Print

Author Topic: Your F Score?  (Read 11789 times)

« Reply #60 on: April 02, 2011, 08:03:36 PM »
There are a few examples of consensual crimes, the most infamous being statutory rape.

Whoa, rape is never consensual.
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

Insane Steve

  • Professional Cynic
« Reply #61 on: April 02, 2011, 08:12:33 PM »
Murder can still be committed against a person with a death wish, though.  There are a few examples of consensual crimes, the most infamous being statutory rape.

Assisted suicide is not a crime in my ideal society. Statutory rape is a bit more  finicky, but when people's lives are unconditionally ruined because they had sex with their 5-day younger girlfriends (which was legal the day before), or because a girl lies about her age to someone, there's issues with the law. I will say the sex offender list needs to be completely destroyed. Also, if a pre-pubescent girl wants sex, she's almost definitely not informed of any of the risks, which makes it de facto non-consensual in many cases.

But in manslaughter cases, the killer still has control over his actions even if it's involuntary.  When a woman miscarries, it's not a result of any particular action on her part.

At least you can tell the difference. some people (By which, I mean elected state representatives) cannot.

What bad things does it lead to, and why are they bad?

In the most extreme cases, murder, and absolutely no feelings of remorse for it. In lesser extreme cases, less extreme results. Your responses have made me think you to be less sociopathic than first thought.

God never murdered anyone.  He killed people, but it was never for no reason.  Lot's wife disobeyed him in "looking back at the city," where "looking back" doesn't mean she just glanced back, but that she wanted to go back.

So if a woman disobeys her husband, it's grounds for justifiable homicide. Riiiiiiight.

I didn't think anyone needed proof to make claims anymore, what with Darwinism being taught as absolute fact in public schools.

Darwinism is taught as a theory, NOT an absolute truth. If tomorrow some archaeologist found indisputable proof of the existence of God, you better believe scientists (as well as myself) would stop believing it.

I really do want to see how you think, because I do encounter people with more extreme versions of your views all the time, and want to see why you think that. Considering your responses, a score of about 4 on the original test seems about right. I encounter 4.5-5s a lot and my heads figuratively explodes when I hear some of the things they say.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2011, 08:18:22 PM by Insane Steve »
~I.S.~

Turtlekid1

  • Tortuga
« Reply #62 on: April 02, 2011, 08:18:03 PM »
I made a mistake and edited your post instead of quoting it. My apolgies, please re-type your post if you'd like.

My best effort to re-construct it is:

1) Why is murder bad?

2) Lot's wife was killed because she disobeyed God, not Lot. Him should've been capitalized in the last post.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2011, 08:36:57 PM by Insane Steve »
(´・ω・`)

Insane Steve

  • Professional Cynic
« Reply #63 on: April 02, 2011, 08:30:48 PM »
Why is murder bad, though?

Not really going to address your second part (Note -- I mistakenly edited the 2nd part, it basically said that Lot's wife disobeys God, and not Lot, and that's the critical difference), because I mean that's just a difference on how we interpret the Bible and God's law and stuff.

As for murder... I'm going to try to describe this as someone who doesn't believe in religion, so you can maybe see how morality is possible without religion:

When one makes a decision that impacts others, one has to consider two possible variables -- the net benefit/loss that you obtain, and the net benefit/loss that those you interact with gain. The determining of such things is very complex, but we won't need to define it for the final result. One should, as such, strive for as many +/+ actions as possible. This is trivial.

-/+ actions; that is, actions that benefit others at cost to you, are also, mostly, acceptable. However, if the - part is a lot more than the + part, then it's a bad action. If there's a good trade-off, it's a good action if you don't mind the losses.

-/- actions should be avoided at all costs. This should also be trivial. Except, people do them all the time.

+/-, that is, actions that help you at the expense of others... these are the difficult moral cases. Like, should I buy that cheap TV for my own enjoyment knowing someone's life was worsened by making it? This is where it's hard to quantify in a lot of cases....

But murder is not one of them. Murder has a benefit of negative infinity to the person you kill. There is NO gain at all that justifies the loss the other person faces. Period.

That's also where sociopathy is a bit dangerous -- if they don't care about other people, the "-" part will be very, very low compared to society's estimation. They may see such an action as beneficial to themselves when it's really not beneficial to society in just about everyone else's estimation.
~I.S.~

« Reply #64 on: April 02, 2011, 08:31:41 PM »
Why is murder bad, though?

It's neither good nor bad. It's harmful to your well-being, but that's about it. It's punishable because it violates a person's "right" to autonomy, which I suppose makes it different than killing.

But as far as having a metaphysical essence, murder is no different than killing.
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

« Reply #65 on: April 02, 2011, 09:05:37 PM »
A great video by George Carlin on abortion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvF1Q3UidWM
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

Turtlekid1

  • Tortuga
« Reply #66 on: April 02, 2011, 09:27:20 PM »
It's full of strawman and ad hominem arguments.  It's overly vulgar and that guy seems like a git.  No, that doesn't mean what he's saying isn't true.  But it does make it hard to listen to.

And while he seems to take great pleasure in pointing out the ways in which conservatives and those of faith are supposedly against life, and while I'm sure he's hilarious if you like crude humor and a lack of logic, he fails to give a better alternative.
(´・ω・`)

Insane Steve

  • Professional Cynic
« Reply #67 on: April 02, 2011, 09:29:07 PM »
Um, because conservatives and those of faith ARE, a lot of the time, against life? Like, the only way you can call them "pro-life" is if you end the definition of life at birth.

"The only reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it."
~George Carlin (RIP)
~I.S.~

Turtlekid1

  • Tortuga
« Reply #68 on: April 02, 2011, 09:33:35 PM »
How are they against life?
(´・ω・`)

« Reply #69 on: April 02, 2011, 09:35:59 PM »
They're not... until you're born.

Turtlekid1

  • Tortuga
« Reply #70 on: April 02, 2011, 09:36:26 PM »
How?
(´・ω・`)

« Reply #71 on: April 02, 2011, 09:37:21 PM »
It's overly vulgar and that guy seems like a git. 

...and while I'm sure he's hilarious if you like crude humor and a lack of logic

Christ dude, it's supposed to be funny.
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

Insane Steve

  • Professional Cynic
« Reply #72 on: April 02, 2011, 10:15:27 PM »
Oh, pro-death-after-birthers, let me count thine ways:

Most support abolishing any kind of standard health care for the poor. Children have no say in who they are born to. Hell, Rush Limbaugh, the bastion of right-wing lunacy himself, suggested "dumpster diving as a fun activiy for poor children." No, I am dead serious.

Most support completely de-funding school lunch programs. Which, for a lot of very poor children, is the only hot meal they get a day. Starve a poor child, they die. Again, pro-death.

Most support going to war for frivolous reasons. I don't need to comment on this.

A select few support killing abortion doctors. Again, this is a select few, but the hypocrisy is obscene.

And, almost all of them support the death penalty.

I've been drinking so I don't feel like delving deeper, but a lot of "pro-life" people don't give two [dukar]s if people die unnecessarily after they're born. As such, I equate someone saying they are "pro-life" to saying they are misogynists who only want to punish women for having sex.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2011, 10:17:01 PM by Insane Steve »
~I.S.~

Insane Steve

  • Professional Cynic
« Reply #73 on: April 02, 2011, 10:19:57 PM »
Oh, and before you wonder how I can keep pulling these links from nowhere, my hatred for the social right as manifested itself to the point where I can instinctively remember hundreds of cases of things that **** me off. Also I visit fark.com a lot.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2011, 10:22:15 PM by Insane Steve »
~I.S.~

Turtlekid1

  • Tortuga
« Reply #74 on: April 02, 2011, 10:43:55 PM »
Most support abolishing any kind of standard health care for the poor. Children have no say in who they are born to. Hell, Rush Limbaugh, the bastion of right-wing lunacy himself, suggested "dumpster diving as a fun activiy for poor children." No, I am dead serious.
It's not the state's job to provide health care for anyone.  It's for the individual to decide whether he wants to help those less fortunate.  And this isn't about being for or against life.  It's about being for or against the government telling people what to do with their money.  Just a suggestion, but perhaps if politicians would give all the money that they spend on their election campaigns to charity, and if people in authority would be the first to take pay cuts in tough times, we wouldn't need government-funded health care.

Most support completely de-funding school lunch programs. Which, for a lot of very poor children, is the only hot meal they get a day. Starve a poor child, they die. Again, pro-death.
To be honest, I would just get rid of the public schools completely, so I don't understand what the huge deal is here.  Again, it has nothing to do with being for or against life, it has to do with being for or against abuse of tax dollars.  And again, if the massive money sink that is the public school weren't there, people could afford to be more generous.

Most support going to war for frivolous reasons. I don't need to comment on this.
I wouldn't say "most."  Not if they actually hold to conservative values, anyway.

A select few support killing abortion doctors. Again, this is a select few, but the hypocrisy is obscene.
So long as it's not vigilantism (as in, the death penalty), this probably would be a good idea.  Giving the death penalty to murderers isn't about destroying life, it's about honoring its value and protecting it from those who would take it unjustly.

And, almost all of them support the death penalty.
[See above]

I've been drinking so I don't feel like delving deeper, but a lot of "pro-life" people don't give two [dukar]s if people die unnecessarily after they're born. As such, I equate someone saying they are "pro-life" to saying they are misogynists who only want to punish women for having sex.
I think you're misunderstanding a lot of 'pro-life' people, then.  It's not that they don't "give two [dukar]s."  Do you really believe that most people are that apathetic?  Many conservatives have a hard time supporting themselves and literally cannot afford to get involved.  Others do get involved, of their own accord, without the state telling them that they need to (which is how it should be).  I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a conservative (and not some progressive flake that's registered as a Republican, mind you, but an actual conservative) who is truly apathetic and has no other reason for not being in support of government welfare. 

What's more, abortion is different from not providing health care or school lunches because it is murder in and of itself, in the most direct way possible.
(´・ω・`)

Print