Heaven or Hell? You be the judge!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-06-2016, 10:42 AM
RE: Heaven or Hell? You be the judge!
(02-06-2016 06:23 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(02-06-2016 01:22 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Then you and I have a fundamental disagreement. I do not believe in Human Sacrifice. There is no greater good than that of the individual. The greater good is a fiction. No greater good can ever justify the sacrifice of the rights of any individual.

This whole notion of mercy and leniency for criminals can be traced directly to the idea of original sin. Who are we to judge? We're all sinners. None of us are good. We're no better after all. This is the view of man promoted by Christianity. Whoever says "who are we to judge" is saying "who are we to think". Evil is not overcome by appeasement, sanction or forgiveness. It must be identified, judged and acted upon accordingly.
I think you may be misunderstanding what I was trying to say.

I do not believe in sacrifice in any form but the self sacrifice of greedy selfish wants or pleasures.

If there was no virtue or reality to selflessness then we wouldn't be able to observe altruism in nature.

I do not believe in taking the rights of others in any way.

I do believe in righteous judgement of others, but that to do so requires much more stringent judgement of oneself in order to rightly discern the actions of others, and even then the chances of seeing even partial motives without any bias may be difficult.

I think we may actually agree more than you know as I am not your stereotypical religious person, and do agree with most of your points.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Altruism in nature is selfish, as I inform the term. It redounds ultimately to benefit of the individual in respect to ensuring one's genes get passed along. Also when one's very life is dependent on the tribe's success, working to aid the tribe is also in one's own interest and one's own survival. In the case of giving mercy to the wicked, that ultimately harms the tribe or the society as it gives the guilty opportunities to harm others again. If initiation of force is always wrong, and I think it is, then the retaliatory use of force is a moral imperative. I agree with you that one's own judgement must be exorcised with extreme care and objectivity. My rule is judge and be prepared to be judged. Mercy is wrong because it denies justice to those who were wronged and gives aid and comfort to the ones who did the wrong.

As far as sacrificing greedy pleasures and wants. I don't know what you mean. If you mean range of the moment whim worship then that would not be a sacrifice since thinking and acting long range is requirement of life. Giving up the pleasures of the moment for long range thinking would be only in one's rational self interest.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
03-06-2016, 11:07 AM
RE: Heaven or Hell? You be the judge!
(02-06-2016 01:22 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  This whole notion of mercy and leniency for criminals can be traced directly to the idea of original sin. Who are we to judge? We're all sinners. None of us are good. We're no better after all. This is the view of man promoted by Christianity. Whoever says "who are we to judge" is saying "who are we to think". Evil is not overcome by appeasement, sanction or forgiveness. It must be identified, judged and acted upon accordingly.

I am all for leniency and mercy for criminals - while they are locked away so they cannot harm others.

Between our genetic make-up and environmental conditioning, I don't think there is much room for actual autonomous decision. So, I do not believe in punishment. I do believe in mercy, no religion needed. Just empathy.

Criminals must be prevented from committing more crimes, of course. But beyond that, I see no reason for punishment. Protection of society, yes. Punishment for evil deeds - no. THAT would be a religious attitude.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2016, 11:53 AM
RE: Heaven or Hell? You be the judge!
(03-06-2016 11:07 AM)Dom Wrote:  
(02-06-2016 01:22 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  This whole notion of mercy and leniency for criminals can be traced directly to the idea of original sin. Who are we to judge? We're all sinners. None of us are good. We're no better after all. This is the view of man promoted by Christianity. Whoever says "who are we to judge" is saying "who are we to think". Evil is not overcome by appeasement, sanction or forgiveness. It must be identified, judged and acted upon accordingly.

I am all for leniency and mercy for criminals - while they are locked away so they cannot harm others.

Between our genetic make-up and environmental conditioning, I don't think there is much room for actual autonomous decision. So, I do not believe in punishment. I do believe in mercy, no religion needed. Just empathy.

Criminals must be prevented from committing more crimes, of course. But beyond that, I see no reason for punishment. Protection of society, yes. Punishment for evil deeds - no. THAT would be a religious attitude.

Yes, I am not for removing criminals from society. I'm for the death penalty in the case of murder. We owe it to the victims to make sure their attackers never have the opportunity to harm them again. Practically every time I turn on the TV there is a report of a violent crime and the perp always has a record a foot thick and has already been put away for similar crimes and has been let out. Once a person initiates force, that person forfeits his right to live in civilized society, in my opinion. In locking them up we are only dealing with them on their own terms, i.e., giving them what they deserve.

I remember a few years ago when that Muslim terrorist tried to light a bomb on a plane that he had in his underwear. He only succeeded in burning himself badly. I would not have given him any pain medicine. He wanted to cause pain and suffering and he succeeded. Why should that be taken away from him. He only got what he was after. That would be justice.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2016, 12:18 PM
RE: Heaven or Hell? You be the judge!
(03-06-2016 11:53 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(03-06-2016 11:07 AM)Dom Wrote:  I am all for leniency and mercy for criminals - while they are locked away so they cannot harm others.

Between our genetic make-up and environmental conditioning, I don't think there is much room for actual autonomous decision. So, I do not believe in punishment. I do believe in mercy, no religion needed. Just empathy.

Criminals must be prevented from committing more crimes, of course. But beyond that, I see no reason for punishment. Protection of society, yes. Punishment for evil deeds - no. THAT would be a religious attitude.

Yes, I am not for removing criminals from society. I'm for the death penalty in the case of murder. We owe it to the victims to make sure their attackers never have the opportunity to harm them again. Practically every time I turn on the TV there is a report of a violent crime and the perp always has a record a foot thick and has already been put away for similar crimes and has been let out. Once a person initiates force, that person forfeits his right to live in civilized society, in my opinion. In locking them up we are only dealing with them on their own terms, i.e., giving them what they deserve.

I remember a few years ago when that Muslim terrorist tried to light a bomb on a plane that he had in his underwear. He only succeeded in burning himself badly. I would not have given him any pain medicine. He wanted to cause pain and suffering and he succeeded. Why should that be taken away from him. He only got what he was after. That would be justice.

Erm, and how is death not removal from society?

I believe in a choice between life imprisoned or death for the criminal. As our investigative methods improve, we uncover more and more faulty sentencings. I believe everyone needs the chance to be proven innocent as we acquire the science to do so. I also believe that they should be able to opt out of life if they want.

If imprisoned, you start at the bottom with a small cell, basic nutrition and access to books. I would let prisoners work their way up to bigger cells and better amenities. It only makes financial sense.

Obviously people who commit severe crimes are not wired like the rest of us. That does not warrant punishment - punishing for sins is a religious concept.

What it does warrant is removal from society at minimal cost to said society. Self supporting imprisonment is what makes sense.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
03-06-2016, 02:08 PM
RE: Heaven or Hell? You be the judge!
(25-05-2016 03:21 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I found this on a random website today and it blew my mind a little bit because it's such an interesting idea:

"You reach the afterlife, but before you find out where you'll end up, you have to watch the entire life of someone and decide where they should go. What you don't know is all of your memories have been wiped and it's your own life you're watching."

[Image: zP375x.gif]

Are you fucking kidding me? If all memories are wiped I'm gonna have to go with "trademark" natural born mathematician and choose oblivion.

What's the point of this thread, by the way? I'd read it, but I've been here for ten minutes and have already far exceeded my quota of "Tomisia."

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
03-06-2016, 04:32 PM
RE: Heaven or Hell? You be the judge!
(03-06-2016 02:08 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(25-05-2016 03:21 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I found this on a random website today and it blew my mind a little bit because it's such an interesting idea:

"You reach the afterlife, but before you find out where you'll end up, you have to watch the entire life of someone and decide where they should go. What you don't know is all of your memories have been wiped and it's your own life you're watching."

[Image: zP375x.gif]

Are you fucking kidding me? If all memories are wiped I'm gonna have to go with "trademark" natural born mathematician and choose oblivion.

What's the point of this thread, by the way? I'd read it, but I've been here for ten minutes and have already far exceeded my quota of "Tomisia."

Tomatillo argues about shit he has no clue about and presents himself as an authority. Bad Tomatillo, bad.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
03-06-2016, 05:25 PM
RE: Heaven or Hell? You be the judge!
(03-06-2016 10:42 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(02-06-2016 06:23 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I think you may be misunderstanding what I was trying to say.

I do not believe in sacrifice in any form but the self sacrifice of greedy selfish wants or pleasures.

If there was no virtue or reality to selflessness then we wouldn't be able to observe altruism in nature.

I do not believe in taking the rights of others in any way.

I do believe in righteous judgement of others, but that to do so requires much more stringent judgement of oneself in order to rightly discern the actions of others, and even then the chances of seeing even partial motives without any bias may be difficult.

I think we may actually agree more than you know as I am not your stereotypical religious person, and do agree with most of your points.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Altruism in nature is selfish, as I inform the term. It redounds ultimately to benefit of the individual in respect to ensuring one's genes get passed along. Also when one's very life is dependent on the tribe's success, working to aid the tribe is also in one's own interest and one's own survival. In the case of giving mercy to the wicked, that ultimately harms the tribe or the society as it gives the guilty opportunities to harm others again. If initiation of force is always wrong, and I think it is, then the retaliatory use of force is a moral imperative. I agree with you that one's own judgement must be exorcised with extreme care and objectivity. My rule is judge and be prepared to be judged. Mercy is wrong because it denies justice to those who were wronged and gives aid and comfort to the ones who did the wrong.

As far as sacrificing greedy pleasures and wants. I don't know what you mean. If you mean range of the moment whim worship then that would not be a sacrifice since thinking and acting long range is requirement of life. Giving up the pleasures of the moment for long range thinking would be only in one's rational self interest.
The altruism I mentioned in nature wasn't a selfish sort as it has nothing to do with assuring ones own genes are passed down. You can observe altruism in the wild between unrelated animals and even animals of other packs or groups. Even different species in extreme cases. That's all.

As far as mercy towards the utterly wicked; I agree that complete neglect of reaction towards someone's action isn't profitable for continued peaceable existence, but leniency to some degree, by the victim directly can have multiple positive effects, both direct and indirect.

When it comes to defending the defenseless I think there is a balance that should be met between defence and mercy. I also don't think that those who prey on the weak should be shone leniency necessarily, but ultimately it should be up to the victim. This in itself causes problems though, due again to pride or selfishness which can cause one to blindly seek vengeance or retribution instead of seeing other potential solutions that could be better.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2016, 05:58 PM
RE: Heaven or Hell? You be the judge!
(03-06-2016 05:25 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(03-06-2016 10:42 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Altruism in nature is selfish, as I inform the term. It redounds ultimately to benefit of the individual in respect to ensuring one's genes get passed along. Also when one's very life is dependent on the tribe's success, working to aid the tribe is also in one's own interest and one's own survival. In the case of giving mercy to the wicked, that ultimately harms the tribe or the society as it gives the guilty opportunities to harm others again. If initiation of force is always wrong, and I think it is, then the retaliatory use of force is a moral imperative. I agree with you that one's own judgement must be exorcised with extreme care and objectivity. My rule is judge and be prepared to be judged. Mercy is wrong because it denies justice to those who were wronged and gives aid and comfort to the ones who did the wrong.

As far as sacrificing greedy pleasures and wants. I don't know what you mean. If you mean range of the moment whim worship then that would not be a sacrifice since thinking and acting long range is requirement of life. Giving up the pleasures of the moment for long range thinking would be only in one's rational self interest.
The altruism I mentioned in nature wasn't a selfish sort as it has nothing to do with assuring ones own genes are passed down. You can observe altruism in the wild between unrelated animals and even animals of other packs or groups. Even different species in extreme cases. That's all.

As far as mercy towards the utterly wicked; I agree that complete neglect of reaction towards someone's action isn't profitable for continued peaceable existence, but leniency to some degree, by the victim directly can have multiple positive effects, both direct and indirect.

When it comes to defending the defenseless I think there is a balance that should be met between defence and mercy. I also don't think that those who prey on the weak should be shone leniency necessarily, but ultimately it should be up to the victim. This in itself causes problems though, due again to pride or selfishness which can cause one to blindly seek vengeance or retribution instead of seeing other potential solutions that could be better.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Altruism, mercy... pffft.

Many animals have built in empathy, it is natural to us, it stems from the instinct to preserve the species.

Utterly wicked - pffft.

Some of us are wired differently from the norm - and some of those are wired towards violence. That is not their choice. They may be born that way or they may have hardened along the way or both. Either way, it is not a choice. Nobody is "wicked". However, we do have to remove the violent from society. Because - empathy.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2016, 07:34 PM
RE: Heaven or Hell? You be the judge!
(03-06-2016 05:58 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(03-06-2016 05:25 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  The altruism I mentioned in nature wasn't a selfish sort as it has nothing to do with assuring ones own genes are passed down. You can observe altruism in the wild between unrelated animals and even animals of other packs or groups. Even different species in extreme cases. That's all.

As far as mercy towards the utterly wicked; I agree that complete neglect of reaction towards someone's action isn't profitable for continued peaceable existence, but leniency to some degree, by the victim directly can have multiple positive effects, both direct and indirect.

When it comes to defending the defenseless I think there is a balance that should be met between defence and mercy. I also don't think that those who prey on the weak should be shone leniency necessarily, but ultimately it should be up to the victim. This in itself causes problems though, due again to pride or selfishness which can cause one to blindly seek vengeance or retribution instead of seeing other potential solutions that could be better.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Altruism, mercy... pffft.

Many animals have built in empathy, it is natural to us, it stems from the instinct to preserve the species.

Utterly wicked - pffft.

Some of us are wired differently from the norm - and some of those are wired towards violence. That is not their choice. They may be born that way or they may have hardened along the way or both. Either way, it is not a choice. Nobody is "wicked". However, we do have to remove the violent from society. Because - empathy.
I don't doubt empathy has to do with continued existence.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2016, 07:40 PM
RE: Heaven or Hell? You be the judge!
(03-06-2016 07:34 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I don't doubt empathy has to do with continued existence.

The shit you don't doubt is a long preposterous list.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: