on something matters. No. It fucking well doesn't, statements like "God exists" can only be true or false, we are not in some subjectivist fairy land where just because someone thinks something is true then it becomes true for them. Other people's opinions do not fucking matter if that person is incorrect.

Also the sentence:

"You're assumption that you're right for other people is what makes you arrogant" Makes no fucking sense, firstly by right do you mean 'correct' or 'moral' ? As I avoid morality as much as possible, because it simply isn't logical, I'll assume you mean correct. So I am "true for other people" what the fuck does that mean? You could of course be trying to communicate, in your vastly empty-headed way that I'm being arrogant by assuming what I know to be true is true universally, but you wouldn't be doing that, would you? You wouldn't be showing a vast misunderstanding of the ideas of true or false, would you?

Finally, yes - call me arrogant, why not. I fucking well am arrogant, because if you rely on truth over opinion one day someone who only has opinion to rely upon will eventually call you arrogant.

t_wolves_fan

18th January 2007, 18:32

Logically, we do.

No, we do not. Logically a thousand years ago the sun revolved around the earth. Those folks weren't right, were they?

Fuck off, seriously what the flying fuck did that vacuous and empty-headed comment add to the debate?

The fact that you claim to know the absolute and objective truth while you pursue an economic and political system that has almost no chance of ever existing or working.

This all rests on the idiot assumption made by people today that 'opinion' on something matters. No. It fucking well doesn't,

Does that include your opinion?

statements like "God exists" can only be true or false, we are not in some subjectivist fairy land where just because someone thinks something is true then it becomes true for them. Other people's opinions do not fucking matter if that person is incorrect.

Yet you cannot prove that you are correct and they are not. Given that the existence of a higher power is, by definition, unknowable, how would you implement this?

Also the sentence:

"You're assumption that you're right for other people is what makes you arrogant" Makes no fucking sense, firstly by right do you mean 'correct' or 'moral' ? As I avoid morality as much as possible, because it simply isn't logical, I'll assume you mean correct. So I am "true for other people" what the fuck does that mean? You could of course be trying to communicate, in your vastly empty-headed way that I'm being arrogant by assuming what I know to be true is true universally, but you wouldn't be doing that, would you? You wouldn't be showing a vast misunderstanding of the ideas of true or false, would you?

In answer to that banal rant yes, you clearly think it's your duty to determine the truth for others in a realm that is quite personal and inherently subjective. Why? On what authority do you claim this right?

Finally, yes - call me arrogant, why not. I fucking well am arrogant, because if you rely on truth over opinion one day someone who only has opinion to rely upon will eventually call you arrogant.

How would you feel if a religious person who was as sure of their opinion as you are of yours claimed the authority to decide for you the existence of God and your relationship/non-relationship with him/her/it/them?

Is it ok to let people have their God delusions, or must they be corrected on your terms? Why?

Once you've corrected them, can they take any action to decide if you're right or not?

Jazzratt

18th January 2007, 18:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 06:32 pm

Logically, we do.

No, we do not. Logically a thousand years ago the sun revolved around the earth. Those folks weren't right, were they?
Theists make a positive claim, thus the burden of proof rests on them. THey have no proof. There is no god. Next.

Fuck off, seriously what the flying fuck did that vacuous and empty-headed comment add to the debate?

The fact that you claim to know the absolute and objective truth while you pursue an economic and political system that has almost no chance of ever existing or working. I'd like some evidence with that samey claim you're making.

This all rests on the idiot assumption made by people today that 'opinion' on something matters. No. It fucking well doesn't,

Does that include your opinion? I try not to have opinions, in general they are a waste of time. On the other hand I do try to have a certian amount of knowledge.

statements like "God exists" can only be true or false, we are not in some subjectivist fairy land where just because someone thinks something is true then it becomes true for them. Other people's opinions do not fucking matter if that person is incorrect.

Yet you cannot prove that you are correct and they are not. Given that the existence of a higher power is, by definition, unknowable, how would you implement this? See the first sentence of this reply. Unless we sudenly develop a new system of logic there is no way for a theist to be correct.

Also the sentence:

"You're assumption that you're right for other people is what makes you arrogant" Makes no fucking sense, firstly by right do you mean 'correct' or 'moral' ? As I avoid morality as much as possible, because it simply isn't logical, I'll assume you mean correct. So I am "true for other people" what the fuck does that mean? You could of course be trying to communicate, in your vastly empty-headed way that I'm being arrogant by assuming what I know to be true is true universally, but you wouldn't be doing that, would you? You wouldn't be showing a vast misunderstanding of the ideas of true or false, would you?

In answer to that banal rant yes, you clearly think it's your duty to determine the truth for others in a realm that is quite personal and inherently subjective. Why? On what authority do you claim this right? There is no such thing as subjective truths, especially when making claims to the existance of an entity. What authrotiy do I need?

Finally, yes - call me arrogant, why not. I fucking well am arrogant, because if you rely on truth over opinion one day someone who only has opinion to rely upon will eventually call you arrogant.

How would you feel if a religious person who was as sure of their opinion as you are of yours claimed the authority to decide for you the existence of God and your relationship/non-relationship with him/her/it/them? Well, they'd be wrong and when one person is right and another wrong then soon a debate/argument/orgy/fight breaks out.

Is it ok to let people have their God delusions, or must they be corrected on your terms? Why? "Is it okay to have people have their paranoid delusions, or must they be corrected on your terms? Why?"
The answer to both questions is pretty muc the same.

Please don't reply if it's going to be as vapid as this, I really don't have much enthusiasm for this paticular argument, so post something interesting or kill yourself or something. As long as this can become interesting.

t_wolves_fan

18th January 2007, 19:58

Please don't reply if it's going to be as vapid as this, I really don't have much enthusiasm for this paticular argument, so post something interesting or kill yourself or something. As long as this can become interesting.

It's not that it's not interesting to you, you're just having a hard time justifying why you think you should get to apply your standards of reality to everyone else.

Again: why does everyone else need to be "corrected"? I simply want an answer to that question.

Jazzratt

18th January 2007, 20:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:58 pm

Please don't reply if it's going to be as vapid as this, I really don't have much enthusiasm for this paticular argument, so post something interesting or kill yourself or something. As long as this can become interesting.

It's not that it's not interesting to you, you're just having a hard time justifying why you think you should get to apply your standards of reality to everyone else.
I'm sorry if you're having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that you're a boring blowhard but I'm afraid it's the truth.

Again: why does everyone else need to be "corrected"? I simply want an answer to that question. Because they are wrong, it really isn't thqat difficult to understand unless your brain has fallen out of your ears.

Qwerty Dvorak

18th January 2007, 20:08

Do you expect me to believe that the anti-religious on this board (yourself included) would oppose a stigma against religion? If it was the religious who felt bad about being stigmatized instead of the gays, would you feel as sorry for them? Of course not, your hypocrisy would cause you to say "good! serves them right!" just as some religious fundamentalist would say the same thing about gays.
Indeed, mainly because homosexuals do not hold demonstrations and rallies to get across the message that religious people are somehow inferior and should burn in hell for their sins, the presence of homosexuality does not result in alarming depression and suicide rates among the religious, and of course there is the fact that homosexuality is a sexual preference, a personal and individual trait, whereas religion is an oppressive ideology which seeks to enforce its own view of reality upon society, to the detriment of those deemed unworthy by said religion.

Stigmas cannot be legislated away, only changed with time. And stigmas, pleasant or not, do not actually prevent anyone from doing anything unless they're weak. If people have a problem with your behavior and it doesn't have any effect on them, that's their problem.
Some people are "weak". Also if people have a problem with your behaviour, and it doesn't have any effect on them, yet they still make a point of organizing in relatively large numbers to condemn you and claim you to be inferior (or, in many cases, physically assault you), and generally spread a doctrine that preches burning hatred of your very kind, then that kind of becomes your problem, no?

To answer your specific question, gay youth have high suicide rates because they're afraid to come out. That is terribly unfortunate and they should not have to be afraid to live as they see fit. That does not mean that religious or moral opinion can or should be oppressed.

I wonder why they're afraid to come out.

Now, how about that second question: can or should objective improvements always trump personal choice?
Oh t_wolves, you and your trick questions. Of course there is no absolute objective improvement when it comes to society as a whole. I think I pointed that out earlier.

t_wolves_fan

18th January 2007, 20:26

Do you expect me to believe that the anti-religious on this board (yourself included) would oppose a stigma against religion?
Indeed, mainly because homosexuals do not hold demonstrations and rallies to get across the message that religious people are somehow inferior and should burn in hell for their sins, the presence of homosexuality does not result in alarming depression and suicide rates among the religious,

You didn't address my question. I didn't ask about how things worked currently, I asked what it'd be like if the tables were turned. If the likes of Mr. Doom took over and people of faith were mocked, laughed at and killed for their personal choice as a result of a social stigma, would you shed a tear?

In other words my question is this: do people have to be prevented from believing what they want to believe in order to remove a social stigma, or can we simply work to remove the social stigma?

and of course there is the fact that homosexuality is a sexual preference, a personal and individual trait, whereas religion is an oppressive ideology which seeks to enforce its own view of reality upon society, to the detriment of those deemed unworthy by said religion.

And the religious would say the homosexuals are out to prevent them from living life as they want, and based on the opinions of you, Jazzratt and Mr. Doom they have a legitimate gripe. Basically it's the same question again: do the tables have to be turned? Do the religious have to be "corrected" or "punished" or "oppressed" or "repressed" in order to bring fairness to gays? Or, more realistically, can we work to eliminate the social stigma and change minds while still respecting people's right to believe as they see fit?

Some people are "weak". Also if people have a problem with your behaviour, and it doesn't have any effect on them, yet they still make a point of organizing in relatively large numbers to condemn you and claim you to be inferior (or, in many cases, physically assault you), and generally spread a doctrine that preches burning hatred of your very kind, then that kind of becomes your problem, no?

It does, but what is your solution? To turn the tables on the religious?

To answer your specific question, gay youth have high suicide rates because they're afraid to come out. That is terribly unfortunate and they should not have to be afraid to live as they see fit. That does not mean that religious or moral opinion can or should be oppressed.

I wonder why they're afraid to come out.

Is their fear a justification of oppression?

Does a religious person need to be silenced because someone is afraid of what will be said or thought of them?

How would we put that into practice? Aren't there some pretty significant dangers to individual liberty inherent in that?

Now, how about that second question: can or should objective improvements always trump personal choice?
Oh t_wolves, you and your trick questions. Of course there is no absolute objective improvement when it comes to society as a whole. I think I pointed that out earlier.

Then where is the line to be drawn? Is there some kind of realistic line that respects the right of people to have, practice and voice their opinions? Or do we simply turn the tables on those we disagree with in favor of our chosen beliefs (aka the "Now the Shiites are in charge of Iraq so look out Sunnis" option)?

That's the crux of the debate here.

t_wolves_fan

18th January 2007, 20:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:04 pm

Again: why does everyone else need to be "corrected"? I simply want an answer to that question. Because they are wrong,
And why is it up to you to correct them?

Qwerty Dvorak

18th January 2007, 20:47

You didn't address my question. I didn't ask about how things worked currently, I asked what it'd be like if the tables were turned. If the likes of Mr. Doom took over and people of faith were mocked, laughed at and killed for their personal choice as a result of a social stigma, would you shed a tear?
Yeah, I think it's wrong to mock or laugh at anyone who hasn't done the same to other innocents, and as for killing them for their beliefs, well I think that's a despicable act anyway.

In other words my question is this: do people have to be prevented from believing what they want to believe in order to remove a social stigma, or can we simply work to remove the social stigma?
Think about that logically. How is anyone going prevent anyone else from believing in anything? Considering the fact that belief is a solely mental function which takes place inside your head, I would imagine it's nigh on impossible to do that. I haven't posted anywhere that I want to take away people's ability or right to believe in anything, and if I have it was most certainly a mistake. People can think what they want, as long as they keep those thoughts to themselves.

And the religious would say the homosexuals are out to prevent them from living life as they want, and based on the opinions of you, Jazzratt and Mr. Doom they have a legitimate gripe. Basically it's the same question again: do the tables have to be turned? Do the religious have to be "corrected" or "punished" or "oppressed" or "repressed" in order to bring fairness to gays? Or, more realistically, can we work to eliminate the social stigma and change minds while still respecting people's right to believe as they see fit?

I am considering ignoring your further "arguments" unless you toss this ridiculous notion that I want to reach inside people's minds and steal their thoughts. I am opposed to homophobic behaviour in the public domain, just as I am opposed to ad-hominem attacks on civil, law-abiding religious people. Note that I am opposed to ad-hominemattacks on either side. Homosexuality is a personal trait, which constitutes part of a person. To attack someone's exuality is to attack the person themselves. Homophobia, however, is not an inherent part of any person, rather it is an external ideology the public expression of which which seeks to undermine the orderly running of society. As such I believe it should be actively and publicly opposed. It's not a vendetta against religious people. I would also support the prevention of, say, racist or sexist behaviour by homosexuals.

It does, but what is your solution? To turn the tables on the religious?
No, turn the tables on homophobia.

Does a religious person need to be silenced because someone is afraid of what will be said or thought of them?
Assuming the religious person has anything to say apart from "OMG BURN IN HEL FAGZ LOLOLOL", then no, they don't have to be silenced.

Then where is the line to be drawn? Is there some kind of realistic line that respects the right of people to have, practice and voice their opinions? Or do we simply turn the tables on those we disagree with in favor of our chosen beliefs (aka the "Now the Shiites are in charge of Iraq so look out Sunnis" option)?
You are asking me to answer a question that dates almost back to Aristotle himself. Finding a balance between individual freedom and social progress is the defining dilemma of both politics and jurisprudence. In my personal opinion it is acceptable for the state to curb the freedom of individuals to incite hatred and intolerance and undermine the fundamental principles of society, but that again is an opinion. There is no objective right or wrong here.

t_wolves_fan

18th January 2007, 21:01

Yeah, I think it's wrong to mock or laugh at anyone who hasn't done the same to other innocents, and as for killing them for their beliefs, well I think that's a despicable act anyway.

Good.

People can think what they want, as long as they keep those thoughts to themselves.

So expression of certain disagreeable beliefs is to be condemned by social norm or by codified law?

I am considering ignoring your further "arguments" unless you toss this ridiculous notion that I want to reach inside people's minds and steal their thoughts.

I am not making this argument. What I am arguing is that you seem to want to go to lengths that would make people prisoners in their own skulls.

I am opposed to homophobic behaviour in the public domain, just as I am opposed to ad-hominem attacks on civil, law-abiding religious people. Note that I am opposed to ad-hominemattacks on either side. Homosexuality is a personal trait, which constitutes part of a person. To attack someone's exuality is to attack the person themselves. Homophobia, however, is not an inherent part of any person, rather it is an external ideology the public expression of which which seeks to undermine the orderly running of society. As such I believe it should be actively and publicly opposed. It's not a vendetta against religious people. I would also support the prevention of, say, racist or sexist behaviour by homosexuals.

There is as yet no concrete evidence that homosexuality is biological, which is ironic considering the demands for concrete proof of anything by other posters here. Not that I care either way, it's just kind of funny.

The real problem is this statement: "Homophobia, however, is not an inherent part of any person, rather it is an external ideology the public expression of which which seeks to undermine the orderly running of society."

Any political system is the manifestation of an external ideology. Nazi Germany was orderly, so was Soviet Russia. A Christian theocracy could be an "orderly society". Therefore, your apparent argument that only your chosen external ideology can produce an orderly society, to which all other external ideologies are a threat, is simply an admission that you'd gladly create tyranny so long as it created your preferred "order". Just like a theocrat would condemn a homosexual for public display of something that threatens his preferred order, so you condemn the religious for the public display of something that threatens your preferred order.

Which brings me back to my main point: you don't like the idea of theocrats imposing their form of order on you, therefore you are a hypocrite for imposing your form of order on them. As you admit, I cannot stop them from believing as they wish nor would I want them to try to stop me from believing as I wish. I take that a step further: I would not want them to protect their form of order by silencing me, so I will not try to silence them.

You are asking me to answer a question that dates almost back to Aristotle himself. Finding a balance between individual freedom and social progress is the defining dilemma of both politics and jurisprudence. In my personal opinion it is acceptable for the state to curb the freedom of individuals to incite hatred and intolerance and undermine the fundamental principles of society, but that again is an opinion. There is no objective right or wrong here.

I agree totally. I am of the opinion that individual freedom should take precidence, within reason. Do you agree?

Qwerty Dvorak

19th January 2007, 17:37

So expression of certain disagreeable beliefs is to be condemned by social norm or by codified law?

I think so, yes.

There is as yet no concrete evidence that homosexuality is biological, which is ironic considering the demands for concrete proof of anything by other posters here. Not that I care either way, it's just kind of funny.
I didn't say it was biological, but it is in fact a personal trait as opposed to an external ideology.

Any political system is the manifestation of an external ideology. Nazi Germany was orderly, so was Soviet Russia. A Christian theocracy could be an "orderly society". Therefore, your apparent argument that only your chosen external ideology can produce an orderly society, to which all other external ideologies are a threat, is simply an admission that you'd gladly create tyranny so long as it created your preferred "order". Just like a theocrat would condemn a homosexual for public display of something that threatens his preferred order, so you condemn the religious for the public display of something that threatens your preferred order.
You make a valid point here, and I think I may have made the wrong choice of words in my last post.

First of all, yes I acknowledge that any political system is the manifestation of an external ideology. I am a believer in the rule of the people (for example, a Communist system established through democratic means, or through a popularly supported revolution). However, I kind of figured from the outset that the question was asking what we Communists would do if we were in power, as that's generally your style of question, in my experience anyway. With this in mind, it is important to note that the ruling external ideology in such a situation would be Communism, which holds dear the ideals of quality and freedom from prejudice. Assuming the political system was a legitimate one, these tenets would be embodied in the constitution, which for all intents and purposes can be said to define the running order of society. This is what I meant when I said "orderly" running of society, that is, a society which honours the fundamental principles of its existence, as laid out in the constitution.

Which brings me back to my main point: you don't like the idea of theocrats imposing their form of order on you, therefore you are a hypocrite for imposing your form of order on them. As you admit, I cannot stop them from believing as they wish nor would I want them to try to stop me from believing as I wish. I take that a step further: I would not want them to protect their form of order by silencing me, so I will not try to silence them.
Yes but it all comes back to the argument of individual freedom against social order. I personally am of the opinion that preaching hatred and prejudice is crossing the line. I know you disagree.

I agree totally. I am of the opinion that individual freedom should take precidence, within reason. Do you agree?
I think you'll be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't agree with you on that point, however the condition, "within reason", renders that statement effectively useless.

t_wolves_fan

19th January 2007, 21:01

So expression of certain disagreeable beliefs is to be condemned by social norm or by codified law?

I think so, yes.

Scary.

First of all, yes I acknowledge that any political system is the manifestation of an external ideology. I am a believer in the rule of the people (for example, a Communist system established through democratic means, or through a popularly supported revolution). However, I kind of figured from the outset that the question was asking what we Communists would do if we were in power, as that's generally your style of question, in my experience anyway. With this in mind, it is important to note that the ruling external ideology in such a situation would be Communism, which holds dear the ideals of quality and freedom from prejudice. Assuming the political system was a legitimate one, these tenets would be embodied in the constitution, which for all intents and purposes can be said to define the running order of society. This is what I meant when I said "orderly" running of society, that is, a society which honours the fundamental principles of its existence, as laid out in the constitution.

Fair enough, but the fundamental principle of your state's existence seems to be that people can only speak if they agree with you. Which is, again, scary.

Yes but it all comes back to the argument of individual freedom against social order. I personally am of the opinion that preaching hatred and prejudice is crossing the line. I know you disagree.

Freedom necessarily requires hearing that which you'd disagree with on occasion, don't you think?

I think you'll be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't agree with you on that point, however the condition, "within reason", renders that statement effectively useless.

I disagree. I think "within reason" brings the key to the debate to light: what is "within reason". On a scale of 1-100, with 1 being unlimited individual rights and 100 being authoritarianism, I'd say we should be as close to 1 as possible. That means limiting that which has an obvious and immediate physical effect on others (i.e. murder, theft, abuse, etc.) while accepting that we're going to have to hear "hate speech" on occasion.

Jazzratt

19th January 2007, 21:35

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+January 18, 2007 08:30 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ January 18, 2007 08:30 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 08:04 pm

Again: why does everyone else need to be "corrected"? I simply want an answer to that question. Because they are wrong,
And why is it up to you to correct them? [/b]
It's not simply up to me personally. That would take too fucking long.

Fuck me, it's as if someone replaced your brain with a wheel of cheese.

t_wolves_fan

22nd January 2007, 14:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 09:35 pm

And why is it up to you to correct them?
It's not simply up to me personally. That would take too fucking long.

Sure it's up to you personally: you're personally invested in an effort to prevent people from believing something contrary to what you want them to believe.

Why do you feel the need to do so? Me, when I hear people like that or read what people like you type, I'll disagree with them and maybe argue with them if there's entertainment value in it, but at no point would I be interested in preventing them from either believing or expressing what their belief.

So again, why are you interested in preventing people from believing or expressing what they want to believe merely because you think they're wrong?

t_wolves_fan

22nd January 2007, 14:27

Ahem, Redstar:

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 09:01 pm
Freedom necessarily requires hearing that which you'd disagree with on occasion, don't you think?

...

I disagree. I think "within reason" brings the key to the debate to light: what is "within reason". On a scale of 1-100, with 1 being unlimited individual rights and 100 being authoritarianism, I'd say we should be as close to 1 as possible. That means limiting that which has an obvious and immediate physical effect on others (i.e. murder, theft, abuse, etc.) while accepting that we're going to have to hear "hate speech" on occasion.

RevMARKSman

22nd January 2007, 16:56

Why do you feel the need to do so? Me, when I hear people like that or read what people like you type, I'll disagree with them and maybe argue with them if there's entertainment value in it, but at no point would I be interested in preventing them from either believing or expressing what their belief.

So again, why are you interested in preventing people from believing or expressing what they want to believe merely because you think they're wrong?

Because they're objectively incorrect?
Because ridiculous beliefs, especially when voiced, are annoying to me?
Because the rest of the world doesn't want to hear ridiculous stuff either?

t_wolves_fan

22nd January 2007, 17:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 04:56 pm

Why do you feel the need to do so? Me, when I hear people like that or read what people like you type, I'll disagree with them and maybe argue with them if there's entertainment value in it, but at no point would I be interested in preventing them from either believing or expressing what their belief.

So again, why are you interested in preventing people from believing or expressing what they want to believe merely because you think they're wrong?

Because they're objectively incorrect?

So what? If you don't like it, don't hang out with them, don't go to church, don't hire them, and find some other way to spend your time.

Because ridiculous beliefs, especially when voiced, are annoying to me?

I tell you what: let's outlaw all beliefs and expression of beliefs that annoy anyone.

Boy that'd be hard, wouldn't it.

Or should it just apply to you? Are you the only person on earth who has the right to not be offended or annoyed?

Because the rest of the world doesn't want to hear ridiculous stuff either?

So even though the large majority of the world practices some religion or another, you're now claiming the right to speak for them? Why? Do you think they'd choose to have you speak for them?

Do you understand any of this?

RevMARKSman

22nd January 2007, 21:18

So what? If you don't like it, don't hang out with them, don't go to church, don't hire them, and find some other way to spend your time.

Yeah? What if I like proving people wrong? Are you going to outlaw that in favor of your sacred "Free speech"? I'm going to get in your face, and if you don't like it, too bad because you're wrong.

I tell you what: let's outlaw all beliefs and expression of beliefs that annoy anyone.

Boy that'd be hard, wouldn't it.

Or should it just apply to you? Are you the only person on earth who has the right to not be offended or annoyed?

How about we outlaw expression of belief in statements that have been proven false numerous times?

So even though the large majority of the world practices some religion or another, you're now claiming the right to speak for them? Why? Do you think they'd choose to have you speak for them?

I'm talking about after the revolution.

Do you understand any of this?

No, I'm just typing random shit on the internet.

Serious questions deserve serious answers.

Jazzratt

22nd January 2007, 23:13

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+January 22, 2007 02:26 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ January 22, 2007 02:26 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 09:35 pm

And why is it up to you to correct them?
It's not simply up to me personally. That would take too fucking long.

Sure it's up to you personally: [/b]
No it isn't, if I had to personally go around treating people for these delusions I'd first have to gain the ability to treat psychological problems and then go to every single fucking theist and deliver a treatement for delusional psychosis - which takes fucking ages.

you're personally invested in an effort to prevent people from believing something contrary to what you want them to believe. What exactly am I doing to prevent them, advocating treating them for their mind-disease online. OH NOES. It would be lovely if the revolution was tomorrow and I could help begin the tedious process of ridding the world of idiots.

Why do you feel the need to do so? So that those who are incorrect can be corrected.
Me, when I hear people like that or read what people like you type, I'll disagree with them and maybe argue with them if there's entertainment value in it, but at no point would I be interested in preventing them from either believing or expressing what their belief. Most beliefs aren't clearly elogical delusions, mystcsism and religion are.

So again, why are you interested in preventing people from believing or expressing what they want to believe merely because you think they're wrong? People who are wrong should be corrected, humanity does not advance as quickly if we allow falsehoods to stand as fact.