What a beautiful example of reductio ad absurdum!
Religion and hypocrisy?
- Thread starter JarodRussell
- Start date
A
Amaris
Guest
That contributes physical and psychological damage to a minor.
If someone wishes to do so, then they are free to do so. Should they dispense these medications without a prescription, however, then they are illegally distributing controlled substances without proper medical authorization, which is against the law.
Children are minors, and cannot enter into any contract with an adult. Children are also not fully developed mentally and emotionally to handle sexual intercourse and all that goes along with it. This also denies the child the right to life and liberty under the law.
Murder. Child abuse is against the law because a child does not have the ability to defend itself. This also deprives the child the right to life and liberty under the law.
Withholding monetary compensation for services rendered is theft. If you don't like the tax, vote that politician out of office. Otherwise, it's theft.
Terrorism and murder. Both of these actions infringe upon the life and liberty of others in the courthouse.
Animal abuse is against the law. Pets are domesticated, and have rights under the law. If that is unacceptable, then there is still the issue of desecration of another person's property, which is illegal.
That is a specious argument.
Edit: Or, you know, just agreeing with TSQ, which would have saved me a lot of time.
Which was my point.
Potential human interactions are too varied and complex to successfully legislate by a simple formula.
For example, you cited numerous special cases about minors. If a simple formula worked then minors wouldn't be a special case.
Some things people might do obviously need restricting, even though the participants will invariably claim that they're exercising a freedom, decrying your remedy as oppression. So we have to look at an activity from multiple angles, including its social costs (like creating trailer parks full of multi-generation oxy-contin addicts), or whether the social costs are just part of the price society pays for being a free people.
A
Amaris
Guest
Which was my point.
Potential human interactions are too varied and complex to successfully legislate by a simple formula.
For example, you cited numerous special cases about minors. If a simple formula worked then minors wouldn't be a special case.
Some things people might do obviously need restricting, even though the participants will invariably claim that they're exercising a freedom, decrying your remedy as oppression. So we have to look at an activity from multiple angles, including its social costs (like creating trailer parks full of multi-generation oxy-contin addicts), or whether the social costs are just part of the price society pays for being a free people.
However, did you note the very important section at the end of my statement in the initial post? Let me quote it for you:
Bolded for your edification.
That said, TSQ is still correct. You can boil anything down to the absurd. That does not change the legitimacy or validity of the original statement.
Plus, "slippery slope" is so 1998.
However, did you note the very important section at the end of my statement in the initial post? Let me quote it for you:
Bolded for your edification.
And there's the disconnect. The "system" is the government, and the government cannot grant rights, it can only take them away (per the Founding Fathers et al).
So if the system can't respect the beliefs of those who seek to take away rights (which are the people who run the system), then the system can't respect itself. If the system can't respect itself then how can it ask anyone else to respect it? Your ideal government will never find a date.
A
Amaris
Guest
However, did you note the very important section at the end of my statement in the initial post? Let me quote it for you:
Bolded for your edification.
And there's the disconnect. The "system" is the government, and the government cannot grant rights, it can only take them away (per the Founding Fathers et al).
So if the system can't respect the beliefs of those who seek to take away rights (which are the people who run the system), then the system can't respect itself. If the system can't respect itself then how can it ask anyone else to respect it? Your ideal government will never find a date.
I've already answered that question, in my initial statement. That said, I can get dates.
Yeah, but it should be considered rude to ask a Congressman about their belief publicly. He can talk about it, just not officially. You can ask, but not on the record. Most of the people in Congress actually worship themselves anyway, so you're just asking to be lied to.
Well that's good. Wanna know how they make the burger meat? Short answer: take a whole cow (specifically a worn out dairy cow) and toss it into a grinder. The. Whole. Cow. Toss in really fatty cuts from steers for flavor, since dairy cows are fed lean diets.
Rumor has it, that they can flavor the beef to taste just like Chicken McNuggets, and vice versa.
Last edited:
A
Amaris
Guest
I used to be a meat cutter, used to grind hamburger, and my cousin used to own a farm out in Kentucky, so I've been exposed to enough of this kind of thing that it doesn't surprise me. That said, sounds more like an urban legend than a real manufacturing method. There are too many expensive cuts on a dairy cow, plus dairy cows are bread for milk, not meat. The USDA would be very particular about that.
I've already answered that question, in my initial statement. That said, I can get dates.
Yes, but you also agreed that I had provided a beautiful example of reductio ad absurdam.
I guess it's because most social interaction, especially "light" social interaction like an Internet forum, is mostly intended to entertain the user, not establish a communication between users. There are exceptions, of course. But they are that, exceptions.
It's more or less everything he does. And talk about his bunnies.
And here I'd have thought one couldn't go wrong with absurdism and bunnies...guess that shows what I know.
Don't be too hard on yourself. Everything can be used for good, or used for evil. Even absurd bunnies.
Hope this will rise your spirit.
I'm not saying make it illegal, but it really shouldn't be socially acceptable. An individuals personal beliefs shouldn't be the focus of politics. In fact, the whole concept of identity politics is just a cop out for both the politician and the public. The public doesn't have to bother itself with learning the nuance of issues, the politician doesn't have to stake out a potentially unpopular position.
Just one of the many problems with modern American politics. Do you know that other countries argue about real problems and not blather on about personality and made-up scare-tactics like "death panels?"
Just one of the many problems with modern American politics. Do you know that other countries argue about real problems and not blather on about personality and made-up scare-tactics like "death panels?"
But when you're dealing with elections and government officials, that is still DANGEROUSLY close to a First Amendment violation. We know it's a violation if they establish religion or unbelief, but it's also a violation to make the loss of your freedom to speak on those things a condition of running for or holding office.
An individual's personal beliefs DO inform how they are going to make decisions, and I think it's a legitimate question, and people can decide as they will. However, I will give you the fact that we have got to learn how to ask tougher policy questions and really hold our politicians' feet to the fire on that, and not take vague niceties for an answer.
(Oh, and term limits. We REALLY need to amend the Constitution to add term limits for Congress so they don't have time to get all comfortable and corrupt.)
There's been a lot of personality politics, for sure, but I DO think that real issues are up for debate in the States.
But the other real inhibitor to discussion isn't even personality politics. It's the fact that we have two overconfident political parties who have not had to face a serious challenger in the last...100 years? (I may be wrong on that figure, and I'm not counting Ross Perot.) They're both very entrenched and corrupt, and need to be shaken AND stirred, big time. Hopefully with a lot of them shaken OUT, permanently.
How dare a so-called Christian put his personal standard of morality, which forbids the whole massacre of nonbelievers, up against God' standards? God, after all, ordered the slaughter of Canaanites. But God is holy and just in all things. Many Christians will consult their humanity instead of their scriptures, as I do believe I said, but they when they do so they defy the tenets of their beliefs. It's logically inconsistent, but it's not hypocritical. Religion is nonsense. No one can be logically consistent with it.
As to the belief that you can merely have a "secular" government that respects religion but doesn't take sides is not supported by the facts. Respect for the Christian religion entails "respect" for such things as the end timers and their bigotry about Palestine. Christians sat in their living rooms and watched while Secretary of State Madeline Albright defended a siege of Iraq that conservatively led to a rise in infant mortality of perhaps 500 000. They felt more proud of their will power than ashamed. Since most of them do not own oil companies, what motive could they have had beyond a religious bigotry that devalued "Muslim" babies? (As if a child has a religion!)
As to the belief that you can merely have a "secular" government that respects religion but doesn't take sides is not supported by the facts. Respect for the Christian religion entails "respect" for such things as the end timers and their bigotry about Palestine. Christians sat in their living rooms and watched while Secretary of State Madeline Albright defended a siege of Iraq that conservatively led to a rise in infant mortality of perhaps 500 000. They felt more proud of their will power than ashamed. Since most of them do not own oil companies, what motive could they have had beyond a religious bigotry that devalued "Muslim" babies? (As if a child has a religion!)
Under the sanctions Iraq was allowed to import food and medicine. Our failure was that we hadn't removed Saddam and his Ba'athist party, who were using their control of food distribution to punish the population. Even without any sanctions he still would've been doing that, as he'd done far, far worse to his people long before there was any foreign involvement with his country. Dropping the sanctions wouldn't solve the problem. Only decapitating his entire regime would accomplish it.
As for religious bigotry, how come the Saudis, Kuwaitis, and Turks also supported the sanctions? Do all Muslims hate Muslim babies, or did you just invent that talking point yourself?
As for religious bigotry, how come the Saudis, Kuwaitis, and Turks also supported the sanctions? Do all Muslims hate Muslim babies, or did you just invent that talking point yourself?
This.
The internet is for learning from each other! New people! New perspectives! Intelligent, constructive conversations! Critical thinking!
Actually, the Internet was originally built to facilitate collaboration between nuclear weapon designers, which oddly enough is one of the few things we're not allowed use the Internet for. Go figure.
Anyway, speaking of religion and hypocrisy, Supreme Court Justice Steven Breyer told George Stephanopolis that criticizing religion might not be protected under the First Amendment, citing the "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater argument."
I find that distrubing, since it not only confuses inciting panic (like setting off a fire alarm or tossing a stun grenade) with stirring up anger and resentment (like denouncing a particular political position), it eliminates the freedom to say or print anything that a society's most childish, violent, and spoiled members might use as an excuse to misbehave yet again. That effectively gives a mob the ability to curtail any of our freedoms, just by threatening violence if we exercise any freedom they disagree with.
Anyway, speaking of religion and hypocrisy, Supreme Court Justice Steven Breyer told George Stephanopolis that criticizing religion might not be protected under the First Amendment, citing the "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater argument."
I find that distrubing, since it not only confuses inciting panic (like setting off a fire alarm or tossing a stun grenade) with stirring up anger and resentment (like denouncing a particular political position), it eliminates the freedom to say or print anything that a society's most childish, violent, and spoiled members might use as an excuse to misbehave yet again. That effectively gives a mob the ability to curtail any of our freedoms, just by threatening violence if we exercise any freedom they disagree with.
Similar threads
