You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
All homosexuals should be stoned to death, says Muslim preacher
- Thread starter StrangerInAStrangeLand
- Start date
You might think so, but the cleric apparantly disagrees.There's no good reason to hate anyone.
At any rate, I'll hold my one opinion on hate and you can have yours. In my opinion, certain people can be hated, like murderers and rapists.
Not necessarily. Hate, perhaps, but not intolerance.Hate & intolerance have obvious negative effects on the person feeling the emotions & acting on them & obvious negative effects on the people they're directed at & on society.
For instance, the intolerance of homosexuals in Iranian society has a positive effect on maintaining tradition and culture thus it is out of the interest of preserving their culture that they do not tolerate homosexuals which means that intolerance is serving a need for their society.
Hatred might result in the removal of the undesirables (as deemed by a majority) thus it is because of hatred that progress is made in this situation.
For the Jews, the consequences of the German hatred were obviously negative but for Hitler, the hatred enabled him to eliminate the Jews which was a positive outcome in his eyes as it created greater racial purification which was his goal.
Freedom is not the priority of everyone.
See above. It is subjectively bad, because not everybody thinks all people should be tolerated; thus intolerance is simply not tolerating (duh) "bad people" which there is nothing wrong with initially, and they then act on this in order to "fix" the problem.Intolerance has a negative effect on society, so it can be viewed as objectively bad.
Intolerance in itself is neither good nor bad. I think it is good, for instance, that we do not tolerate child rapists. In the interest of culture, the cleric thinks it is good that they do not tolerate homosexuals.
I would agree although that doesn't mean freedom is the topmost priority of every individual.People want to be free. It's genetic. Whether they want to worship their god or gods freely, or worship none at all, or simply to sing and dance or access the internet, people want freedom.
I disagree with this. Comfort, perhaps, but not freedom. Civilization strives to achieve collective success, and freedom is not an essential ingredient.Yes, there needs to be order. Rules and laws are in place, and those themselves can be viewed as subjective, at least to some extent. But there are fundamental truths to human existence, and one of them is that civilization, at the very least strives to achieve levels of freedom and comfort.
For instance, the civilization in Brave New World. If you haven't read the book I highly recommend it; as you can see, freedom and tolerance are irrelevant to human survival.
I agree, although hating some people doesn't mean you hate everybody. Iranians apparantly co operate, otherwise they wouldn't have buildings, stores, books, television, telephonesIt is evident that cooperation is an important facet of life, acting at all levels, from the molecular, to the ecological, and at all times, from abiogenesis, through to the development of human culture.
This is only true if everybody hates everybody. If I hate individual a but not b c an d, then the elimination of individual a (as this individual might cause me discomfort) results in a gain of both comfort as well as the maintaing of the ability to co operate with individuals b, c, and d.Hate is a disruptive and damaging distortion of various aspects of self/tribe preservation 'instincts'. Hate interferes with effective and efficient cooperation, harming the individual, the group and society at large.
Hitler didn't hate everyone, just some people. Which means co operation is still possible.
Yes; although my point is we don't have to be tolerant. We can be, but there's no obligation to be.Intolerance is not an emotion, but an exagerated expression of the otherwise justifiable caution one feels when encountering the unfamiliar.
I agree that this is true, but since this is the science forum - even if it is the religion section - I thought some reference to research material was appropriate. If Norsefire asks for specifics I shall offer him this:
101 Independence Ave, SE
Washington, DC 20540
The problem is that research material, science, cannot tell us what is beautiful or what is good or what is bad.
These things are up to us dependent on our priorities and outlooks on life. Thus nobody is wrong in this thread; we simply disagree.
We have different moral codes, you and I. And while hatred is always unjustified in your eyes, I disagree.
-=-
This is like talking to a stone wall ... um ... I mean a theist.
This is like talking to a stone wall ... um ... I mean a theist.
Arrogant assinine assumption.
Support it or retract it or shut up.
Pacifism is one of the silliest ideas out there.
Survival requires that we compete and fight. This is simply the way life works on planet Earth. Refusing to fight is sentencing oneself to death.
Although co operation and diplomacy might be better than war, they aren't always options.
If the Allies were pacifists in WWII, then........well, a significant part of Europe would be speaking German right now.
-=-
This is like talking to a stone wall ... um ... I mean a theist.
This is how I feel discussing with you: I keep trying to make my easy point, that these things are simply disagreements among various cultures and opinions, and you keep up with the "i'm right you're wrong" attitude which is silly and in fact exactly like a theist.
Pacifism is one of the silliest ideas out there.
Survival requires that we compete and fight. This is simply the way life works on planet Earth. Refusing to fight is sentencing oneself to death.
Although co operation and diplomacy might be better than war, they aren't always options.
If the Allies were pacifists in WWII, then........well, a significant part of Europe would be speaking German right now.
That is only your silly opinion based on your refusal to face reality.
The reason fighting is ever necessary for anyone is because some dumbass nonpacifist ass forces it.
Being a pacifist does not mean absolutely never fighting. I should've recognized earlier you have a twisted notion of it.
Often, fighting is sentencing oneself to death.
That is only your silly opinion based on your refusal to face reality.
The reason fighting is ever necessary for anyone is because some dumbass nonpacifist ass forces it.
Being a pacifist does not mean absolutely never fighting. I should've recognized earlier you have a twisted notion of it.
Often, fighting is sentencing oneself to death.
Fighting is necessary even if we do not fight each other. The predators of the jungle, for instance; if humans didn't hunt and defend themselves against animal attacks, then they would've died.
Fighting is fighting. We fight when we disagree, we fight over resources, we fight for all kinds of reasons. But it happens, and one has to be willing to fight back.
And there's various types of pacifism. There are pacifists that believe all violence, no matter the reason, is wrong and you shouldn't engage in it, which is silly.
“Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
This is like talking to a stone wall ... um ... I mean a theist. ”
Like theists, you have no point. Like theists, you ignore facts except where you can twist them to suit your compulsion. Like theists, you ignore reality & have too little grasp of logic. Like theists, you do what you accuse others of. Like theists, the "idea" you claim supports your view inherently invalidates it.
This is like talking to a stone wall ... um ... I mean a theist. ”
This is how I feel discussing with you: I keep trying to make my easy point, that these things are simply disagreements among various cultures and opinions, and you keep up with the "i'm right you're wrong" attitude which is silly and in fact exactly like a theist.
Like theists, you have no point. Like theists, you ignore facts except where you can twist them to suit your compulsion. Like theists, you ignore reality & have too little grasp of logic. Like theists, you do what you accuse others of. Like theists, the "idea" you claim supports your view inherently invalidates it.
How am I ignoring reality? You wanna know what the reality is?
Delude yourself all you want; you can believe in god and the tooth fairy and the flying pink unicorn.
But face it: all you are trying to do is desperately justify a meaningless, pointless existence that is devoid of any sort of value beyond subjective value. Do you think you have a "Destiny" or that there is some good lurking out there in the universe to come and save you? Magic, perhaps?
You ignore reality. Life is worthless, devoid of meaning and devoid of good. Face it. There's no heaven or hell; there's no heaven to reward you for being "good" and no hell to punish you for being "bad". And good itself isn't going to save you in the alleyway when a thug mugs you. You know what is? Fighting. Strength. Actual physical force.
All we have is subjective good, and that's what we're discussing in this thread: whether or not it is morally acceptable to stone homosexuals, and you say no and I say no and the cleric says yes. It's that easy.
Delude yourself all you want; you can believe in god and the tooth fairy and the flying pink unicorn.
But face it: all you are trying to do is desperately justify a meaningless, pointless existence that is devoid of any sort of value beyond subjective value. Do you think you have a "Destiny" or that there is some good lurking out there in the universe to come and save you? Magic, perhaps?
You ignore reality. Life is worthless, devoid of meaning and devoid of good. Face it. There's no heaven or hell; there's no heaven to reward you for being "good" and no hell to punish you for being "bad". And good itself isn't going to save you in the alleyway when a thug mugs you. You know what is? Fighting. Strength. Actual physical force.
All we have is subjective good, and that's what we're discussing in this thread: whether or not it is morally acceptable to stone homosexuals, and you say no and I say no and the cleric says yes. It's that easy.
Fighting is necessary even if we do not fight each other. The predators of the jungle, for instance; if humans didn't hunt and defend themselves against animal attacks, then they would've died.
Strawman.
There was all reasonable indications we were discussing humans not animals. The few pacifists there are, if any, who won't defend themselves against animals do not represent pacifists in general.
Fighting is fighting. We fight when we disagree, we fight over resources, we fight for all kinds of reasons. But it happens, and one has to be willing to fight back.
Useless reiteration of meaningless drivel.
Is there no end to your blathering on with your foolish folly?
And there's various types of pacifism. There are pacifists that believe all violence, no matter the reason, is wrong and you shouldn't engage in it, which is silly.
You said pacifists are stupid. I asked you to support that & you took this long to offer such equivocation. Which is silly.
How am I ignoring reality? You wanna know what the reality is?
Delude yourself all you want; you can believe in god and the tooth fairy and the flying pink unicorn.
But face it: all you are trying to do is desperately justify a meaningless, pointless existence that is devoid of any sort of value beyond subjective value. Do you think you have a "Destiny" or that there is some good lurking out there in the universe to come and save you? Magic, perhaps?
You ignore reality. Life is worthless, devoid of meaning and devoid of good. Face it. There's no heaven or hell; there's no heaven to reward you for being "good" and no hell to punish you for being "bad". And good itself isn't going to save you in the alleyway when a thug mugs you. You know what is? Fighting. Strength. Actual physical force.
All we have is subjective good, and that's what we're discussing in this thread: whether or not it is morally acceptable to stone homosexuals, and you say no and I say no and the cleric says yes. It's that easy.
Who the heck is that meant for???
Other than the 1st & last line, I see no relation to anything I've said.
How is any of that "meaningless drivel"; instead of addressing my very real point, that we fight over various reasons whether you like it or not and thus one should be willing to fight if necessary, you instead proceed to undermine what I said and ignore it.Useless reiteration of meaningless drivel.
Is there no end to your blathering on with your foolish folly?
This isn't a world of cookies and cream. Wars happen. Get over it.
Who the heck is that meant for???
Other than the last line, I see no relation to anything I've said.
You say that it is me ignoring reality, but it's you, with your wishful thinking, defending ideals that, although subjectively significant, are ultimately nonexistent and useless beyond our own perception.
Face reality: there is no heaven and hell, no good or evil, and cultures will be different.
-=-
This is like talking to a stone wall ... um ... I mean a theist.
This is like talking to a stone wall ... um ... I mean a theist.
Now you honestly are being childish. I've already challenged your opinion and you continue to ignore me. If you don't wish to post in this thread, then don't.-=-
This is like talking to a stone wall ... um ... I mean a theist.
-=-
WHY are you telling me there's no heaven & hell???
WHY are you telling me there's no heaven & hell???
-=-
If I don't wish post in this thread I started???
If I don't wish post in this thread I started???
-=-
WHY are you telling me there's no heaven & hell???
To demonstrate the ultimate uselesness of being "good". Although that is nonetheless irrelevant to this thread.
The cleric has his own priorities and his own culture; thus he has a different perception on what is important. According to his moral code, it is justified to stone homosexuals as prescribed by his Holy Book in the name of what matters to him, which is religious purity and cultural protection
You, as you favor individual freedom like me, believe that what he proposes is immoral and ought not to occur; you believe that we ought to tolerate homosexuals, like I do
On an individual level yeah, it may be true that if there were an island that only the biggest, smartest and more ruthless would survive. BUT at a certain level we could say that a society where pacifism is allowed to take place - that this society would out compete the Spartan societies because maybe it's more something else? Open? Creative? etc... If all society were homosexual we would end in a generation without procreation, but, a society tolerant towards homosexuals may end up breeding better warriors?Pacifism is one of the silliest ideas out there.
Survival requires that we compete and fight. This is simply the way life works on planet Earth. Refusing to fight is sentencing oneself to death.
Although co operation and diplomacy might be better than war, they aren't always options.
If the Allies were pacifists in WWII, then........well, a significant part of Europe would be speaking German right now.
anyway, I suppose I am saying that a mixed open society will, for whatever unknown reasons, out compete a closed Spartan one.