Derailed thread

[Perth]

Ehndras. You're incredible.

That's the first time I've ever seen a tl;dr that was 3 paragraphs long and half as long as the full text.  :o

[Ehndras]

Sorry. >_>

I find it sad that I have to TLDR in an RP game. :-| I'm so used to playing with people who have no problem exchanging a few dozen paragraphs a day, heh. I should really get involved in a serious RP community that's full-time...

Might just go back to Aelyria.com after all these years. Feels so bad though, knowing the entire kingdom I was a part of, all my friends, they're all gone :(

[Perth]

Sorry. >_>

I find it sad that I have to TLDR in an RP game.

Huh? This is the forum... an argument about religion... not RP?

[Ehndras]

Its still the forum of an RP game and therefore generally inhabited by those who type/read a lot more than usual. :P

[Penchant]

Its still the forum of an RP game and therefore generally inhabited by those who type/read a lot more than usual. :P

Ah, but you have to remember it isn't just a RP game, its also a strategy game and not everyone likes to read giant texts of stuff about an arguement about religion

[Vellos]

Its still the forum of an RP game and therefore generally inhabited by those who type/read a lot more than usual. :P

I love reading. And writing, but mostly reading. I read all the time. Right now I'm reading a book on Gödel's incompleteness theorem.

The thing is, the more I read, the more I value brevity. I deeply appreciate authors who can be concise; I struggle with that myself, but I appreciate it in others.

More to the point, I appreciate consistency. You're completely free to despise religious belief or religious people. I would never prevent you from doing that. You're not free to view yourself as a kind and respectful person if you view your neighbors as wastes of genetic material or unworthy of their own lives; or rather, you're not free to have that view without being challenged as to its veracity.

TL;DR version of this whole thread:

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion

I quite strongly disagree with that comic's point actually. I dislike few things more than people who smile and nod and say "That's nice" but actually are just bottling up all their thoughts. I'd vastly prefer my neighbors repeatedly tell me how much they despise my worldview, but at least be honest with me, than have them act like we're all buddy-buddy when secretly they loathe one of the fundamental components of my identity.

[Anaris]

I quite strongly disagree with that comic's point actually. I dislike few things more than people who smile and nod and say "That's nice" but actually are just bottling up all their thoughts. I'd vastly prefer my neighbors repeatedly tell me how much they despise my worldview, but at least be honest with me, than have them act like we're all buddy-buddy when secretly they loathe one of the fundamental components of my identity.

Mm, I can definitely see where you're coming from, but I think I see what you're saying (at least, how I understand it) and what the comic says as somewhat different things.

The comic's message, as I read it, is more or less, "Don't aggressively promote your religion to others, and don't try to actually harm people because of religion."

What you're saying, as I read it, is, "Feel free to tell me you think I'm a terrible heathen who's going to hell because your religion says so."

Am I mistaken?

[Ehndras]

Meh, I see a significant difference between thinking someones a dumbass and not caring, and talking !@#$ about someone behind their back.

I think EVERYONE is a flaming dumbass for some reason or another - including me. We must all live with the knowledge that not a single one of us have an inkling of a bloody clue what the hell we're talking about. To that effect, I don't judge people based on their supposed idiocy - I expect it and don't even consciously acknowledge it. I prefer to let someone's attitudes and actions do the talking. If you believe exactly as I do but are a douche, you're a flaming !@#$. If you believe the exact opposite as me yet are a good person, then you're a good person and worthy of respect. Personal belief should never dictate how someone is treated - action and attitude should be the indicator of choice because you can believe a magical tree boned Santa and gave birth to the universe carried on the backs of unicorns across Space-Time for all I care as long as you're a good person.

On the other hand,

If you're a rapist, a violent murderer, or a manipulative, abusive monster hellbent on ruining everything you touch, it is my belief that you should not be allowed to live. Yes, its "extreme", but !@#$ it - I'm old-fashioned on the subject of capital punishment. If you live to make others' lives a living hell then you're an utter waste of space, air, time, and resources, are obviously contributing nothing to the Human species, and should be relinquished of your right to waste the time, air, and resources of those who actually try to, I don't know, not behave like monsters.

That guy who raped his own daughter and had 3 children with her while she was locked in the basement for 3 decades? Execution. Serial killers? Execution. Rapists? Execution. Child molesters? Execution. Corrupt politicians who swindle the public out of billions, thereby causing more death and suffering than we can begin to calculate? Execution.

Because I think allowing utter monsters to waste further time and resources by 'rotting in jail' is !@#$ing stupid when that same money we blow giving prisoners a better life than many Americans/whatever could instead go to, hmm, actually helping the honest, hard-working citizens?

That is the cynical side to balance my super nice, flowery, compassionate everyone-is-equal-and-wonderful-and-full-of-potential-and-special mentality I tote around. Maybe its a cultural thing but I was taught, and logic dictates, that if someone has killed a bunch of people, raped someone, or is so far gone off the deep end that they can't be rehabilitated, then there's nothing we can do to help or change them and the only thing we can do is purge them to prevent further harm - like a disease.

Like in Terran-Dwilight at the moment. I think Erasmus should be executed. Why? He will never change. He will never magically become a better person. He will never stop being the conniving, manipulative, violent, hateful bastard that he is and allowing him to live will only bite us in the ass sooner or later. The only way to ensure he does not cause any more chaos and death is to end his pathetic and traitorous existence.

Or, in the player's case, suicide him against the Zuma in an epic display of awesomeness because he also knows Erasmus can't live without causing all sorts of further bs. :P

Yeah, I have unconventional opinions. That's not going to change. I'm of the belief that the unfortunately-weak should be protected as it is not their fault they are that way, the gifted should be encouraged to excel and given incentive to improve our world with their unique abilities, and all emotional/physical/economic parasitism should be purged from the system - by violence if need be. And a bunch of other random crap that is purposely conflicted so as to establish a balanced system, but that's all that's pertinent to the discussion.

To me, every single opinion is on a case-by-case basis. Nothing is set in stone, nothing is absolute, nothing is unchangeable. Actions, however, can't be revoked once they've been done. Saying you've found god after killing 30 men and eating the corpses of children won't change my wanting to put a bullet in your brain to ensure whatever diseased carcass of amorality you portray is wiped clean from civilization forevermore.

If you have negative opinions of something or someone yet manage to be a respectful person, that isn't being two-faced - its being a mature human being who knows how to differentiate between what you think, what you feel, and what you want - and what must be done, what is right, and what is Just.

That is the difference between morality/respect and convenience/doctrine.

[D'Espana]

On the other hand,

If you're a rapist, a violent murderer, or a manipulative, abusive monster hellbent on ruining everything you touch, it is my belief that you should not be allowed to live. Yes, its "extreme", but !@#$ it - I'm old-fashioned on the subject of capital punishment. If you live to make others' lives a living hell then you're an utter waste of space, air, time, and resources, are obviously contributing nothing to the Human species, and should be relinquished of your right to waste the time, air, and resources of those who actually try to, I don't know, not behave like monsters.

That guy who raped his own daughter and had 3 children with her while she was locked in the basement for 3 decades? Execution. Serial killers? Execution. Rapists? Execution. Child molesters? Execution. Corrupt politicians who swindle the public out of billions, thereby causing more death and suffering than we can begin to calculate? Execution.

Because I think allowing utter monsters to waste further time and resources by 'rotting in jail' is !@#$ing stupid when that same money we blow giving prisoners a better life than many Americans/whatever could instead go to, hmm, actually helping the honest, hard-working citizens?

I know I have joined the topic late, but I have logged in just to state my complete and utmost agreement with these paragraphs.

[Perth]

I kind of think executing people like that lets them off kind of easy. Stick them in a dark cell and let them rot away every last minute of their life, and then die. That is making them forfeit their life for what they have done.

[Vellos]

Mm, I can definitely see where you're coming from, but I think I see what you're saying (at least, how I understand it) and what the comic says as somewhat different things.

The comic's message, as I read it, is more or less, "Don't aggressively promote your religion to others, and don't try to actually harm people because of religion."

What you're saying, as I read it, is, "Feel free to tell me you think I'm a terrible heathen who's going to hell because your religion says so."

Am I mistaken?

No, you're right.

If someone believes that my beliefs or actions are harmful, or if they believe them to be erroneous, or if they want to reveal themselves as a bigot or an otherwise offensive person, they're free to express themselves. Not on my lawn maybe but, still, I'd rather they share than not.

And at the same time, I'm a big believer that Beliefs Have Consequences. Decide to view me as heathen scum if you like, and if you do think that I'm condemned to the Nine Hells do tell because I'd like to hear your position because, hey, maybe I am, it's good to know which Hells you're condemning yourself to, but don't be surprised when I sucker-punch you when you come on my lawn. Or when I stop inviting you to my Really Fun Dinner Parties.

Though, that said, I tend to like offensive people anyways, so I probably would still invite them to my Really Fun Dinner Parties. But you get the point.

Basically, I think that we as a society have a duty to act as if speech is harmless (with the obvious exception of yelling "fire" in a crowded building, and equivalents), even though we obviously know it isn't. And, furthermore, I think it's better for us to force bigots into the public. I'd rather have Westboro protesting than not, if they're going to have those beliefs, because at least protesting they establish a social understanding of How Bad It Can Get. They force us to have those conversations about whether those beliefs are acceptable or not. I'd rather know my neighbor is evil, even if it offends me, and thus make sure not to send my child to a sleepover with his child, than be ignorant of the depth of his depravity.

Does that make sense? I think we're better off with peoples' beliefs being public, and with a maximum socially possible arena for free speech.

[Fleugs]

My mother is the uneducated son of a farming mogul in Brazil

I CANNOT BE THE ONLY ONE .

[Jim]

On the other hand,

If you're a rapist, a violent murderer, or a manipulative, abusive monster hellbent on ruining everything you touch, it is my belief that you should not be allowed to live. Yes, its "extreme", but !@#$ it - I'm old-fashioned on the subject of capital punishment. If you live to make others' lives a living hell then you're an utter waste of space, air, time, and resources, are obviously contributing nothing to the Human species, and should be relinquished of your right to waste the time, air, and resources of those who actually try to, I don't know, not behave like monsters.

That guy who raped his own daughter and had 3 children with her while she was locked in the basement for 3 decades? Execution. Serial killers? Execution. Rapists? Execution. Child molesters? Execution. Corrupt politicians who swindle the public out of billions, thereby causing more death and suffering than we can begin to calculate? Execution.

Because I think allowing utter monsters to waste further time and resources by 'rotting in jail' is !@#$ing stupid when that same money we blow giving prisoners a better life than many Americans/whatever could instead go to, hmm, actually helping the honest, hard-working citizens?

I almost agree with you. My issue with executing those who have committed crimes stated above, is that those executing them usually feel no guilt, which scares me. By those who feel no guilt, I mean the public. If your justice system executes a rapist, that blood is on the hands of all who abide by the justice system. I remember when Tookie Williams was executed, that execution is specifically on my hands because it took place in California, the state I have the power to vote in. If my state feels it's okay to execute people, then by all means, execute, but I feel that too often the public doesn't truly understand what is happening. They tend to not understand that they are just as guilty of taking a life as the man or woman administering the execution of the said criminal. When we as a society make the decision to murder, we can't simply walk away from it as if we're just administering punishment, we need to understand why we made that decision and accept that we and I, have just ended the life of a human being. So I don't think it's as easy as "Why let them rot and waste our money when we can use that money for the poor?" A society that is quick to kill and slow to think is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous than some serial murderer. I don't fear the boogieman living under my bed, I don't fear Ted Bundy crawling in through my window, I fear an out of control bloodthirsty society, because that often times leads to an iron fisted government. Reign of Terror?

Does that make sense? I think we're better off with peoples' beliefs being public, and with a maximum socially possible arena for free speech.

Yes, perfectly. I fully agree with you. As much as I dislike Westboro, I appreciate their existence simply because they're allowed to exist. You know what I fear more than Westboro growing? A government or public that says they can no longer share their beliefs. If you take away their freedom of speech, you might as well burn the constitution. We need hate speech to be protected because if its not, how are we supposed to speak out against unjust laws that we hate? Who's to say they won't take away another form of speech after taking away hate speech? So once again, I very much agree with the quote above, very well put.

[D'Espana]

Out of contol bloodthirsty society? I fail to see how executing a criminal, who has killed and raped any number of people, is being bloodthirsty. It is protecting society from a predator, someone who hears a woman crying and yelling for her release and, instead of filling deep hatred and outright condemnation for which he is doing, laughs and tells her: "You are my toy, and I will use you, my little object, for as much as I want. Once I'm done, I'll kill you, because your life, and all people's lifes in this planet, matters nothing for me when compared to my personal leisure".

If someone has ever thought even for a single second something similar to that, that someone deserves death. Period. I'm bloodthirsty? No, just protecting the rest of women and even men from such a murderer, someone with such an eroded empathy that can not feel the suffering of those around him. Of course, even worse is the case of those that feel the suffering, but actually enjoy it. They are abominations, plain and simple, and must be destroyed before they harm anyone else.

About hate speech, one thing is to allow disagreeing and open expression of ideas, which is fine, and another entirely different to see as benefitial the flaming and intentional verbal attack in order to incite unrest and, well, hatred. That is NOT right.

[Vellos]

About hate speech, one thing is to allow disagreeing and open expression of ideas, which is fine, and another entirely different to see as benefitial the flaming and intentional verbal attack in order to incite unrest and, well, hatred. That is NOT right.

I really do not trust people generally to be able to have any reliability in how they distinguish between "speech that is hateful towards me" and "speech which is offensive towards me."

Many people are deeply offended by beliefs and statements which are not hateful. Sure, many of us can distinguish those to some of the time, but I think the damage from restricting speech too much is far greater than the damage from allowing too much hateful speech.

Regarding death penalty: I pretty strongly disagree with apparently all of ya'll. You have no right to kill a person who is no danger to you. Lock'em up, sure. I'm not even in principle opposed to the idea of non-rehabilitative imprisonment; i.e. I don't think that the "vengeance motive" is everywhere and always wrong.

But killing the person is too far. Even if they're guilty. Killing in defense is acceptable, and I'm even willing to countenance a pretty broad definition of defense– but the death penalty is socially worthless, and I don't know anybody who felt that the crimes committed were sufficiently paid for by an execution. You can't balance the scales of blood.