The Moral Superiority of God (within the confines of Christianity)

[Soulfire]

Donna, no. I'd be a terrible shot for one thing because I'm, like, 75% blind, but other than that, I'd just grab them and run. What's the big deal? Said rapist, theoretically, wants to live just as much as I do and wants happiness just as much as I do, so a little empathy goes a long way, but yeah, I'd just grab and run. No biggie. I'm really not a violent person.

RichardY, you want hard-truth sorts? Try Richard Dawkins. Stefan might be annoying but he is NOTHING compared to the jackassery that is Dawkins. Ugh, so much hate. Yes, Donna, I said HATE. LOL. Can't stand the way he deals with theists though. It's like, when he's talking to them, without saying it out loud, he's saying the whole time, "Oh, how cute and naïve, you believe THAT? Oh, well I'm so much more intelligent than you are, aren't I?"

In terms of the agriculture thing, crop rotation is a definite must, of course, which the Europeans would have known, but they didn't know how to get the preexisting natural resources off the land, or at least not at that time. I mean in terms of plant life, whereas, as you say, hunting would be a must and especially in winter. Our winters SUCK. I live in Canada, by the way, and it's basically five months of darkness. Not literally like nighttime, obviously, but just cloudy and crappy all the time. Ugh. England, I think, is more moderate in climate because of the ocean currents. Must be nice to live on an island. My mom's whole side is from Ireland, mind, and I've heard that that can suck a lot because it never stops raining.  

[Donnadogsoth]

16 minutes ago, Soulfire said:

Donna, no. I'd be a terrible shot for one thing because I'm, like, 75% blind, but other than that, I'd just grab them and run. What's the big deal? Said rapist, theoretically, wants to live just as much as I do and wants happiness just as much as I do, so a little empathy goes a long way, but yeah, I'd just grab and run. No biggie. I'm really not a violent person.

RichardY, you want hard-truth sorts? Try Richard Dawkins. Stefan might be annoying but he is NOTHING compared to the jackassery that is Dawkins. Ugh, so much hate. Yes, Donna, I said HATE. LOL. Can't stand the way he deals with theists though. It's like, when he's talking to them, without saying it out loud, he's saying the whole time, "Oh, how cute and naïve, you believe THAT? Oh, well I'm so much more intelligent than you are, aren't I?"

In terms of the agriculture thing, crop rotation is a definite must, of course, which the Europeans would have known, but they didn't know how to get the preexisting natural resources off the land, or at least not at that time. I mean in terms of plant life, whereas, as you say, hunting would be a must and especially in winter. Our winters SUCK. I live in Canada, by the way, and it's basically five months of darkness. Not literally like nighttime, obviously, but just cloudy and crappy all the time. Ugh. England, I think, is more moderate in climate because of the ocean currents. Must be nice to live on an island. My mom's whole side is from Ireland, mind, and I've heard that that can suck a lot because it never stops raining.  

I know it's hard for you to think clearly about moral dilemmas, but you should realise what you've just said.  In a situation wherein there are only two options:  (1) watch (while 75% blind) and hear your relative be raped, or (2) attempt to stop the rape from happening, you  have chosen to let your relative (niece perhaps?) be raped.  All this because you think that God has no preferences, and that the situation is merely one of God raping himself while he watches.

I can't on short notice think of anything more evil that this situation. You are willing to let your niece be raped because you're too much of feelgood, pacifist flake to even try to do anything to stop it.

[Soulfire]

God dammit, girl, you're pushing that damn family button because you know it'll piss me off! Problem is, it doesn't really work when I know what you're doing. So rather than getting pissed, I'm kind of just laughing at you now.

What did I say? That I would stand and watch? No. I said I would get them out of the situation. Please read more thoroughly next time. Also, no jabs about the blind(ish)ness thing, 'kay? I can see, you know. Like how your profile picture is more or less a depiction of an evolutionary line from monkey to Christ Consciousness human. You're not doing the best job at attaining Christ Consciousness (same thing as Enlightenment) if you're going around pushing people's buttons for the sake of pushing people's buttons. Or for the sake of seeing how far they are willing to go along the line of their own ideology, rather, which is what you're doing here. Like I say, it doesn't work if I know what you're doing. So you can continue to make me laugh or you can abandon your futile mission. You choose though, because either way I'll be having fun.

Also, there are never just two options. Never. I believe in Multiverse theory which states that all possible realities, which in fact are infinite, already exist in a concrete universe somewhere. So, my third option actually does work, and would work in infinite universes. Go read about Multiverse; it's fascinating.  

[Donnadogsoth]

1 hour ago, Soulfire said:

God dammit, girl, you're pushing that damn family button because you know it'll piss me off! Problem is, it doesn't really work when I know what you're doing. So rather than getting pissed, I'm kind of just laughing at you now.

What did I say? That I would stand and watch? No. I said I would get them out of the situation. Please read more thoroughly next time. Also, no jabs about the blind(ish)ness thing, 'kay? I can see, you know. Like how your profile picture is more or less a depiction of an evolutionary line from monkey to Christ Consciousness human. You're not doing the best job at attaining Christ Consciousness (same thing as Enlightenment) if you're going around pushing people's buttons for the sake of pushing people's buttons. Or for the sake of seeing how far they are willing to go along the line of their own ideology, rather, which is what you're doing here. Like I say, it doesn't work if I know what you're doing. So you can continue to make me laugh or you can abandon your futile mission. You choose though, because either way I'll be having fun.

Also, there are never just two options. Never. I believe in Multiverse theory which states that all possible realities, which in fact are infinite, already exist in a concrete universe somewhere. So, my third option actually does work, and would work in infinite universes. Go read about Multiverse; it's fascinating.  

How are you going to get your relative out of being raped?  Ask the rapist nicely?  Suppose he is in the process of stripping her and exposing himself, all the while she's screaming "Help!".  So what do you do?  You're a chickenshit pacifist who throws down the gun and what, tries to pull the rapist off of her?  He's a hundred pounds heavier than you are and knows how to fight, so he punches you bloody, picks up the gun and shoots you, and then goes back to committing rape.  Where is your third option here?  Are you really stupid enough to believe that there are always pacifist options to any situation that don't involve people getting traumatised and killed?

If you don't realise the right to self-defense you are retarded, and dangerous as well.  In fact, if this is what your belief system amounts to,  I correct myself, it is not amoral and flaky, it is immoral and flaky.  If you are not willing to stop a rape happening right in front of you but instead try to paw the air at him or something, you are actually evil. 

[RichardY]

2 hours ago, Soulfire said:

Donna, no. I'd be a terrible shot for one thing because I'm, like, 75% blind, but other than that, I'd just grab them and run. What's the big deal? Said rapist, theoretically, wants to live just as much as I do and wants happiness just as much as I do, so a little empathy goes a long way, but yeah, I'd just grab and run. No biggie. I'm really not a violent person.

RichardY, you want hard-truth sorts? Try Richard Dawkins. Stefan might be annoying but he is NOTHING compared to the jackassery that is Dawkins. Ugh, so much hate. Yes, Donna, I said HATE. LOL. Can't stand the way he deals with theists though. It's like, when he's talking to them, without saying it out loud, he's saying the whole time, "Oh, how cute and naïve, you believe THAT? Oh, well I'm so much more intelligent than you are, aren't I?"

In terms of the agriculture thing, crop rotation is a definite must, of course, which the Europeans would have known, but they didn't know how to get the preexisting natural resources off the land, or at least not at that time. I mean in terms of plant life, whereas, as you say, hunting would be a must and especially in winter. Our winters SUCK. I live in Canada, by the way, and it's basically five months of darkness. Not literally like nighttime, obviously, but just cloudy and crappy all the time. Ugh. England, I think, is more moderate in climate because of the ocean currents. Must be nice to live on an island. My mom's whole side is from Ireland, mind, and I've heard that that can suck a lot because it never stops raining.  

"If you had the luck of the Irish, you'd be sorry and wish you were dead". John Lennon.

Looking on Wikipedia a while a go, had an ancestor who was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, managed to prevent wholesale bloodshed during his governorship. Richard Dawkins the selfish gene, I think I remember Jordan Peterson saying that Dawkins was almost a "Jungian" but because of his Atheistic nature he'd be unlikely to be familiar with Jung's work, I think Nietzsche possibly even beat Dawkins in terms of the selfish gene and back we or at least I go. You'd probably find Nietzsche more disturbing than Dawkins, since he openly condones slavery, eugenics, euthanasia, a master race etc

Not too keen on England to be honest mostly because it's the most crowded country in the world (victim of its own success). Yeah the climate is moderate(gulf stream), but the damp can soak in, especially in autumn.

[Soulfire]

Firstly, I'm pulling a Stefan here but I agree with this part: don't just say "him" when referring to a rapist. They can be females too. Secondly, no, I don't try to pull the rapist off, I pull at my loved one. Get them out of the situation. And obviously they would help me in that process so it's not like we would be working at cross purposes here.

Yes, there is always a pacific option. And even if I were to get shot doing it, I'd rather the blood not be on MY hands. I'm a Jain; it's what I do. You're still trying to get my goat though. Didn't I tell you to abandon that option? If this is a game, I'm very, very good at playing games, so play on if you want to, but you're just going to make yourself look like an ass.

RichardY, I think I'd want to visit, do the whole tourist thing. Besides, I wouldn't mind getting up to Cork. That's where mom's side is from. As for the whole "luck of the Irish" thing, I think I agree with John Lennon, but that's because no one ever says whether it's BAD luck or GOOD luck. They just say "luck", which is not very specific. Pretty sure it's bad, truth be told. But oh, what was it that my buddy told me about Irish people going to Scotland? There was some comedian who said that the Irish looked in the direction of Scotland, and were all like, "Hey, you see those dark clouds hanging over the mountains up there? Let's go there! It'll be great! Even more pissing rain and even more freezing cold in winter than it is here! Yay!" LOL.

Also, Mr. Richard, would you like to join the Lilly vs. Donna game as well? We'll have some lovely sport, shall we?  

[RichardY]

17 minutes ago, Soulfire said:

Firstly, I'm pulling a Stefan here but I agree with this part: don't just say "him" when referring to a rapist. They can be females too. Secondly, no, I don't try to pull the rapist off, I pull at my loved one. Get them out of the situation. And obviously they would help me in that process so it's not like we would be working at cross purposes here.

Yes, there is always a pacific option. And even if I were to get shot doing it, I'd rather the blood not be on MY hands. I'm a Jain; it's what I do. You're still trying to get my goat though. Didn't I tell you to abandon that option? If this is a game, I'm very, very good at playing games, so play on if you want to, but you're just going to make yourself look like an ass.

RichardY, I think I'd want to visit, do the whole tourist thing. Besides, I wouldn't mind getting up to Cork. That's where mom's side is from. As for the whole "luck of the Irish" thing, I think I agree with John Lennon, but that's because no one ever says whether it's BAD luck or GOOD luck. They just say "luck", which is not very specific. Pretty sure it's bad, truth be told. But oh, what was it that my buddy told me about Irish people going to Scotland? There was some comedian who said that the Irish looked in the direction of Scotland, and were all like, "Hey, you see those dark clouds hanging over the mountains up there? Let's go there! It'll be great! Even more pissing rain and even more freezing cold in winter than it is here! Yay!" LOL.

Also, Mr. Richard, would you like to join the Lilly vs. Donna game as well? We'll have some lovely sport, shall we?  

Well I haven't been to Ireland, but I'd imagine Ireland is a nice place to visit, at least in Europe. London is good for museums. If you were to visit the UK imo you'd probably be best staying most of the time in Ireland and visiting London. Scotland was originally Pictland, I think a tribe from Ireland invaded hence now Scotland. Haven't actually been much around the UK. 

hmm I think I'll pass, but throw in at least one set of thoughts. I'd probably shoot no hesitation. If it was someone else's relative I'd still probably shoot. If I could I'd probably give the victim a choice if they wanted them executed or enslaved on a penal colony, I wouldn't allow them to go free if I could. But with real life horrors occurring in S.Afirca and Sweden etc... I can understand why a person would and might act passively.

[Soulfire]

Trust me, there's no shame in pacifism. If the whole world lived by the principles of pacifism, we would have no war. Do you know how huge a shift that would be? I mean, I understand why people WOULD shoot: our primitive instincts would compel us to do that. Frankly, though, is it not more noble, more human, to pursue the higher path of pacifism? You have to THINK about pacifism, and not just act on the trigger. See, even the word "trigger" denotes a gun. The only purpose of a gun is to injure or kill. I honestly don't think that we should have any use for such things in a civilized world.

[Donnadogsoth]

30 minutes ago, Soulfire said:

Trust me, there's no shame in pacifism. If the whole world lived by the principles of pacifism, we would have no war. Do you know how huge a shift that would be? I mean, I understand why people WOULD shoot: our primitive instincts would compel us to do that. Frankly, though, is it not more noble, more human, to pursue the higher path of pacifism? You have to THINK about pacifism, and not just act on the trigger. See, even the word "trigger" denotes a gun. The only purpose of a gun is to injure or kill. I honestly don't think that we should have any use for such things in a civilized world.

I wonder how you vote?

[RichardY]

1 hour ago, Soulfire said:

Trust me, there's no shame in pacifism. If the whole world lived by the principles of pacifism, we would have no war. Do you know how huge a shift that would be? I mean, I understand why people WOULD shoot: our primitive instincts would compel us to do that. Frankly, though, is it not more noble, more human, to pursue the higher path of pacifism? You have to THINK about pacifism, and not just act on the trigger. See, even the word "trigger" denotes a gun. The only purpose of a gun is to injure or kill. I honestly don't think that we should have any use for such things in a civilized world.

Never said there was. Depends on your instincts, though from reading C.Jung I think primordial memory instead of instinct.The reason we have advanced weaponry is because we live in a civilised world, the West most of all. Noble, I guess it depends what you mean by Noble, perhaps it means to reach a condition as to be unaffected psychically(though to stretch like a rubber band) by other people and maintain integrity. "I’m rubber, you’re glue"

[Donnadogsoth]

1 hour ago, RichardY said:

Never said there was. Depends on your instincts, though from reading C.Jung I think primordial memory instead of instinct.The reason we have advanced weaponry is because we live in a civilised world, the West most of all. Noble, I guess it depends what you mean by Noble, perhaps it means to reach a condition as to be unaffected psychically(though to stretch like a rubber band) by other people and maintain integrity. "I’m rubber, you’re glue"

Emotional-weakness-based pacifiism is as shameful as a clubfoot.  We do not punish people for having clubbed feet.  But, a principled pacifist is actually scandalous and forfeits the right to be protected by those with the courage and conviction to actually oppose evil men.

[Soulfire]

Oh Richard, we just had this conversation in the class I'm taking today. What is meant by "noble" or "civilized" entirely depends on who you ask. For example, I live in Canada, right? And I'm the descendant of European immigrants. No one in North America is actually from this continent to begin with unless you count the Native cultures at large. But the settlers never considered the Natives to be their equals, which, as we previously discussed, is where they went wrong. Those settlers came in with their guns a-blazing and their smallpox fresh at hand, and look what happened. Not to say that there wasn't tribal warfare before that time, but they really fecked some shit up. So I kind of love the idea of pacifism because it would also (if used during colonial times) have GREATLY minimized the harm that was done and maybe would actually have led to peace in the Americas. As it stands, not so much.

Donna, I'm a principled pacifist. I believe on principle, on my moral code, that that is the best way to go. If you consider that ignoble and...what was the term you used? Scandalous? If you consider it ignoble and scandalous...well, less power to you. As opposed to "more power to you".

Also, I vote left. I told y'all, I'm a leftist.

[Donnadogsoth]

1 hour ago, Soulfire said:

Oh Richard, we just had this conversation in the class I'm taking today. What is meant by "noble" or "civilized" entirely depends on who you ask. For example, I live in Canada, right? And I'm the descendant of European immigrants. No one in North America is actually from this continent to begin with unless you count the Native cultures at large. But the settlers never considered the Natives to be their equals, which, as we previously discussed, is where they went wrong. Those settlers came in with their guns a-blazing and their smallpox fresh at hand, and look what happened. Not to say that there wasn't tribal warfare before that time, but they really fecked some shit up. So I kind of love the idea of pacifism because it would also (if used during colonial times) have GREATLY minimized the harm that was done and maybe would actually have led to peace in the Americas. As it stands, not so much.

Donna, I'm a principled pacifist. I believe on principle, on my moral code, that that is the best way to go. If you consider that ignoble and...what was the term you used? Scandalous? If you consider it ignoble and scandalous...well, less power to you. As opposed to "more power to you".

Also, I vote left. I told y'all, I'm a leftist.

How left?  Left liberal or left socialist?

[Soulfire]

Left...in the middle of those two, I'd say. Middle Path, my dear Donna. Middle Path.  

[Donnadogsoth]

5 minutes ago, Soulfire said:

Left...in the middle of those two, I'd say. Middle Path, my dear Donna. Middle Path.  

Why are you here?  This is not a left-wing board by any stretch of the imagination.  You are not going to find sympathetic fellow-travellers.

[Soulfire]

Well, no offense meant, but I certainly know I won't find any friendship in you. Mind you, RichardY has been rather nice, now hasn't he? And I just like talking to people, frankly. Besides, I wondered who on here would be receptive to my views, given Stefan's history of racism, misogyny, and general fear-mongering of the left and of anyone different. Take his views on immigrants and Muslims. It's fine that he's an immigrant himself because he's white and non-religious, while anyone who has brown skin or was taught differently than he was is an automatic threat. People in glass houses...but I digress. I'm not going anywhere, though. I'm here until I get banned, as I'm sure I probably will be at some point. But they can't ban me without reading what I have to say. Ba-BAM!  

[Donnadogsoth]

Why shouldn't Stefan seek to preserve his society from being overwhelmed by colonisers?  Aren't you against colonisation?

[Soulfire]

If we're going to talk about colonization, let's talk about the kind that our ancestors did, shall we? Mass cultural genocide, both in the forms of warfare (biological and otherwise) and in the form of residential "schools" (I will NEVER call those schools without adding quotation marks; they were brainwashing institutions, nothing more), cultural theft (Thanksgiving, anyone?), and still, after all the supposed progress we've made, America has never had a woman president. Black one yes, and that was great, but a woman in office? Oh no, oh no! We mustn't have that! LOL.

But I'm diverting. What about the Muslims coming here, as we came here, do you call "colonization"? Bearing in mind the fact that America was in Muslim-occupied countries LONG before the migration crises began. Besides, if your country were overwhelmed by tyrants, wouldn't you want to get the feck out of dodge? And what better place to come than into nations that aren't so torn apart? Oh but wait, there's yet another gun aiming at you the moment you hit the shore, if you DO hit the shore, because a lot of them died along the way.

[RichardY]

The settlers didn't go in guns blazing. They were dependent on the fur trade for a large portion of income like 80% of exports. Bows and arrows would easily out shoot a noisy musket, for far lower cost, cheaper to trade. Had another ancestor that wrote the Quebec Act which guaranteed religious freedom, and gave the Ohio river valley at the time to Canada.

[Donnadogsoth]

11 hours ago, Soulfire said:

If we're going to talk about colonization, let's talk about the kind that our ancestors did, shall we? Mass cultural genocide, both in the forms of warfare (biological and otherwise) and in the form of residential "schools" (I will NEVER call those schools without adding quotation marks; they were brainwashing institutions, nothing more), cultural theft (Thanksgiving, anyone?), and still, after all the supposed progress we've made, America has never had a woman president. Black one yes, and that was great, but a woman in office? Oh no, oh no! We mustn't have that! LOL.

But I'm diverting. What about the Muslims coming here, as we came here, do you call "colonization"? Bearing in mind the fact that America was in Muslim-occupied countries LONG before the migration crises began. Besides, if your country were overwhelmed by tyrants, wouldn't you want to get the feck out of dodge? And what better place to come than into nations that aren't so torn apart? Oh but wait, there's yet another gun aiming at you the moment you hit the shore, if you DO hit the shore, because a lot of them died along the way.

I'm trying to isolate a principle here.  Do you believe colonisation is wrong or not?

[Worlok]

This was just an idea I had. I'm glad I got a bit of a discussion and thank you all for your input.

[RichardY]

Mother Superior jump the gun. Happiness is a warm gun.