Philosophy Religion, science, and the problem of moral edicts made by the scientifically ignorant.

[FriedCFour]

I've already explained why I call something theocratic - you just keep ignoring it.

Except that when I point to examples that fit with theocratic.

if you are enforcing your religious beliefs/dogma on others, that is theocracy.

Like voting for the 14th amendment because you believe regardless of race, you have equal immortal souls, something I can directly quote politicians as saying, you refuse to acknowledge that as theocracy. That is absolutely enforcing religious beliefs/dogma on others, but you just say I am grasping. You ignore my points, I am not ignoring any of yours. You attribute to me positions I dont hold, asserting I want to limit speech or brainwash people when I don't want that either.

 

[Captain X]

Except that when I point to examples that fit with theocratic.

Except that you aren't, and I've already explained why more than once.

You attribute to me positions I dont hold, asserting I want to limit speech or brainwash people when I don't want that either.

If I'm completely mistaken in your desire to have porn banned or otherwise stigmatized by society to somehow conveniently make an actual legal ban unnecessary, then I apologize, but it seems to me that you were in with the group of posters here who advocated positions along those lines.

 

[FriedCFour]

Except that you aren't, and I've already explained why more than once.

All you said was I am grasping for straws. All laws are forcing your ideology on others, even ones that allow for liberty. If that ideology is influenced by religion, then you are theocrat in your view. A person who claims their religion doesn't influence their politics isn't actually religious either. If you truly believe in your religion, it will absolutely impact your politics.

Lets just go over a few things.

I am against murder as it is a sin. If this is my logic, am I a theocrat for legislating this?

I am for gun rights as I believe you have the natural right granted by god to allow you to defend your life. Is that theocratic?

I believe that all men have the same immortal soul, and so no law should treat them differently based on class or race. Is thar theocratic?

If I'm completely mistaken in your desire to have porn banned or otherwise stigmatized by society to somehow conveniently make an actual legal ban unnecessary, then I apologize, but it seems to me that you were in with the group of posters here who advocated positions along those lines.

I argued porn was not all that good and should generally be seen as a vice, the same way alcohol and cigarrettes are.

 

[Captain X]

All you said was I am grasping for straws.

I called your continued attempts to bring up mentions of the divine or having souls as examples of "theocracy" which are comparable to say, wanting to ban porn because your religion says that it should be a no-no, grasping at straws, because it is.

I argued porn was not all that good and should generally be seen as a vice, the same way alcohol and cigarrettes are.

Oh, so exactly how it has been for several decades in a row now. Okay. I disagree, and except for tobacco, things seem to be moving in the direction of greater liberty, so personally I find that pretty cool.

 

[FriedCFour]

I called your continued attempts to bring up mentions of the divine or having souls as examples of "theocracy" which are comparable to say, wanting to ban porn because your religion says that it should be a no-no, grasping at straws, because it is.

Your religion says you have an immortal soul so I think we should have legislation that reflects that equal value. Your religion says that porn is bad so we should legislate that. Both are 100% purely religious views being legislated, and yet one is theocratic and one isn't. It seems to me that if both share equal amounts of religious influence, but only one you consider theocratic, then religious dogma isn't actually what makes something theocratic to you. Its when its a restriction or something you disagree with that its theocratic. When it lines up with your views then it isn't, when it is against them its theocratic. Read the above examples.

Oh, so exactly how it has been for several decades in a row now. Okay. I disagree, and except for tobacco, things seem to be moving in the direction of greater liberty, so personally I find that pretty cool.

Gun laws are getting fucked, bake the cake bigot, there is a horrible mixture of censorship and the destruction of peoples livelihoods for saying the wrong things. I would say its moving badly.

 

[Captain X]

Your religion says you have an immortal soul so I think we should have legislation that reflects that equal value. Your religion says that porn is bad so we should legislate that. Read the above examples.

Apples and oranges, to put it lightly.

Gun laws are getting fucked, bake the cake bigot, there is a horrible mixture of censorship and the destruction of peoples livelihoods for saying the wrong things. I would say its moving badly.

Considering the pushback that there has been on all of those, not really. Seems to me at least one of those cases with bakers was actually overturned in their favor, and in another case a university was found responsible for causing damage to a business by claiming they were some form of "ist" and pushing to boycott them. And believe it or not, a lot of these social justice "journalists" have been losing their jobs as more and more companies wake up to the fact that catering to the outrage crowd isn't actually making them any money and might actually be costing them money. But this is a completely separate issue from what we were discussing.

 

[FriedCFour]

Apples and oranges, to put it lightly.

They are both without a doubt the legislating of religious dogma.

 

[Captain X]

 

[FriedCFour]

Dogma: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

You are actually retarded if you dont think the possession of equal immortal souls and thus requiring people by law to treat them equally does not fall under dogma.

 

[Captain X]

I'd say it's a lot more retarded to regard "hey, when you think about it, we're all equal in the eyes of the lord" as the same as "my religion says teh buttex is icky, so we should make that illegal."

 

[FriedCFour]

I'd say it's a lot more retarded to regard "hey, when you think about it, we're all equal in the eyes of the lord" as the same as "my religion says teh buttex is icky, so we should make that illegal."

Yes, because you like one and it expands liberty in your view and you dislike the other, and so one is theocratic, the other one isn't. So its not legislating religion you have a problem with, its legislating religious views you disagree with. Theocracy is just a pejorative you use for politics you dislike by the religious.

 

[Captain X]

Yes, because you like one and it expands liberty in your view and you dislike the other, and so one is theocratic, the other one isn't. So its not legislating religion you have a problem with, its legislating religious views you disagree with. Theocracy is just a pejorative you use for politics you dislike by the religious.

:lol: No. It's more along the lines of that one expands liberty, so I can ignore the appeal to religious reasoning because it's not like that's the only justification for it (there are plenty of secular arguments for being treated equally before the law) and no one is forced to live their lives according to the tenants of that religion, while the other is basically rationalizing tyranny on the basis of religion which has the effect of forcing everyone to live their lives according to the tenants of that religion. Thus, theocracy. My use of the term is no more of a pejorative than my use of the term "regressive left" to describe an ideology which is dead set on eroding everything that has been fought for and one in terms of racial equality and equality between the sexes.

 

[FriedCFour]

No. It's more along the lines of that one expands liberty, so I can ignore the appeal to religious reasoning because it's not like that's the only justification for it (there are plenty of secular arguments for being treated equally before the law)

Hey look.

Pornography in China - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

There are atheist justifications for porn bans too. Guess it isn't theocratic.

 

[Captain X]

Hey look.

Pornography in China - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

There are atheist justifications for porn bans too. Guess it isn't theocratic.

Yeah, I know, there are people who have them in this country, too. Doesn't mean their arguments aren't complete bullshit, too. What they aren't is theocractic, which is more than the people making the argument from a religious angle here can say. You keep trying to make this bullshit argument and it isn't getting you anywhere.

 

[FriedCFour]

Yeah, I know, there are people who have them in this country, too. Doesn't mean their arguments aren't complete bullshit, too. What they aren't is theocractic, which is more than the people making the argument from a religious angle here can say. You keep trying to make this bullshit argument and it isn't getting you anywhere.

Because its somehow not theocracy if someone went to the floor and started quoting the bible for why we need the 14th amendment, but it would be theocracy to go, "all this alcohol is causing a whole lot of problems in society, drunkenness and death. Also I think god wouldn't approve." Its a really fucking stupid definition of theocracy, you use it as a bat for people who have secular arguments and are also religious to dismiss their politics, and to ignore all there secular reasoning. But if you use a purely religious argument for something you do like, suddenly, its not theocracy! Imagine that!

 

[Scottty]

Hey look.

Pornography in China - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

There are atheist justifications for porn bans too. Guess it isn't theocratic.

Interesting map, actually.
I wonder though if they all use the same definition.
Also - why is Iceland different?

 

[Captain X]

I believe Iceland's ban has a very Helen Lovejoy basis from what I remember. Which is pretty rich coming from a country with a penis museum.

 

[Lanmandragon]

Yes, and some of us have families that would never forgive us for saving their lives at the cost of the lives of multiple other people.

Forgiveness is wholly irrelevant as are thier feelings. Duty outweighs fake considerations like feelings in my opinion at least.

 

[Spartan303]

Thread closed per OP Author request.