@thump
I don't need to demonstrate my view is right to express it here and engage in civil (or uncivil) debate about it.

I don't need to demonstrate it is right at all ever, to be honest. All that would be necessary would be to convince enough others to believe likewise. This may or may not require a demonstration.

Same with imposing them by law. As if I even need to do that. Religion could be eradicated without force at all, as I hope it will be. Europe is a doing a good job or removing religion from society without violence or much legal intervention. That's fine by me.

I'm not really sure what image of me you have in your head, but judging by your posts it's probably incorrect.

(August 30, 2023 at 8:31 am)Angrboda Wrote:

(August 30, 2023 at 2:45 am)FrustratedFool Wrote: Murder can easily be part of a WV.  

Yes, I believe putting a religious WV into political action is bad for humanity.  I believe lots of things are bad for humanity and would rather they didn't exist.

Why do you get to act on your beliefs and they don't? And none of this according to your standards bullshit because that's just another way of claiming that your beliefs have privileges that theirs don't.

Do you even understand what hypocrisy is?

The religious think that your standards and worldview are dangerous just like you see theirs.

I claim my beliefs have privileges others don't. That's part of my beliefs.

For example, I'm against child sacrifice. Some medieval ancient mesoamerican religionists were all for it. I think my view should have all manner of privilege over theirs.

I don't believe this is hypocrisy. It would be hypocrisy if I said that, claimed those privileges, then sacrificed some children.

However, although I reject the accusation of hypocrisy, I fully accept that I am holding my POV to be correct and others wrong and desire my POV to be enacted in society and harmful incorrect views to be excluded. That I admit to.

In short, why do I get to act on my beliefs and they don't? Because my views are good and theirs are bad. Most people hold exactly the same view. It only varies in terms of content, not construction.

Instead of editing my prior post, I'll start a new one.

A man by John Rawls wrote a very influential book, A Theory Of Justice, which argues a very simple test for just mores. If you were to be placed behind a veil of ignorance such that you did not know what you would be born as or raised as, you still would agree that the mores or rules should be a part of society. Take slavery for example. If you didn't know whether you would be born black or white, would you agree to a rule that it is okay to buy and sell black people as property? The answer is obviously not. One can pose your suggested ethic similarly. If you didn't know beforehand whether you would be born into a religious family and likely therefore end up religious, would you still want your views on discriminating against religious people to be universally adopted?

Yes, in the same way I'd want discrimination against racists or Nazis or pedophiles universally adopted from behind a Rawlsian veil of ignorance.

Wouldn't you?

(August 30, 2023 at 8:32 am)FrustratedFool Wrote: @thump
I don't need to demonstrate my view is right to express it here and engage in civil (or uncivil) debate about it.

I don't need to demonstrate it is right at all ever, to be honest.  All that would be necessary would be to convince enough others to believe likewise.  This may or may not require a demonstration.

Then don't get butthurt when you're called out on being full of shit. You can desperately appeal to manners all you want, but I think your views in this matter are full of shit, and if you don't like my phraseology, that's a you problem. I call out bullshit when I see it and I won't mince words to spare your feelings.

(August 30, 2023 at 8:32 am)FrustratedFool Wrote: Same with imposing them by law.  As if I even need to do that.  Religion could be eradicated without force at all, as I hope it will be.  Europe is a doing a good job or removing religion from society without violence or much legal intervention.  That's fine by me.

I'm not really sure what image of me you have in your head, but judging by your posts it's probably incorrect.

Young entitled male, to keep it simple -- for your own sake.

(August 30, 2023 at 3:17 am)FrustratedFool Wrote: Are your personal feelings more important than helping the needy: Whatever leads to less overall harm over time is more valuable than what creates more suffering over time.  I believe the eradication of religion reduces overall suffering over time.  With that in mind, feeding the poor is best done without religion.

Does the precedent of discriminating against people based upon their beliefs in the long run result in more harm or less? I'll remind you that countless millions died in the 20th century based upon such views.

(August 30, 2023 at 8:43 am)FrustratedFool Wrote: Yes, in the same way I'd want discrimination against racists or Nazis or pedophiles universally adopted from behind a Rawlsian veil of ignorance.

Wouldn't you?

No. Because thinking things are bad doesn't automatically lead to the conclusion that banning them is justified or good. Letting people play the lottery is bad. Letting people take drugs is bad. Letting people bet their life savings on the stock market is bad. But it is a generally recognized principle in democracies that it does more harm in the long run to society to restrict freedom unnecessarily no matter what the supposed good to be achieved by doing so is. The Nazis thought that they were improving society by killing the Jews. You think you're improving society by marginalizing the religious. The religious think they are improving society by marginalizing LGBTQ people. Racists think that they are improving society by trying to get rid of black people.

If you could invent one rule to apply to all these different harms, what would it be?

(August 30, 2023 at 8:44 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(August 30, 2023 at 8:32 am)FrustratedFool Wrote: @thump
I don't need to demonstrate my view is right to express it here and engage in civil (or uncivil) debate about it.

I don't need to demonstrate it is right at all ever, to be honest.  All that would be necessary would be to convince enough others to believe likewise.  This may or may not require a demonstration.

Then don't get butthurt when you're called out on being full of shit. You can desperately appeal to manners all you want, but I think your views in this matter are full of shit, and if you don't like my phraseology, that's a you problem. I call out bullshit when I see it and I won't mince words to spare your feelings.

(August 30, 2023 at 8:32 am)FrustratedFool Wrote: Same with imposing them by law.  As if I even need to do that.  Religion could be eradicated without force at all, as I hope it will be.  Europe is a doing a good job or removing religion from society without violence or much legal intervention.  That's fine by me.

I'm not really sure what image of me you have in your head, but judging by your posts it's probably incorrect.

Young entitled male, to keep it simple -- for your own sake.

I don't get butthurt. I also don't care whether anyone incorrectly attempts to call me out on having my correct views.

If you're incapable of having a civil discussion with someone you disagree with then I'll just ignore you. That's not a problem. I will choose to act civil, as best as I can, regardless.

I am male (although not a man). Young is a matter of debate. Entitled, I don't know what you really mean by this, tbh. I'm not sure what this vague assessment contributes, but fair enough.

(August 30, 2023 at 8:45 am)Angrboda Wrote:

(August 30, 2023 at 3:17 am)FrustratedFool Wrote: Are your personal feelings more important than helping the needy: Whatever leads to less overall harm over time is more valuable than what creates more suffering over time.  I believe the eradication of religion reduces overall suffering over time.  With that in mind, feeding the poor is best done without religion.

Does the precedent of discriminating against people based upon their beliefs in the long run result in more harm or less? I'll remind you that countless millions died in the 20th century based upon such views.

I'd say discriminating against people has been absolutely necessary for civilization and in the long run countering Nazism, Stalinism, Islamism, and beliefs like 'I should get to kill' or 'I'm not subject to law' or 'disease is caused by miasma' or 'gays should be killed', has been the cause of enormous reductions in harm and suffering.

(August 30, 2023 at 9:00 am)FrustratedFool Wrote:

(August 30, 2023 at 8:45 am)Angrboda Wrote: Does the precedent of discriminating against people based upon their beliefs in the long run result in more harm or less?  I'll remind you that countless millions died in the 20th century based upon such views.

I'd say discriminating against people has been absolutely necessary for civilization and in the long run countering Nazism, Stalinism, Islamism, and beliefs like 'I should get to kill' or 'I'm not subject to law' or 'disease is caused by miasma' or 'gays should be killed', has been the cause of enormous reductions in harm and suffering.

Generally speaking, we discriminate based upon acts, not beliefs. And that's what happened with the Nazis, Stalinists, and some Islamists. So you're arguing something different than the examples you cite.