CommieGIR posted:Without religious morality, where do we get morals from If you could stop arguing from inferences instead of what people actually say, or failing that step on a landmine, that would be just great. The point here is that if religious ideas are inherently fictional, as mentally-handicapped racist #2 said, then even if the idea isn't related to the supernatural, it's still fictional, even if nonreligious philosophy uses it!
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:39 |
|
|
someone told me that harry potter was fiction, guess that means they don't think london exists makes u think
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 01:24
|
|
GyroNinja posted:someone told me that harry potter was fiction, guess that means they don't think london exists I hope that your feeble brain does not impair you too much in your daily life.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:If you could stop arguing from inferences instead of what people actually say, or failing that step on a landmine, that would be just great. Reminder that this guy made a thread titled "Why evolution implies evidence for the supernatural". 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 01:26
|
|
Immortan posted:Reminder that this guy made a thread titled "Why evolution implies evidence for the supernatural". Ad hominem arguments are a sign of cowardice on multiple levels. I could just make a fist and you'd piss your pants, I bet.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:If you could stop arguing from inferences instead of what people actually say, or failing that step on a landmine, that would be just great. That is totally disregarding the origin of the ethical position. Are you actually making the case that religious ethics are as legitimate as secular or philosophical ethics?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 01:32
|
|
Sethex posted:That is totally disregarding the origin of the ethical position. Religious ethics are a kind of philosophical ethics. In your desire to annihilate all religions and probably the religious too (barring white Christians, I guess), you've managed to become incredibly stupid, ignorant, and hateful.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I don't think White American voters are that big of a threat to secularism and freedom in Europe. Yeah, but they're more of a threat than Islam is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Religious ethics are a kind of philosophical ethics. In your desire to annihilate all religions and probably the religious too (barring white Christians, I guess), you've managed to become incredibly stupid, ignorant, and hateful. Here is the thing, religious ethics are dumb, reason being is they typically rely on God demands X, where as secular ethics are based on modern norms/values, utility, and intellectual exploration among other complex grownup things. If you want to give God or magic or whatever the foundation to designate actions, then you're going to find some fundies to take that action to an extreme. Giving religious ethics legitimacy serves to give extremists legitimacy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Here is the thing, religious ethics are dumb, reason being is they typically rely on God demands X, where as secular ethics are based on modern norms/values, utility, and intellectual exploration among other complex grownup things. Secular ethics are commonly based in Natural Law which is about as arbitrary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Secular ethics are commonly based in Natural Law which is about as arbitrary. Commonly, not predominantly. Effectronica posted:I hope that your feeble brain does not impair you too much in your daily life. Why are you so abusive to everybody all the time? It really sticks out in every thread just how willing you are to get personal and nasty at the drop of a hat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 03:11
|
|
Sethex posted:Here is the thing, religious ethics are dumb, reason being is they typically rely on God demands X, where as secular ethics are based on modern norms/values, utility, and intellectual exploration among other complex grownup things. 1. Utilitarianism is not the last word in ethics. 2. Most religious ethics are not based on divine demands in any real sense. Even in Christianity, this is not really the case theologically, although this is not understood by the majority of lay Christians. Many religious ethics do use the supernatural in their arguments, but primarily as a standard to set against. 3. Ignoring these two problems, this is still a poorly formulated argument, because it doesn't say anything about the actions in question. For example, supposing some sort of New Age bullshit where the only command is "first, do no harm", we have to ask ourselves what exactly happens when you have "some fundies to take that action to an extreme" and how that would be bad. This argument basically falls apart of its own volition. Smudgie Buggler posted:Why are you so abusive to everybody all the time? It really sticks out in every thread just how willing you are to get personal and nasty at the drop of a hat. Personally, I consider it demeaning to people who have been abused to compare saying "You're dumb" to what they have gone through. Effectronica fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Personally, I consider it demeaning to people who have been abused to compare saying "You're dumb" to what they have gone through. It would be demeaning if anybody was comparing say, child molestation to your personal tirades against posters you disagree with. But since nobody is doing that and we're all smart enough to recognise 'abuse' as a broad category that covers both the worst offences against human dignity as well as your petty outbursts of irrational spite in much the same way as 'battery' covers beating someone bloody and unconscious as well as flicking their forehead with an index finger, why don't you stop being so disingenuous and grow up?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 03:21
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:It would be demeaning if anybody was comparing say, child molestation to your personal tirades against posters you disagree with. But since nobody is doing that and we're all smart enough to recognise 'abuse' as a broad category that covers both the worst offences against human dignity as well as your petty outbursts of irrational spite in much the same way as 'battery' covers beating someone bloody and unconscious as well as flicking their forehead with an index finger, why don't you stop being so disingenuous and grow up? You seem to have a slight obsession with child molestation, given that you brought it up immediately, but I guess you're right, and you're being abusive to me, right now, and you should probably stop, from a moral perspective, which you may or may not have. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You seem to have a slight obsession with child molestation, given that you brought it up immediately, but I guess you're right, and you're being abusive to me, right now, and you should probably stop, from a moral perspective, which you may or may not have. Holy poo poo, shutup fishmech.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Holy poo poo, shutup fishmech. Fishmech is nintendo kid. Or did I not get a joke 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Fishmech is nintendo kid. Might as well be both of them at this point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 03:48
|
|
khwarezm posted:Fishmech is nintendo kid. It's an attempt at a slur that backfired.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
The fact that both you and SedanChair haven't been banned is just proof of how biased the moderation is. If I, or another of the right of center posters on here, wrote that kind of ad hom, violent trash that you wrote, we would have week long probations by now. edit:Alhazredu Akbar! (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:It's an attempt at a slur that backfired. Yeah, because accusing people of being pederasts because they used it as an example makes you look like a loving genius.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:The fact that both you and SedanChair haven't been banned is just proof of how biased the moderation is. If I, or another of the right of center posters on here, wrote that kind of ad hom, violent trash that you wrote, we would have week long probations by now. All of this except I am left of center.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:2. Most religious ethics are not based on divine demands in any real sense. I thought "Why evolution implies evidence of the supernatural" was the most idiotic statement I've read in D&D until this. Bravo, Eff, bravo. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:The fact that both you and SedanChair haven't been banned is just proof of how biased the moderation is. If I, or another of the right of center posters on here, wrote that kind of ad hom, violent trash that you wrote, we would have week long probations by now. I guess someone wants the cultural relativist thought police now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
i want to be the cultural relativist thought police
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:The fact that both you and SedanChair haven't been banned is just proof of how biased the moderation is. If I, or another of the right of center posters on here, wrote that kind of ad hom, violent trash that you wrote, we would have week long probations by now. I've been saying this for months. D&D is more friendly to ISIS than the US.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Good. I didn't expect so. Now, Liberal_L33t, what else is it that is missing here? Persecution of Muslims by other Muslims is against most laws already. It seems like none of the three other posters you singled out believe what you ascribe to them, so they would not be allies to changing laws to affect this. What are the actual policies you would like to see that aren't there, or policies that are there that you would rather be gone? That persecution often takes place through para-legal avenues or escapes prosecution due to widespread tacit approval among these populations. I would like to see aggressive prosecution and hefty prison sentences, preferably through some sort of anti-terrorism or hate crime legislation, of anyone who acts to enforce religious laws through fear. The lynch mob who went after the man who tore a religious book is a good example of the type who need to be made an example of. As the history of the KKK and the segregationist system in the U.S. shows, regressive conspiratorial groups who pursue their agenda with a mixture of legal political action and extralegal intimidation need to be aggressively infiltrated and dismantled by law enforcement. My problem is encapsulated by the fact that someone posted, apparently in all seriousness, that it would be discriminatory not to allow Saudi-backed groups to set up hundreds of new mosques aimed at the latest wave of migrants. Are we really debating this? Absurd Alhazred posted:Are gang-rapes exclusive to North African culture? Why do you think that there needs to be a policy targeting only these gang-rapes? There is a self-evident causal relationship between the attitudes of certain cultures towards human sexuality and the incidence of sexual violence against women.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 08:01
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:But you're only giving them "power" in the sense that you're allowing people to contract through them. Are you going to ban all types of private organizations with their own arbitration systems? Are you going to ban Jews from using Rabbinical courts? And sure, the same standard should apply to all communities. But I'll grant you that most people raging about sharia couldn't care less about ^^^any of that poo poo^^^, and are doing it purely on the basis of the whole 'judeo-christian' schtick that western conservatives love to throw around. Effectronica posted:You don't need to have a specifically shari'a court to oversee a marriage in Islam, but marriage is part of shari'a and allowing Muslims to marry according to shari'a thus allows shari'a legitimacy, just like allowing for halal food to be prepared or for Muslims to define their inheritance according to fiqh. In order to reject shari'a as legitimate, you cannot allow Muslims to marry, eat, or inherit as they please.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 09:00
|
|
I did not intend to imply the poster Smudgie Buggler was a pedophile or child molester, in my earlier post.rudatron posted:Couldn't give two shits about halal or fiqh, but the only way sharia is going to work is if it's a kind of personal morality, among the millions that already exist. That means removing it from its community context. Fiqh is shari'a jurisprudence. I fooled you, I fooled you, etc. Furthermore, a substantial part of shari'a isn't about morality, because it's a legal code, and these are the parts Muslims use most often. You really have a poor understanding of this issue, which makes your pronouncements seem to be "Islam must be destroyed", rather than whatever you intended.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 10:38
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Would you kindly gently caress off. I'm gonna echo this, its not really the maghreb cultures that are at fault, its much more the influence of saudi extremism on isolated ghettoised peoples in europe due to racism and rejection. The only way to solve this is stop saudi private and national interests from funding these mosques and look for alternatives. The progressive mosques and islamic groups exist in the usa, there should be something like that done to europe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 11:29
|
|
|
Fizzil posted:I'm gonna echo this, its not really the maghreb cultures that are at fault, its much more the influence of saudi extremism on isolated ghettoised peoples in europe due to racism and rejection. The only way to solve this is stop saudi private and national interests from funding these mosques and look for alternatives. The progressive mosques and islamic groups exist in the usa, there should be something like that done to europe. How? And how do you limit Saudi/Salafi influence without curtailing religious freedoms?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 11:44
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:I've been saying this for months. D&D is more friendly to ISIS than the US. Stormfront is that way, bruh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 11:45
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I, personally, think that Muslims should be allowed to get married in the fashion that they choose, and allowed to produce halal food and eat it, disburse their inheritance as they please, etc. Okay, then. Let's look at the first example: marriage. What does "allowed to get married in the fashion that they choose" mean exactly? Let's look at marriage in France. To get married, you basically go to the local town hall, get some papers ready, and then you sign them, your spouse signs them, the mayor signs them, and you're legally married. Traditionally this is followed by a religious ceremony for those couples who want it (or even two religious ceremonies when the spouses are of two different faiths) but that has no legal relevance. People want to organize a party for their wedding, they organize it according to their wishes. This setup as been going on since 1792, by the way, it's not something that was adopted in the 21st century just to vex Muslims, contrarily to what you no doubt believe. How is that incompatible with the Muslim faith? Why would they need sharia courts in order to get married, and why should then the state recognize a legal power to these sharia courts; when it doesn't recognize one to the churches? Remember, all the Christians there have to get married by the mayor to be legally married; they can get married by the pastor next but it is legally meaningless. This is a principle known as "separation of church and state". What prevents Muslims from getting married legally by the mayor, and then having their religious wedding ceremony with the imam? Nothing. So why is that not satisfactory? I guess the only possible answer is if they want a marriage that would be otherwise illegal according to the laws of the land. This includes polygamy and marrying minors. Alternatively, they might not like the legal status of spouses, since you can't repudiate your wife by telling her to go away three times, instead you have to go through a proper divorce. But then, they could opt for a civil union pact instead of a marriage; the legal benefits are mostly the same but they're much easier to break. TL;DR: sharia courts are needed if you want people to be free to marry several little girls and to then throw them away like used kleenex; they are not needed for actual marriages.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 11:49
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Stormfront is that way, bruh. i don't have a hitler avatar how will i fit in
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 11:50
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:i don't have a hitler avatar how will i fit in Just make a few posts, it'll be fine. Saudi Arabia has consistently promoted fifth-column fascist movements inside other countries for a long time, and I would be okay with breaking up mosques as long as similar churches and synagogues were broken up, too. Many receive foreign money and promote radical right-wing ideology. All clergy are fascist agents because they promote the dictatorship of God over man.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 11:53
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Okay, then. Let's look at the first example: marriage. What does "allowed to get married in the fashion that they choose" mean exactly? Please read further in the thread before jerking your knee. Furthermore, you forgot about Twelver fixed-term marriages, which are not possible under French law, yet are not a Trojan Horse for the vile Mohammedan to implement his single desire (there being no Muslim women, only victims) to rape children. It's such a shame that while accusations against individuals are verboten, accusations against a large number of people are innocuous.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 11:56
|
|
|
Fixed-term marriages are just a workaround to disguise legal prostitution. I'm marrying this woman just for a couple hours, yeah it's totally a marriage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 12:13
|
|
|
Cake Smashing Boob posted:How? And how do you limit Saudi/Salafi influence without curtailing religious freedoms? Something like bds but for saudi arabia, maybe publicize debates and get muslims on your side, curbing xenophobia and racism there are alot of ways to go about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 13:24
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:My problem is encapsulated by the fact that someone posted, apparently in all seriousness, that it would be discriminatory not to allow Saudi-backed groups to set up hundreds of new mosques aimed at the latest wave of migrants. Are we really debating this? Effectronica, SedanChair an others have pretty much defaulted to calling everyone who finds religious extremism actionable or preventable a racist who wants to purge everyone different. This is the sort of debate that many on the left go full on Ben Affleck, not capable of hearing or reading anything but instead just assuming their opponent is advancing the beliefs in Mein Kampf. Even the idea of restraining Saudi Money or removing religion status for extremist churches is akin to gas chambers to these people. Their whole schtick is meant to shutdown discussion by peppering "raaaciissssssst" throughout their comments an claiming that the motivation of their opponents can't be from desire for 'secular pluralistic society' but 'white supremacy!'
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Effectronica, SedanChair an others have pretty much defaulted to calling everyone who finds religious extremism actionable or preventable a racist who wants to purge everyone different. .....yyyyeaaaaahhhh... Because throwing around 'OMG THEY ARE BRINGING SHARIA LAW, drat DIRTY LYING ARABS!' is not a racist schtick pushed by the right. Oh wait....
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:39 |
|
|
Ah, clever, well played. But you're still wrong. All legal codes are expressions of social morality, that you may not believe them doesn't make them not a moral system. If they think that's right for them, and want to act in that way personally, then sure, but I draw the line at courts, even if they're religiously-motivated arbitration tribunals. I've laid out my reasons why, take them up or don't.Cake Smashing Boob posted:How? And how do you limit Saudi/Salafi influence without curtailing religious freedoms?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 13:51
|
|