1 2 3 4
Like I say: 'With rights come responsibilities'. That phrase exists for a reason.
And it's objective Reason which dictates that a human male must have as part of his psychological makeup, the self control to be able to not feel the need to jump on the nearest woman. It's the civilised, nay, human quality to possess.
Are serial rapists 100% Human beings, in the objective, civilised definition of the word? You tell me. Otherwise, subjectively, we'd have anarchy. Ergo, the rule of law. QED
Civilisation. It's what separates we humans from the animals.
In the same way, a civilised human being must have the innate ability to rein in their thoughts; think about thinking before speaking, and the potential repercussions of what one says before one says such.
At one time, during the Cuban Missile Crisis (the only time the US's military & ICBMs have to date been at DefCon 2), we were just minutes away from DefCon 1. If Kennedy was just allowed to 'say what the fuck he liked' to Khrushchev over the hotline then, we wouldn't be having this conversation today.
The words 'Tact'. 'Diplomacy'. They exist for a reason too.
Fred, Shirley & co., we has them. Do you?
As I've said before, but bears repeating: With rights come responsibilities.
Moral: So different countries have different laws. Some are worse for such, others better. So the UK's (oft-criticised) 'Nanny State' doesn't allow certain people to 'make fools of themselves', via the unjustifiable things they say - verbally, or on placards. So we in the UK don't have a WBC equivalent as a result of such laws. Problem?
Whose laws are worse? Purely on a 'Subjective' level, Cannuovea? You tell me.
So our laws (specifically Section 5 of the Public Order Act) don't allow people here to be openly homophobic (least of all that unjustifiable way of thinking taken to it's ultimate extreme, as exampled by Fred & co.)? Good. Again, Canuovea: Problem?
12/7/2011 11:40:07 AM
Rights come with responsibilities? Maybe. I'd say that is more along the lines of privileges. A right is unqualified. And comes from a society, I do not see "natural rights."
Objective reason? Objective reason dictates no such thing. One can still be a human and be a terrible person.
Here, what makes up the essence of a human? You put self control as part of it. I'm not convinced. I haven't seen an argument for it. A rapist is still human, unfortunately. One of the worst, but still human.
So yes, serial rapists are 100% human beings. Just bad ones.
And subjectivity implies a level of anarchy. Why should we not have some? The existence of some level of anarchy is not a contradiction to civilization. Neither of those two are absolutes.
Reason, the ability to think, is what separates humans from animals. Civilization does not. Do rapists reason? Do they think? Oh yes, you bet they do.
You say "a civilized human being", but you have to add the civilized part to it. Ergo, civilization is not part of the essence of being human. Ergo, being uncivilized does not make you inhuman. Though I do not dispute your definition of civilization, as such.
Nor are tact or diplomacy part of the essence of a human, though perhaps they are required, in part, for stability.
My subjective judgement on the UK's laws, if they are as you say, is that they are flawed. You obviously think they are fine. I especially have a problem with "thoughtcrime", an idea inherently anathema to me.
12/7/2011 2:10:44 PM
We do not generalize. The only Christians we consider less than human are the biggoted assholes who use the Bible to justify whatever hateful, idiotic and insane views they have.
12/8/2011 9:55:15 AM
And I have absolutely no
problem whatsoever with Quakers, Unitarian Universalists, Buddhists, Sufi Muslims (my physician is one), and Wiccans. Also non
-fundie Christians (my best friend is your average Church of England type, who plays/collects RPGs, likes Sci-Fi & Anime/Manga, books - especially military history/technology; also Astronomy & Aeronautics. As well as glamour art & photography - and even has a poster of His Noodlyness The Flying Spaghetti Monster on his wall
So - objectively
speaking - Canuovea is an anarchist, who condones
what the likes of Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church says & does
Just so's we know.
12/8/2011 10:06:30 AM
It's WWE, get with the times.
12/8/2011 11:12:23 AM
I never said that I thought you thought Christians in general were less than human.
And I still say that the crazed fundies are 100% human. Just BAD humans.
So. Is it okay to say that those fundy Muslims aren't real Muslims? Or are those fundy Christians not real Christians?
Because some religious people I know try to say that. It is Bullshit. Just because you don't like someone does not mean that they are not a member of your general group.
"Oh, no, Bush isn't a real American!" Or "Nah,Tony Blair isn't actually British!" Or "Conrad Black wasn't ever truly Canadian! And He most certainly was never a knight of Britain!" But they are.
As for me condoning Fred Phelps and Co...
Let me lay it out for you: If I call them BAD HUMANS, but STILL HUMANS, am I condoning them?
Nor am I an anarchist. If you want to start with the name calling I've a few I can use on you that have a bit more back up than you calling me an anarchist.
12/8/2011 12:08:30 PM
Anarchist isn't really an insult. It's simply a political view. Most anarchists are not crazy hooligans, but simply people who think that we would be better off without government.
I strongly disagree with this philosophy, but that doesn't make it invalid or evil; simply flawed. Now, I don't get the sense that you're an anarchist, but there's no reason to take it as an insult. It's not like he called you a fascist or anything.
Also, I completely agree with what you're saying, Canuovea. IMO, while it would be tempting to make bigotry, homophobia, etc. illegal, even idiots should have the right to free speech. I mean, the WBC aren't exactly making their views look good. If anything, being able to see just how dumb those people are will turn people away from such bigotry. Look at the KKK actively rebuking the WBC.
Also, perhaps I'm misinterpreting (I probably am), but Anon-e-moose; you seem to be taking Canuovea's arguments a tad personally. He's not saying that they're great people, but he is saying that they're still technically human.
Being a horrible, bigoted idiot doesn't disqualify you from also being technically human. It just makes you a bad, stupid human. Maybe this is just my idealism talking, but I don't think it's impossible or too late for even the worst fundie assholes to learn better and change their ways.
Personally, I agree with Canuovea that your laws are flawed (well meaning, but flawed), but I'm not gonna act like you disagreeing makes you a bad person or anything. It simply means that you have a different opinion. I mean, seriously, you're suggesting that, because he disagrees with you on matters of free speech, he actively condones and agrees with Fred Phelps? Seriously? Straw-man much?
Wow, this comment got a bit TL;DR didn't it? Sorry, I don't normally make comments this long.
12/8/2011 8:51:32 PM
Don't worry, that isn't TL;DR. I've had comments rejected because they were too long. I'm a chatterbox.
You have gotten what I'm saying pretty much spot on. Thank you.
And yeah, you are completely correct about Anarchists. I might have overreacted a bit much. But there was just something about the way it was typed out that annoyed me. Maybe putting it next to saying that I condone Fred Phelps.
Also, I am not an anarchist. My belief that rights are not natural but given to, or taken by, a population should counter that pretty well. I don't like being misrepresented, I suppose.
Then again, I almost called Anon-e-moose a fascist when he used the word 'thoughtcrime' and I shouldn't have done that. I apologize.
12/8/2011 9:01:31 PM
Apology accepted in good humour. It's simply the case that being raised in a country in which the only thing not tolerated by the vast majority of people here in the UK is intolerance (but hey, having bombs dropped on one's country in the past by the Luftwaffe; to say nothing of V-1s & V-2s by Hitler - who dared to consider other innocent humans as 'inferior subhumans') will do that to you, mindset-wise. To say nothing of when I met & talked with a survivor of Hitler's ultimate death factory: Auschwitz. And homosexuals were murdered in the Holocaust too.
Fred Phelps' WBC & all other right-wing* dominionist fundies = Hitler [/Reverse Godwin]
Thus is the reason why I welcome legislation which effectively destroys intolerance in word, action - and thought, if necessary. And there can never be enough of it, says I. Just ask the victims of racist, sexist and homophobic attacks in the past. To say nothing of the families of those murdered as a result of intolerance.
Now you know why I can never tolerate Fred Phelps & co. Until they can let go of their unjustifiable way of thinking. Would it kill them to by hyper-pro-LGBT?
*- That, and living in the era of the real Antichrist, Maggie Thatcher (*spit*), which is the basis of my more than infinite hatred of anything - and anyone right-wing. Thatcher (*spit*) = Hitler.
12/9/2011 7:20:35 AM
Thatcher? Bleck. That lady is and was frightening. I've seen segments of a show called "Spitting Image." If you haven't seen it I suggest that you look it up! My favourite bit has to be Thatcher talking to an elderly decrepit Hitler who seems to have escaped retribution. He is absolutely in love with her. Creepy.
Also, I believe in one scene she says her WW2 hero died in a bunker in Germany.
As you said, Thatcher... sure, some like her, but I'll just say that I found her policies rather... absolutely freaky.
Though I've got to point out the irony that the Nazis considered people subhuman and you in turn think them (and those like them) were subhuman.
I still think the Nazis were human, but a very many of them were terrible human beings. Then again, we are almost certainly looking at different definitions of "human." Some were less bad (Herman Goering's brother who was apparently very left wing and busy helping Jews escape, Albert Speer was... less bad, in some ways good, Hanfstaengel was an interesting fellow who fled in about 37 and became an advisor to Roosevelt).
I see humans as capable of both great good and great evil, and without that capability they wouldn't be really human.
As I said, you welcome laws that clamp down on certain levels of expression, but I do not. Differing understanding of rights and good. Nothing wrong with that.
And even I do admit that there are limits. When free speech conflicts with another right, it can be decided which takes precedent. In the case of directly inciting violence against a person or group. Hence "go kill the Jews" isn't going to fly because that conflicts with a more important right.
Anyway, nice chat.
12/9/2011 1:19:29 PM
Jefferson described revelations best ...
"I then considered it as merely the ravings of a maniac no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams."
12/9/2011 1:36:48 PM
They're considered less than human but, apparently, less than human people hold megachurches, radio and television shows and have accounts with more than five zeroes at the right, as well as are influent in the deep South. Well, that's why people used to call America the land of opportunities, I guess.
12/10/2011 4:35:09 AM
"If you haven't seen it I suggest that you look it up!"
Well, seeing as "Spitting Image" is a British satirical series that was on ITV, and I live in the UK, yes, I guess I was able to watch it during the decade that can only be described as The Dark Ages II. [/sarcasm]
Like I say, living in a country that was attacked by Hitler's Luftwaffe/V-1s/V-2s in WWII, to say nothing of having to live through said Dark Ages II - in which The Antichrist Maggie Thatcher (*spit*) did infinitely more damage to my country than Hitler did industrially, commercially, financially, politically & socially to the UK, will make you realise that Nazis (even ones today; the KKK, and all that jazz), and right-wingers (especially fundies) are less than human. Considering that it's right-wing Fundamentalist Christian Dominionists who want to do far worse than Hitler could ever conceive.
After all, would it have killed Hitler to have been another Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, or Vaclav Havel? The other extreme?
Question: How could Hitler be as equally human as, say, Willy Brandt?
Once you can answer that, then you've gone some way to figuring out my (more than justified) mindset - i.e. my (infinitely more than justifiable) more than infinite hatred of right-wingers. Give me one good reason as to why I should think any other way about right-wingers of whatever stripe?
Hitler = Thatcher (*spit*). Both right-wingers. Ergo, both inferior subhumans. QED.
12/10/2011 2:37:19 PM
I know you know that Hitler isn't the same as Thatcher. Hitler was German, though born in Austria, and has actually been described as politically centrist but took the totalitarian level to new heights. Where Hitler fits on the political spectrum is... debatable. Thatcher is definitely right wing.
Yeah I figured you would have seen "Spitting Image".
As for Hitler being Gandhi... Hitler was as much a product of his environment and circumstances as Gandhi was. But that isn't the point.
The point is that Hitler was equally human as Willy Brandt. You are equally human as Hitler or myself. All this talk of "more or less human" is flawed at the very root of it all.
What defines human? Genetics? Genetics are part of it. We all inhabit a certain range. Intelligence or reason? Yup, we all seem to have that in some way... but even that is not definitive entirely. Someone with a lower IQ than you is not less human than you. Empathy? You recall "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep"? Similar idea there. But how definitive is that? Psychopaths, are they human? Yes. Same DNA, same general range of intelligence, they are born of a human, come from humans, share the same essential characteristics of a human... so it appears.
And, even if Psychopaths are not human for you, Hitler was not a psychopath. Not in the sense that he lacked emotions. He most definitely had them, though he shared more empathy for animals than for, say, Jews. He still had empathy.
I think I'll stick with a purely biological definition of the word, thank you. Makes it easier to say "bad human" or "good human" and have it make sense.
You define human, then, if you think isolating large pieces of society from the category can be justified!
12/10/2011 6:47:46 PM
Don't forget about the mobs of Christians who slaughtered unbelievers.Hypatia comes to mind.
Christians were not exactly always innocent victims in the days of Rome.
Get over your persecution complex.
12/11/2011 1:50:49 AM
Raised by Horses
Wildlife preservation is a spectator sport now?
12/11/2011 4:50:55 AM
Remember that fire in Rome?
Nero blamed it on the Christians. Yes, Nero was the one doing the blaming, but there is some good reason for that blame.
There was apparently a Christian pamphlet going about Rome threatening fire and destruction against the unbelievers.
Of course, this might have just been the thought that the Son of God was returning soon. Or Hell, even. But can you really blame Nero for reacting the way he did? Christians talk about fire, then there is a fire that kills thousands... Hmm...
12/11/2011 11:02:51 AM
I know that various people have been postulating savage anti-Christian persecution that doesn't exist. This has been seen and commented on here @ FSTDT many, many times.
I only called Beast of Revelations an animal as he called himself Beast of revelations.
12/12/2011 7:07:00 AM
where in the bloody heck are all these people who want to persecute and kill christians? they're certainly not all in the U.S.
12/15/2011 12:51:22 AM
"Christians are considered by many to be less than human and as the cause of the world’s woes."
Considering your 'Persecution' complex/fetish, a definite case of You said it, I didn't!
You lot wouldn't consider yourselves True Christians™ otherwise, so even if 'twere the case, those 'many' are merely fulfilling your greatest wish.
Remember Romans 13:1-5? With the emphasis on Romans. But then, if Jesus had never defied the status quo from the start, then he would've never suffered any 'Persecution' in the first place, thus he wouldn't have been crucified, ergo...!
Canuovea take note.
12/23/2011 7:37:44 AM
We can only hope.
12/25/2011 8:13:39 PM
Oh no! We have a crysis! *dials whine-one-one* Quick, we need a whaaaambulance!
8/10/2012 8:45:53 AM
You are not persecuted in any way, shape or form.
10/7/2012 11:10:45 AM
1 2 3 4