Help Mojch Not Put His Foot In His Mouth
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-05-2013, 06:12 AM
RE: Help Mojch Not Put His Foot In His Mouth
(24-05-2013 05:32 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(24-05-2013 04:10 AM)fat cat Wrote:  I don't believe anything is inherently offensive.

So you've never been to the Vatican then?

I have not, but whether or not I (or anyone else) would be offended by the Vatican is irrelevant to whether or not the Vatican is inherently offensive. I'm presumptuously confident I would not be offended by the Vatican if I were to ever go there, and still believe nothing is inherently offensive.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fat cat's post
25-05-2013, 08:40 AM
RE: Help Mojch Not Put His Foot In His Mouth
***Mark: Great to hear from you outside our Boxing Ring discussion. Can I inquire about your inclusion of the term "faith"? Would the term "unproven belief" work better as a starting point for conversation?

***kim: Yes, that makes perfect sense. Thank you! Do you think it would be fair to describe atheism as a system of "systematic and justifiable doubting"?

QUOTE: "Besides, it's not often I get a chance to reference To Kill a Mockingbird while talking to a lawyer." It was awesome. :-)

***Fat Cat: You are correct. I should have said "inherently offensive within certain social contexts and circumstances."

***Morondog: QUOTE: "Personally, I was just glad of the chance to crack a joke at your expense." We are going to get along well. I will probably give you MANY more such opportunities. :-)

***Chas: Really? Could you elaborate on this? I assume you are referencing the death of Christ but I am unsure of what you mean by "vicarious sacrifice". Are you saying that the concept of one being being (voluntarily) killed to pay another beings debts is offense?

***Houseofcantor: Remember, I don't just argue here. I make a living doing it in the real world. If you guys help me clean up offensive terms here, I don't accidentally use them in the real world. Here, an offensive term gives morondog a chance to rip on me :-). In my day to day life, if I use a term incorrectly, I run severe risks. Thus, my passion for precision with language.

***DeepThought: Thank you, I am trying! I do find this very enjoyable.

***Dom: I am sad to here this about our original discussion. My discussion with you was one of my favorites because I felt it was exceptionally civil and leading to a (potential) direct conflict in my belief system.
QUOTE: "You are probably not used to dealing with such complete individuality. There are no group orientations." Precisely. This is why this is forum is such a useful setting for me.

***Starcrash: Interesting about the world "design". I never would have guessed that but it makes sense. Thank you. As for "kind", we don't need the discussion because I believe in evolution.

***Anjele: Good points and glad to meet you!

Sincerely,

Mojch
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mojch's post
25-05-2013, 09:16 AM
RE: Help Mojch Not Put His Foot In His Mouth
(25-05-2013 08:40 AM)Mojch Wrote:  ***Dom: I am sad to here this about our original discussion. My discussion with you was one of my favorites because I felt it was exceptionally civil and leading to a (potential) direct conflict in my belief system.
QUOTE: "You are probably not used to dealing with such complete individuality. There are no group orientations." Precisely. This is why this is forum is such a useful setting for me.

***Starcrash: Interesting about the world "design". I never would have guessed that but it makes sense. Thank you. As for "kind", we don't need the discussion because I believe in evolution.

Sincerely,

Mojch

We can take it to the boxing ring once you finish up one of those debates there. I found it interesting also.

You believe in evolution? Nothing to believe there, it's all facts, proven and documented facts.

[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
[+] 2 users Like Dom's post
25-05-2013, 03:43 PM
RE: Help Mojche Not Put His Foot In His Mouth
(23-05-2013 07:29 PM)Mojch Wrote:  Example: Gay worldview

Meaning Intended: in my environment, this usually means "the belief by most homosexuals that homosexuality is not immoral"

Meaning (understandably) Perceived: all gays are the same and have a singular worldview

The problem with your "gay worldview" expression is not so much that it implies all gay people think the same way. You qualified your intended meaning with "most," and as such, you are correct: most homosexuals do not believe homosexuality is immoral. The few that do are tortured souls who cannot reconcile their inborn sexual orientation with their externally imposed conception of morality, which usually stems from religion. Such people lead very sad lives.

What is misleading and offensive about the expression is the implication that the only people who think being gay is OK are the gays themselves, the ones with the "gay worldview." This is, of course, belied by the facts. Support for same-sex marriage in the U.S. is now over 50%. This would obviously never be the case if such support were confined to homosexuals, who are probably something like 5% of the general population (no one seems to know for sure). So how would you describe all these straight people who think there's no moral problem with being gay? Do they have a "gay worldview"?

It's a bit like defining a "Jewish worldview" as the belief among most Jews that Jews are not racially inferior to other human beings. Under this definition, one would hope that the vast majority of people alive today would have a "Jewish worldview," whether or not they're Jews.

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like cufflink's post
26-05-2013, 09:20 AM
RE: Help Mojch Not Put His Foot In His Mouth
Just bumping this so Mjoch can find it again.

[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
26-05-2013, 09:25 AM
RE: Help Mojch Not Put His Foot In His Mouth
As opposed to just a pm with a link, if he lost the thread somehow?

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2013, 10:32 AM
RE: Help Mojch Not Put His Foot In His Mouth
(26-05-2013 09:25 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  As opposed to just a pm with a link, if he lost the thread somehow?

Or a pretty postcard....

[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
26-05-2013, 10:45 AM
RE: Help Mojch Not Put His Foot In His Mouth
(25-05-2013 08:40 AM)Mojch Wrote:  ***Chas: Really? Could you elaborate on this? I assume you are referencing the death of Christ but I am unsure of what you mean by "vicarious sacrifice". Are you saying that the concept of one being being (voluntarily) killed to pay another beings debts is offense?

Yes, Christ dying on the cross as a means of redemption of others' sins is scapegoating writ large.

It is morally offensive and ethically devoid of substance.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
26-05-2013, 11:18 AM (This post was last modified: 26-05-2013 11:49 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Help Mojch Not Put His Foot In His Mouth
(26-05-2013 10:45 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-05-2013 08:40 AM)Mojch Wrote:  ***Chas: Really? Could you elaborate on this? I assume you are referencing the death of Christ but I am unsure of what you mean by "vicarious sacrifice". Are you saying that the concept of one being being (voluntarily) killed to pay another beings debts is offense?

Yes, Christ dying on the cross as a means of redemption of others' sins is scapegoating writ large.

It is morally offensive and ethically devoid of substance.

He wasn't "voluntarily" killed. (If indeed there even was a Jesus of Nazareth, and I'm not conceding that at this point. Simon of Perea was also executed, and rose after 3 days ... with not one way to "verify" anything, no newspapers, no written records, no pictures, no nothing, how would anyone 50 years later even know the difference ?)
a. He was (supposedly) "sent" to do just that. If the "Father" willed it, he had no choice.
b. He was executed because he was a common crook, and disrupted the Pax Romana, and the execution was done via "standing order". There was nothing "voluntary" about it. There was no trial. (The trials in the gospels obviously were cooked up, and totally contradict each other. No Galilean peasant was afforded a trial before Roman aristocrats). Thousands were crucified with no trial.
c. A system of "debts"/"payments" to an ancient pissed-off deity, that *requires* a payment is a system to which the deity is bound, and subject to .. thus the deity is not the creator of a Reality, to which it is bound.
d. It proves the deity is also subject to, and exists in a temporal dimension, (space-time), as AFTER the sacrifice/atonement, the deity was "appeased", (therefore changed), and NOT "eternal", and "timeless". THAT is no "timeless" deity. A time dependent deity is not a creator of space-time.
e. All anthropomorphic projected BS.
f. Even IF you were an apocalyptic Jew, the "payment" had no part of Hebrew thought, nor was that the role of a "messiah". The "debt" of sin was entirely cooked up much much later, and played no part in the teaching of Yeshua ben Josef. He never said, "there, now, the debt is paid" either after he (supposedly) rose, nor did he say it would be before he was executed. There is no "salvation" in the first gospel written. It obviously developed and was used as a means to gain adherents for the new cult.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
26-05-2013, 11:24 AM
RE: Help Mojch Not Put His Foot In His Mouth
(26-05-2013 11:18 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(26-05-2013 10:45 AM)Chas Wrote:  Yes, Christ dying on the cross as a means of redemption of others' sins is scapegoating writ large.

It is morally offensive and ethically devoid of substance.

He wasn't "voluntarily" killed.
a. He was (supposedly) "sent" to do just that. If the "Father" willed it, he had no choice.
b. He was executed because he was a common crook, and disrupted the Pax Romana, and the execution was done via a "standing order". There was nothing "voluntary" about it. There was no trial. (The trials in the gospels obviously were cooked up, and totally contradict each other. No Galilean peasant was afforded a trial before Roman aristocrats).
c. A system of "debts"/"payments" to an ancient pissed-off deity, that *requires* a payment is a system to which the deity is bound, and subject to .. thus the deity is not the creator of a Reality to which it is bound.
d. It proves the deity is also subject to a temporal dimension, (space-time), as AFTER the sacrifice/atonement, the deity was "appeased", (therefore changed), and NOT "eternal", and "timeless". THAT is no deity.
e. All anthropomorphic projected BS.

Besides, a benevolent god would have found a different way. Having one's own son die of torture is a bit harsh - and that's an understatement. Why didn't god just forgive stuff and leave it at that? And what is he forgiving? Oh yeah, we are all born sinners... little babies are just reeking with sin!

[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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: