I知 not Pro-Life or Pro-Choice; I知 Pro-Eviction!

[BobCox2]

I think you're completely wrong, in that the review determined whether the cause of death was directly or indirectly related. I suppose we're not going any further down this road until someone who reads Finnish is able to obtain and translate the actual study.

Speaking of WildBerry

[Stevinator]

Jesus was very clear about whether people should judge one another.

(John 8) Is a story about what to do with the woman who committed adultery. The famous line, let he who is without sin cast the first stone comes from this story. That's a story about Jesus, not some auxiliary story. If that's not enough, ask and I'll dig up several verses that talk about god forgiving someone. this is one of the major themes in the New Testament and central to the faith. I might go as far as to label is a "tenet", but I'm afraid that word might have a more specific meaning than I'm aware of.

So a christian who judges others and uses shame is clearly defying the faith. That "christian" should also read the beginning of james, since there's a very specific (and punny, but not funny) advice about practicing true religion. That's not to call anyone out in particular, because Jmerv has said he does not use the bible as his exclusive moral guide in his life, though it often seems he's upset that I don't either. ;-)


Furthermore, shaming is a mild form of tyranny that breeds conformity, contempt and in extreme cases, is dehumanizing. If you recall, the townsfolk wanted to take pearl away in the scarlet letter. The extreme shame for Hester allowed the townsfolk to dehumanize her. While fictional, the story is certainly plausible, and prescient of what COULD happen. Now, Jmerv has already said he wants to live in a world where people are cowed into behaving in particular ways (via shame and force, and whatever else came up in the long thread), but I don't. I think diversity of thought is most integral to the long term advancement of society, that's where innovation lies. So there's an argument that if shaming is a device that gets people to all act in a specific way, then shaming is not just detrimental to our psyche, but also to humanity at large. Do you want to live in a society where everyone is forced and guilted to follow the majority? I know those purist libertarian/individualists out there don't.


And finally, and possibly more telling, is the gut level douchy (douchey?) test. When Jmerv talks about women who've had an abortion, does he sound douchy? I say yes. So, I don't like it. Gut level morality is terribly biased and tainted with all sorts of moral ques froma variety of sources over my lifetime. No doubt there's a lot of judeochristian thought in there, and of course, my parents' gut level morality, and possibly wall posters I saw in kindergarten, friends' opinions in my formative years, etc, etc. But I use it because it allows me to feel good about my life choices, and I prefer to sleep well at night.

So there. Shaming is bad.

[Stevinator]

Wait did Jmerv just praise Stalin's moral clarity?


Also, and i suppose this relates to above, if the argument for using shame is that it works, I would ask "it works to do what"?

[Technomancer]

To stop someone from exercising their rights, of course.

[jmervyn]

So a christian who judges others and uses shame is clearly defying the faith.

I always love how anti-Christians are so ready to throw around charges of hypocrisy on the part of Christians, without having any understanding or belief in that particular faith. I particularly like the way you quote Hawthorne as if he's a biblical authority.

Furthermore, shaming is a mild form of tyranny that breeds conformity, contempt and in extreme cases, is dehumanizing.

So in other words, you believe that people should be absolutely and completely without shame. In a beautiful way, you're making a callback to my quote from Starship Troopers. See, your failure to read the Bible (or perhaps understand it, more to the point) undercuts any claim you may make about my being un-Christian. Jesus did not pass judgment on the adulteress in John 8:1-11, but he <did> have the prerogative to. Why do you believe that a society can somehow exist without shame? The inherent result is "anything goes" immorality, which has only one possible response (on private display in North Korea). Christians are not supposed to pass judgment, but neither are they to allow others to sin, particularly without correction - indeed, the whole "am I my brother's keeper?" question can be analyzed in this light.

Now, Jmerv has already said he wants to live in a world where people are cowed into behaving in particular ways (via shame and force, and whatever else came up in the long thread), but I don't. I think diversity of thought is most integral to the long term advancement of society, that's where innovation lies.

So how are people to learn not to murder, pillage, assault each other? Since we're playing at hyperbole, your model of society is the barbarism we're fast approaching; people never learn the "Golden Rule" because it is somehow 'judgmental' to teach them. C.S. Lewis highlighted the abject stupidity of your beliefs, somewhere in the Screwtape Letters IIRC but more deeply in The Abolition of Man.

So there's an argument that if shaming is a device that gets people to all act in a specific way, then shaming is not just detrimental to our psyche, but also to humanity at large. Do you want to live in a society where everyone is forced and guilted to follow the majority? I know those purist libertarian/individualists out there don't.

You demonstrate not only your ignorance of Christianity, but (again) your ignorance of Libertarian tenets. Libertarians self-regulate, but they don't support anarchy. Anarchy is what you espouse.

When Jmerv talks about women who've had an abortion, does he sound douchy? I say yes. So, I don't like it.

Sure, because you want to screw any woman you can get your {whatever} on and walk away guilt free, no responsibility no regrets. Hey, if you knocked her up, tough break - go get scraped!

That's what my moral code considers the ultimate in douche-baggery.

Gut level morality is terribly biased and tainted with all sorts of moral ques froma variety of sources over my lifetime.

Yeah, it's not like we should pay attention to thousands of years worth of social structure. Let's just smash it all and do what we want to! Damn the consequences, or the damage you inflict on those around you.

But I use it because it allows me to feel good about my life choices, and I prefer to sleep well at night.

So there. Shaming is bad.

You don't like shame because you don't like feeling bad about what you've done. The defense rests.

Wait did Jmerv just praise Stalin's moral clarity?

As superior to yours, yes. That should be breathtaking in how evil I regard your "morality" to really be, as it establishes why I strongly believe your "morality" is what leads to the death & destruction that has been wrought in the 20th Century (with more on the immediate horizon).

Also, and i suppose this relates to above, if the argument for using shame is that it works, I would ask "it works to do what"?

To stop someone from exercising their rights, of course.

Moreover, to stop someone from exercising their will to do that which harms others. The way you two believe, the only possible recourse is the iron boot on the neck, and only applied to those who cannot otherwise evade it. There is no previous indoctrination of morality by the society; indeed, you both hold moral indoctrination as being evil in and of itself. You both therefore endorse and support an inherently immoral society, because without moral instruction there's no transmission of those morals to the youth.

I've heard such a raft of crap from atheists like yourselves in the past about how morality is possible outside of religion that I want to puke. I don't know whether you people fail to understand the actual point, or if you simply are unable to admit it because it destroys your self-satisfaction. Religion is not the objective, but rather the mechanism; man is bestial in nature and the veneer of civilization over barbarism is a thin one. Leftist thought has no replacement for religion, aside from more religion (as seen with the various cults of personality and deification of the State). Children are simply unable of grasping esoteric concepts, such as the 'karmic' underpinnings for the "Golden Rule", and they are much more attracted to the quick & dirty benefit. If you want to play at dueling literary background references, you both would claim that Jack from The Lord of the Flies is the more admirable and preferable character.

[LozHinge the Unhinged]

Wait did Jmerv just praise Stalin's moral clarity?
[...]

[...]As superior to yours, yes. That should be breathtaking in how evil I regard your "morality" to really be, as it establishes why I strongly believe your "morality" is what leads to the death & destruction that has been wrought in the 20th Century (with more on the immediate horizon).

Right. I'm reading this as you feel that Stalin's morality - Stalin who murdered thousands of his own people, signed a pact with Hitler to "divide up Poland", who prosecuted a genocide against Ukrainians, gypsies and others of various ethnic backgrounds ... oh, and who actively persecuted the church - stacks up against Stevinator's moral code in a favourable way?

Do the mods know that Stevinator is a mass-murdering dictator and worse than Stalin? Don't you think he should get a three-day ban or something?

With this judgement call behind you, perhaps you would wish, in an ideal world, to be the arbiter of the conscience and morals of others (or at least influence them)? I can guess what you might say ... it is the lack of moral compass of Stevinator, and many more like him, that has directly led to pain, death and suffering, both physically and spiritually, on a scale that dwarfs that caused by Stalin. Sure. Of course.

And by "moral compass", I make reference to the teachings and writings of men, dating from around 2000 years ago, as later edited by political figures (who may or may not have had political agendas) of slightly more recent date - but from back when slavery was still not seen to be an immoral institution, just for example. Is that still the case, slavery isn't immoral? I forget. Has morality moved on from those days, in any way? Perhaps not. I can think of some modern day examples of folks who would like to see slavery come back, after a fashion.

[krischan]

Do the mods know that Stevinator is a mass-murdering dictator and worse than Stalin? Don't you think he should get a three-day ban or something?

Stalin might be a murderer of millions, but I don't think the forum rules disallow murder . Besides, somebody like Stalin would probably be an excellent OTF mod, I guess even jmervyn could agree to that.

[LozHinge the Unhinged]

Stalin's ideas about modding a forum could lead to a drastic reduction in site traffic. And I wouldn't want to be in Stalin's shoes when Elly comes a-calling, demanding answers.

[BobCox2]

Stalin's ideas about modding a forum could lead to a drastic reduction in site traffic. And I wouldn't want to be in Stalin's shoes when Elly comes a-calling, demanding answers.

Only the Unhinged would compare Stalin and Elly.

I Talk to Banned People.

[LozHinge the Unhinged]

Heh, what comparison?

Oh, and is this your wooden spoon, Bob? It is monogrammed BC and shows signs of very recent use.