The New Jesus Timeline

[Minimalist]

I don't see why this standard of empathy and community should be adopted over any other. How can you justify that people's rights are even important?

Thank you for demonstrating what a fucking prick you are.

[Thor]

Every atheist on this site wants God to do what you just described, not sexually, you all want God to do away with your freedom of choice so you can know He exists.

Oh, bullshit! How does letting me know he exists take away my freedom of choice? Plus, this argument is pure crap! Your deity supposedly appeared to many people throughout scripture. Why was it okay to appear to them? Didn't he take away their freedom of choice? Face it, your deity is as real as Zeus, Ra or Oden.

[genkaus]

You're begging the question here. Why is your autonomy more superior than James Holme's autonomy to kill 12 and injure 50 in the theatres of Colorado? I don't see how this is rational either. It's still your standard of morality against somebody else's.

Because his autonomy requires negation of autonomy of 62 others. If we are to give equal sanction to to everyone's autonomy (and by extension, their standard of morality), then we cannot rationally sanction anyone whose morality requires them to encroach upon others' autonomy.

[elunico13]

You're begging the question here. Why is your autonomy more superior than James Holme's autonomy to kill 12 and injure 50 in the theatres of Colorado? I don't see how this is rational either. It's still your standard of morality against somebody else's.

Because his autonomy requires negation of autonomy of 62 others. If we are to give equal sanction to to everyone's autonomy (and by extension, their standard of morality), then we cannot rationally sanction anyone whose morality requires them to encroach upon others' autonomy.

And here we are again with the fallacy of begging the question. Still no reason given for the importance of people's autonomy or rights being superior over any other group. Why are we obligated by you to give equal sanction to everyone's autonomy?

It is very inconsistent of you to be against anyone's decision for moral behavior, such as James Holmes. If people are just a result of mindless chemistry then they have no choice in what they do. Just like vinegar has no choice but to react with baking soda. Therefore, why should we punish people or accuse them of any wrong if they do evil and have no choice?

[Thor]

If people are just a result of mindless chemistry then they have no choice in what they do.

What? This makes no sense at all. Animals are capable of making choices.

Just like vinegar has no choice but to react with baking soda. Therefore, why should we punish people or accuse them of any wrong if they do evil and have no choice?

Where are you getting this crap that people have "no choice"?

[genkaus]

And here we are again with the fallacy of begging the question.

No, we aren't. You better read up on the fallacy before you carelessely throw the words around.

Still no reason given for the importance of people's autonomy or rights being superior over any other group.

Because its not superior - its equal. A group's autonomy is equal to a person's and therefore neither is allowed encroachment over the other.

Why are we obligated by you to give equal sanction to everyone's autonomy?

Because if they are equally autonomous and we do not give equal sanction then we are being irrational in the same way if we see two equal weights and refuse to acknowledge the equality.

It is very inconsistent of you to be against anyone's decision for moral behavior, such as James Holmes.

No, its not. I consistently believe everyone should be free to follow his morality - and the limit of that freedom is determined by the principle of freedom.

If people are just a result of mindless chemistry then they have no choice in what they do. Just like vinegar has no choice but to react with baking soda.

So its a good thing that people are not mindless.

Therefore, why should we punish people or accuse them of any wrong if they do evil and have no choice?

Because they do have a choice.

[DeistPaladin]

Everyone, you're wasting bandwidth trying to explain moral and ethical philosophy to Elunico. He can't comprehend anything more complex than "duh, big invisible sky daddy says so." And if you try to explain to him how GodWillsIt does nothing to elucidate our understanding of morality, he'll continue to stare at you like a fish at a submarine.

[Minimalist]

He's just a slightly more extreme version of the rest of the assholes, D-P.

[Creed of Heresy]

Because his autonomy requires negation of autonomy of 62 others. If we are to give equal sanction to to everyone's autonomy (and by extension, their standard of morality), then we cannot rationally sanction anyone whose morality requires them to encroach upon others' autonomy.

And here we are again with the fallacy of begging the question. Still no reason given for the importance of people's autonomy or rights being superior over any other group. Why are we obligated by you to give equal sanction to everyone's autonomy?

It is very inconsistent of you to be against anyone's decision for moral behavior, such as James Holmes. If people are just a result of mindless chemistry then they have no choice in what they do. Just like vinegar has no choice but to react with baking soda. Therefore, why should we punish people or accuse them of any wrong if they do evil and have no choice?

So I just got off the phone with Geoscience Australia. I had to inform them that, no, the massive tremors they felt were NOT the approach of a 9.8 Richter-scale earthquake but rather the aftershocks caused by the impact of my palm to my face after reading this.

Thankfully Genkaus seems to have a much higher level of patience than I do, one necessary to deconstruct the lunacy you are building upon, because me, personally? I am convinced at this point that you are a lost cause. I strongly suspect nothing anyone here could say would even, in the slightest way, change your opinion. Anyone who comes around to such unbelievably poor conclusions such as yours are so far gone down the labrynth of illogic that someone even possessed of time travel would never manage to find you.

I would have taken some lenience if you would just admit to your logical [and moral] shortcomings as they are exposed but you cling to them so ardently and refuse so stoically to admit them that it's clear you have no intention of changing your mind.

[Reforged]

This video gets my five star cockslap of approval.