231–240 of 338 posts
Yeah, well... easy to blame morals when you have none and wouldn't know moral if it hit you in the face. ISIS jihadists have no morals, for example. The article is ridiculous
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I third this opinion. I didn't / wouldn't upvote it but primarily due to the tone: it should be edited down and a bit more civil. That's it. No major objection from me. The note from Dang is good, it can help steer the commenter for the future.
Well I strongly disagree with this. I see no reason to believe civility and meaningful communication are directly correlated. Quite the contrary. Forcing others to maintain a tone you find pleasant (poorly defined variable) strips an entire sideband from a conversation. What's up with the insistence that everyone be warm and fuzzy at all times anyway?
An important clarification: Most violence among humans is motivated by morality. Sounds plausible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The topic is about violence. Feminists aren't violent; in fact they're a reaction against gender-based violence. > Yet, I strongly oppose feminism. I believe in equality, but not equality for one gender or skin colour or sexual orientation. That means you're a feminist. I'm sorry you're not able to get your definitions straight. > Bullying is not required. Calling people out on their bullshit isn't bullying.
>The topic is about violence. Feminists aren't violent; in fact they're a reaction against gender-based violence. This is board with many nerds. It is fair to say that we have all been bullied to some degree. Bullying may not be violent to the degree that it physically hits people over the head, but it is far more violent than anything feminism complains about. And Doctor Matt Taylor was bullied for what clothing he…
Then it isn't violence. Bullying implies violence. You're describing something else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I haven't made up my mind on this issue entirely, I am often one of the people downvoting these kinds of comments, or even flagging them if they're more extreme. The reason for this is that I've become increasingly convinced that the health of a community, especially one that relies on a relatively poor medium (text comments), is very dependent on the civility of said community. I'm a bit surprised to find myse…
>In the same way that a parent getting angry can sometimes be more effective than a parent logically dishing out an appropriate punishment There is no way to know if that statement is ever true.
So while I can't prove if it's true, in the same way that I can't prove a lot of things to be true, I don't think it's such an outrageous statement, both based on experience and based on logical reasoning.
I'm curious why you decided to comment on this though. Mind elaborating? Is it because anger is not generally a very good parenting technique? Because if so, I fully agree with that, and was not suggesting otherwise.
> because most gun violence is not committed by people with mental health problems. Rather, it is committed by people who feel they are morally right in committing that act. Is there a reason that delusions of morality don't count as a mental health issue? I don't see these things being mutually exclusive.
Can such a notion exist with relative morality?
What we could say is that their morals deviate to far from the social norm, but are we willing to be so self aware?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now you're elevating a vocal subset of "feminists" to represent the entire group. There are plenty of old-school feminists, from when feminism was about equal rights. They just don't create as much internet drama as the other kind, so you hear about them less.
Ironic, too, because the worst part of $hypothetical_feminist_subgroup is that if you disagree with the policy prescription de jure (say, spending $3 trillion annually on pre-K education) then they will hit you back with an accusation that you are a terrible misogynist who doesn't acknowledge the fundamental dignity of women as human beings. Don't aid and abet this rhetorical crime.
I normally would not nitpick that, but "de jure" has a different meaning, "According to law; by right", that would be applicable in this context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So given all that, it's tautological from Biblical > principles that violent people are not followers of > Christ. Then, given that all wars are inherently violent, is it your opinion that all wars are unjust? Would you also consider that every human life that is ended prematurely by another "murder" (capital punishment, war, abortion)?
I have opinions, of course, but I aspire to have them grounded in scripture. However, you asked, so I'll try to share my take on violence and sin. Keep in mind that I'm not an expert theologian. I'm willing to be wrong on these points if someone can show me how I'm missing some detail or theme in the teaching of the Bible. Also, since the importance of sin is in the intention behind the thoughts and actions and not i…
I have two simple questions:
1. Why do you aspire to have your opinions grounded in scripture?
2. Do you care about the consequences of your opinions (given that your opinions inform your actions, which in turn affect both your future and other people)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My morals don't necessarily match up with what I would do in certain situations.
That's like saying you don't believe in monsters, yet refusing to open the closet. Your morals match exactly what you would do. What you say about your morals doesn't. What you are is what you do , after all, not what you imagine yourself to be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Calling people out on their bullshit isn't bullying. When the effect is merely to pressure, and not to convince, then in that particular context, people who may have been legitimately oppressed have (temporarily) become the oppressors. The difference between calling people out on their bullshit versus bullying is this: In "calling people out" -- people are shown their self-contradiction in such a way that they are gi…
> When the effect is merely to pressure, and not to convince, then in that particular context, people who may have been legitimately oppressed have (temporarily) become the oppressors. Putting pressure on someone to behave themselves isn't oppression. You can't possibly have gone through life without seeing actual oppression. > It becomes bullying when people are only vilified, placed in an irredeemable category, the…