(March 12, 2020 at 6:11 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(March 12, 2020 at 4:00 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: English isn't my native language, maybe I should've framed that differently. Too bad women aren't regarded that highly, though, in your secular, modern moral system.

In my secular morality, women are regarded as equals, not as yours which regards women as mere property.

That makes you yet another abusive, woman bashing thug.

Well done you c""".

---

Virgin with an oppressed corpse bride at best. As a red blooded straight male, father of a trans teen, witness of how your misogyny totally borks 50% of fucking humanity, I know that you are full of it.

You and your crank religion are evil.

You would have that I murder my trans child a an abomination. You would have as a second position that I must deny that child ANY sex life, any intimate life.

Do you have no understanding how disgusting that is to any right thinking person?

You want me to kill my eldest child.

Because Allah says.

Have you no idea how morally lost you have become due to you magic book.

The reality is that I would give my life for my children, whoever they turn out to be.

OTOH, you would happily butcher your your own children because you imagine that the stupid Allah told you to do so.

I think it is rather clear which morals are more correct.

A man like Klor who causally engages in misogynistic slurs doesn't get to lecture anyone on valuing women

(March 12, 2020 at 6:59 pm)SUNGULA Wrote:

(March 12, 2020 at 6:11 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: In my secular morality, women are regarded as equals, not as yours which regards women as mere property.

That makes you yet another abusive, woman bashing thug.

Well done you c""".

---

Virgin with an oppressed corpse bride at best. As a red blooded straight male, father of a trans teen, witness of how your misogyny totally borks 50% of fucking humanity, I know that you are full of it.

You and your crank religion are evil.

You would have that I murder my trans child a an abomination. You would have as a second position that I must deny that child ANY sex life, any intimate life.

Do you have no understanding how disgusting that is to any right thinking person?

You want me to kill my eldest child.

Because Allah says.

Have you no idea how morally lost you have become due to you magic book.

The reality is that I would give my life for my children, whoever they turn out to be.

OTOH, you would happily butcher your your own children because you imagine that the stupid Allah told you to do so.

I think it is rather clear which morals are more correct.

A man like Klor who causally engages in misogynistic slurs doesn't get to lecture anyone on valuing women

A man like Klor thinks women are mere property, not equals in ANY sense. This is morally wrong to me. Not to him though. 

As a man, if I encounter any woman who will not embrace their equality, I walk away. One cannot be saved if one does not WANT to be saved. If some women want to be slaves to the patriarchal baloney, one can only illustrate for them the exit, one cannot force them to walk through it.

On this forum, there are some fiesty women and I find myself cheering. Because fuck you and the misogynist horse you rode in on. (general you in there, not you in particular).


The simple fact is that I am so straight that one could use me as a ruler. In consequence, I am entirely comfortable within my own sexuality. Also in consequence, I cannot pass judgment of where anyone else's happy place might be. That is not a judgment given to me and I have absolutely no grounds to pass any judgment. 

Nevertheless, the religious pretend that they not only have grounds to make that judgment, they can tell you who you can copulate with and the exact manner of such copulation. 

Because the religious are obsessed with sex. And they have a huge problem with that reality. 

Now, I am 51, so I have some mileage, but back in my childhood, I watched the priests and christian brothers abuse classmates into suicide.  I saw it happen. At the time, I was a child. Rather him than me was the order of the day. I could see what was happening. But it was not me.

This is a matter of eternal shame for me. I should have stood up for the vulnerable. But when one is a kid dealing with authority figures? One has little option. Survive. Go under the radar. All of us did it. Devil take the hindmost. Survival.

The fuckers abused even those of us that were not legally abused. I doubt those religiously inflicted scars will ever fade.

(March 12, 2020 at 4:20 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(March 12, 2020 at 10:22 am)Rahn127 Wrote: When looking at justification, religious reasons are at the top of the chart.

[...]

The justification used for world wide harm is religious in nature.

This isn't evident to me.

How do you demonstrate that this is the case?

I think the demonstration can be made with the letter B.

(March 12, 2020 at 11:34 pm)Rahn127 Wrote:

(March 12, 2020 at 4:20 pm)Belacqua Wrote: This isn't evident to me.

How do you demonstrate that this is the case?

I think the demonstration can be made with the letter B.

Hitchens' speech is not persuasive to me. I heard it a long time ago, and listened to the first part again.

It is foolish to blame the problems in Belfast simply on religion. They have far more to do with the political history. Religion provides an identity and a rallying point, but no one there was killing each other over theological disputes. 

So that speech does nothing to prove that "religious reasons are at the top of the chart." Domination of one country by another for economic and political reasons caused the problems in Ireland. 

---

(March 13, 2020 at 12:42 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(March 12, 2020 at 11:34 pm)Rahn127 Wrote: I think the demonstration can be made with the letter B.

Hitchens' speech is not persuasive to me. I heard it a long time ago, and listened to the first part again.

It is foolish to blame the problems in Belfast simply on religion. They have far more to do with the political history. Religion provides an identity and a rallying point, but no one there was killing each other over theological disputes. 

So that speech does nothing to prove that "religious reasons are at the top of the chart." Domination of one country by another for economic and political reasons caused the problems in Ireland. 

---

Having spent a significant part of my life in and around Belfast, I can tell you that you're flat wrong.  I've personally known people who were murdered SOLELY for religious reasons.  I witnessed an adult male screaming, 'It's going to be a long winter for you little Papist cunts' at a group of eight year old schoolgirls.  I've seen Catholic churches spray canned with the words 'No Pope Here!', 'Fuck The Pope' and 'Papists Out'.

Has politics played a role in the Troubles?  Yes, and a significant one. But before you claim 'no one there was killing each other over theological disputes' you might want to look a little more in depth at what went on there.  The whole REASON Ireland was split into the North and the Republic was that that the southern part of the island was (in the words of Winston Churchill) 'top heavy with Catholics.'

Boru

(March 12, 2020 at 5:17 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(March 12, 2020 at 5:01 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: You keep calling these people shitty names but you have yet to identify what would be wrong with their relationship, absent any harm.

I think I explained myself pretty well... and you're not listening. *Open relationships* mostly trigger a built-in bad reaction, and most of the time people act on it, just act on your fucking evolutionary urges and condemn the thing. What other empirical grounds do you need to do the honest thing here? sneak up on every bed on earth out there and show me there is no ""bad-making"" property.. ???

If you're going to build a **rational** moral system... you better build your moral judgment on what happens on most cases, not on what these shitty, devious people do, kind of relying on empirical data... I'm starting to smell dishonesty when you keep repeating a question I already answered

You haven't explained yourself at all.  In an open relationship that isn't causing either partner or anyone else any harm, what is wrong?  

Quote:I actually didn't acknowledge that.. Read again. I said you can't possibly know an open relatonship isn't harmful. You know, however, that it's mostly harmful.

Let me break it up for you:

In most cases : open relationships are a big no.

In very rare cases : open relationships appear not to be harmful.

Any sane person can now draw the conclusion... as to whether we should welcome open relationships with open arms ....

I can obviously know alot of things you don't.  Absent any harm, what makes an open relationship bad?

(March 13, 2020 at 6:38 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(March 12, 2020 at 5:17 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: I think I explained myself pretty well... and you're not listening. *Open relationships* mostly trigger a built-in bad reaction, and most of the time people act on it, just act on your fucking evolutionary urges and condemn the thing. What other empirical grounds do you need to do the honest thing here? sneak up on every bed on earth out there and show me there is no ""bad-making"" property.. ???

If you're going to build a **rational** moral system... you better build your moral judgment on what happens on most cases, not on what these shitty, devious people do, kind of relying on empirical data... I'm starting to smell dishonesty when you keep repeating a question I already answered

You haven't explained yourself at all.  In an open relationship that isn't causing either partner or anyone else any harm, what is wrong?  

Quote:I actually didn't acknowledge that.. Read again. I said you can't possibly know an open relatonship isn't harmful. You know, however, that it's mostly harmful.

Let me break it up for you:

In most cases : open relationships are a big no.

In very rare cases : open relationships appear not to be harmful.

Any sane person can now draw the conclusion... as to whether we should welcome open relationships with open arms ....

I can obviously know alot of things you don't.  Absent any harm, what makes an open relationship bad?

Maybe that he can't get his partner to agree to one?

Boru

(March 13, 2020 at 6:38 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(March 13, 2020 at 12:42 am)Belacqua Wrote: Hitchens' speech is not persuasive to me. I heard it a long time ago, and listened to the first part again.

It is foolish to blame the problems in Belfast simply on religion. They have far more to do with the political history. Religion provides an identity and a rallying point, but no one there was killing each other over theological disputes. 

So that speech does nothing to prove that "religious reasons are at the top of the chart." Domination of one country by another for economic and political reasons caused the problems in Ireland. 

---

Having spent a significant part of my life in and around Belfast, I can tell you that you're flat wrong.  I've personally known people who were murdered SOLELY for religious reasons.  I witnessed an adult male screaming, 'It's going to be a long winter for you little Papist cunts' at a group of eight year old schoolgirls.  I've seen Catholic churches spray canned with the words 'No Pope Here!', 'Fuck The Pope' and 'Papists Out'.

Has politics played a role in the Troubles?  Yes, and a significant one. But before you claim 'no one there was killing each other over theological disputes' you might want to look a little more in depth at what went on there.  The whole REASON Ireland was split into the North and the Republic was that that the southern part of the island was (in the words of Winston Churchill) 'top heavy with Catholics.'

Boru

You don't cite any theological disputes. Wanting the papists out isn't theological. 

Were they killing each other about whether the presence of Christ in the host was real or symbolic? Or was it based on historical resentments concerning who was in charge, who was perceived as an occupier? 

As I said, religion provides an identity and a rallying point when political and economic issues are causing trouble.

(March 13, 2020 at 6:57 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(March 13, 2020 at 6:38 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Having spent a significant part of my life in and around Belfast, I can tell you that you're flat wrong.  I've personally known people who were murdered SOLELY for religious reasons.  I witnessed an adult male screaming, 'It's going to be a long winter for you little Papist cunts' at a group of eight year old schoolgirls.  I've seen Catholic churches spray canned with the words 'No Pope Here!', 'Fuck The Pope' and 'Papists Out'.

Has politics played a role in the Troubles?  Yes, and a significant one. But before you claim 'no one there was killing each other over theological disputes' you might want to look a little more in depth at what went on there.  The whole REASON Ireland was split into the North and the Republic was that that the southern part of the island was (in the words of Winston Churchill) 'top heavy with Catholics.'

Boru

You don't cite any theological disputes. Wanting the papists out isn't theological. 

Were they killing each other about whether the presence of Christ in the host was real or symbolic? Or was it based on historical resentments concerning who was in charge, who was perceived as an occupier? 

As I said, religion provides an identity and a rallying point when political and economic issues are causing trouble.

I am irish. You are full of it.

Gotta love the heads i win tails you lose theory of apologism.

Religion, we're told, is a powerful motivating force. Until it's powerfully motivating bad behavior. Then religion is inert. It's the fault of politics and the economy, instead.