How does your WV inform your politics?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Was I wrong? Were they wrong? Are your personal feelings really more important than helping the needy? I didn't feel my opinion was more important than their hunger.

Food bank good.
Religion bad.
The feeding of the poor good.
The continued support of religion in society bad.

Maybe you might answer the questions? I mean, the direct questions in this reply to you? Here, I've emboldened them to help you out.

[FrustratedFool]

Food bank good.
Religion bad.
The feeding of the poor good.
The continued support of religion in society bad.

Maybe you might answer the questions? I mean, the direct questions in this reply to you? Here, I've emboldened them to help you out.

I thought my responses covered it, but I will clarify:

Was I wrong to help out in a religious foodbank: Yes and no. Yes in that supporting the continued place of religion in society is wrong, no in that helping the poor is good. It would be preferable if such charity was done with no religious motivation or involvement.

Were they wrong: As above - yes and no.

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.

Talking about answering questions directly, can you answer the question I asked you over on the '+' thread about what issue you have with me that explains your repeated unnecessary rudeness towards me. Thanks.

[Thumpalumpacus]

My WV, in this case the acceptance that people are easily manipulated and aren't free agents, informs my political views.  I stopped being a freespech extremist and moved towards the European liberal socialist model of harm reduction.

What is your worldview?

Well, first off, I'm not a "free-speech" extremist in my own view, though I'm unsure what you might consider extremism in that realm. I call out shitty speech when I hear it, but I don't think that the government should criminalize the expression of opinions, even ugly ones. I do think advocating for violence should be -- and largely is -- outlawed.

As for my "worldview"? Well now that's a question! I like being left alone and don't like preachers of any variety -- including your own. I think people ought to be free to live as they wish insofar as that doesn't harm others, and yes, that means compromise, which is a key word. I think it's better to change minds than to impose views, as a result of my belief that sound argumentation will trump brute force. I don't, as a result, trust those who would impose by law that which they cannot convince me of with reason.

I guess you could say my "WV" is reason, not law. But because I live in a world ruled by law, I must -- you've already read the word -- compromise.

You'll come to understand this one day.

[FrustratedFool]

Do you think, as someone whose WV is reason, that society would be better without religion?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Maybe you might answer the questions? I mean, the direct questions in this reply to you? Here, I've emboldened them to help you out.

I thought my responses covered it, but I will clarify:

Was I wrong to help out in a religious foodbank: Yes and no.  Yes in that supporting the continued place of religion in society is wrong, no in that helping the poor is good.  It would be preferable if such charity was done with no religious motivation or involvement.

But I wasn't supporting religion. I was helping the hungry.

Were they wrong: As above - yes and no.

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.

Great. Have you started an atheist food bank?

We both agree that religion is and has been a drag on progress -- but my point is that if they're doing a good thing (without spreading their disease), then supporting that is to the good.

Talking about answering questions directly, can you answer the question I asked you over on the '+' thread about what issue you have with me that explains your repeated unnecessary rudeness towards me.  Thanks.

I hadn't seen that question, sorry. I'm not darting around for replies. I'll look it up tomorrow and check your particular complaint, as it's almost 3 AM here and I'm off to bed.

[FrustratedFool]

By supporting the hungry with a religious organization you supported religion. Same as if I helped in a 'insert ideology here' foodbank I would, indirectly, be supporting 'ideology'.

No, I haven't started an atheist foodbank. I make no claim to being a good or driven person. If there was one in my local area I'd likely help out, though.

We agree religion is bad. We disagree that indirectly supporting religious endeavors, even good ones, keeps religion alive a little bit longer by legitimizing it and keeping it active and a 'live' and positive option in people's minds ('those nice people from the mosque fed me, maybe Islam is really good).

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

By supporting the hungry with a religious organization you supported religion.  Same as if I helped in a 'insert ideology here' foodbank I would, indirectly, be supporting 'ideology'.

No, I haven't started an atheist foodbank.  I make no claim to being a good or driven person.  If there was one in my local area I'd likely help out, though.

We agree religion is bad.  We disagree that indirectly supporting religious endeavors, even good ones, keeps religion alive a little bit longer by legitimizing it and keeping it active and a 'live' and positive option in people's minds ('those nice people from the mosque fed me, maybe Islam is really good).

I'm not sure how much difference that makes to someone who hasn't eaten for three days.

Boru

[FrustratedFool]

To them, it makes little to no difference at all. But to all others who suffer through the impact of religion it matters.

If it was Nazis feeding the poor, and becoming more legitimate, sympathetic and influential by doing so, would my issue be clearer?

I applaud helping the poor.
I believe religion stunts human progress and causes much suffering.

Do the first without the latter.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

To them, it makes little to no difference at all.  But to all others who suffer through the impact of religion it matters.

If it was Nazis feeding the poor, and becoming more legitimate, sympathetic and influential by doing so, would my issue be clearer?

I applaud helping the poor.
I believe religion stunts human progress and causes much suffering.

Do the first without the latter.

Hypothetical: If religious organizations were the ONLY ones doling out food to the hungry, would you support letting poor people starve to death?

Boru

[FrustratedFool]

Not sure. I find it hard to calculate what causes the most suffering overall over time. If Nazis were the only ones feeding the hungry, would it be better to let the poor starve or support Nazis and end up with a holocaust. Difficult conundrum.

I just hope we never reach such a stage where the only people ever willing to help anyone are harmful ideologies and their supporters. I hope that human empathy and a decent socialist state would be enough.

What is clear, though, is that religion is harmful, feeding the poor is good, and you can do one without the other and so should ideally aim for that. On that we can agree, at least, yes?