OT: Insightful (re: Amish shooting)

[dmm]

I would have jumped all over Mephisto's misuse (IMHO) of the Declaration of Independence to justify his blanket rejection of the death penalty, but RonGianti beat me to it. (Not that M.'s not entitled to his opinion.)

But to go back to the (OT) topic: The NYTimes editorial is "spot on," as the Brits say, in describing the problem at the symptomatic level, but he errs in identifying the root issue. The core problem is not lack of equality for women, nor is it hatred of women. It is not even the sexualization and objectification of women and girls (and boys). The core problem is that everyone is being taught that there is no absolute right or wrong, that there is no moral standard by which behavior should be judged, and that there is no God who will hold them accountable for every deed done in secret. Without these things, morality becomes strictly a matter of opinion, with nobody's opinion being any better than anyone else's, including the opinions of rapists, child molesters, serial killers, and porn merchants.

[Phoenix-D]

Side note: I always find it amusing how some people will lump porn and gay people in with mass murders.

dmm: Some of the largest mass murders in recent years have been conducted by religious people, so I really don't see how that flies.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Phoenix-D:

Where do you see homosexuals mentioned?

Soviet Russia was Athiest. Now, how about we stop that track before it gets out of hand?

[Phoenix-D]

narf: people in general, not in this thread. And to complete the opposite effect Hitler was..nominally Christian.

When people start insinuating that I have no morals, and/or do not deserve to be an American citizen (hi, President Bush Sr!) I get just a liiitle annoyed.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

I can understand that.

[Wenin]

Lowest common denominator.

If you dislike how the news makes its money, then write a letter, stop watching... or both.

The really ugly stuff that the article describes has always been around in one form or another. Just with today's technology, and our massive use of it, the ugly truth is revealed. Society isn't in decline, it is right where it has always been. It's just in High Def color now.


Protect yourself. Live your life how you see fit. Fight crime when you are able.

I haven't seen the Clinque ad, nor the Telephone company ad.

However I like playing the Grand Theft Auto series of games, just how I like playing the Halo series games.

Freedom is a painful thing, because in order for you to have it... you have to allow others to have it as well. Video games, news stories, TV ads.... these don't make people do anything. People need to be responsible for their own damn actions. Stop blaming others for their misdeeds.

Someone isn't a porn junky because the internet easily provides it. They're that way because they lack self control.

Someone isn't a murderer because they played violent video games. The very notion should be ridiculous to a logically thinking person, however the more that notion is pushed... the more people will use it to come to terms with their own behavior.

I didn't murder people, the video games made me do it.

What crap.

[Xrati]

That's a good point Wenin.
"Freedom is a painful thing, because in order for you to have it... you have to allow others to have it as well."

Kind of an "Eye for an Eye" equation or variant of it. I guess we need to draw a line and define where we stand to that line with how much or how far we will let things go. When the line gets crossed do we sit and reason, when that person is not listening? Do we end a life when one is taken? Do we lock someone up for punishment and them give him all his rights? Makes no sense!

Many paths were taken by these pathetic people and maybe we should go back to the beginning to see where all the wrong paths were taken and see if we can prevent this from happening again and again. One ounce of prevention is worth more then a pound of cure.

[cshank2]

Hamurabi said it best. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

Morality or not, sexually assaulting and killing little girls and then not even having the cajones to try and take out a police officer or two or face jail should be an insta-slag on the cop's part.

There's sick and then there's sick.

(Also, read Starship Troopers for a good definition of 'morals.')

[dmm]

Phoenix-D said: Hitler was..nominally Christian.

Nominally means "in name only." So I totally agree.

Phoenix-D said: When people start insinuating that I have no morals, ...I get just a little annoyed.

I assume that I am one of those people who has you annoyed, probably because you are an atheist. Let me just say that I know some atheists who are more moral than some others I know who claim to be Christians. However, although of course I commend the former and am disgusted by the latter, I would contend that both are thinking and behaving illogically, given their postulates. My point was not that all atheists are immoral, but rather that the logical consequence of atheism is amoralism -- the lack of any morality, good or bad.

Phoenix-D said: dmm: Some of the largest mass murders in recent years have been conducted by religious people, so I really don't see how that flies.

That is a good point; being religious in the wrong way can cause people to do despicable things. (Examples: Jim Jones and the Guyana mass suicide; the 9/11/01 murderers; the Oklahoma City murderers (Timothy McVeigh); pogroms by Christians against Jews.) But how do we judge these actions to be despicable? Another way to put the question is: are these actions TRULY despicable, or is that simply our opinion?

To go back to the original thread topic: Is violence against women WRONG (no excuses allowed)? Is objectification of women WRONG (even if the woman encourages it)? Is sexualization of children WRONG (even if the sexualizer is "made that way")? Is sexual harassment WRONG (even if all the guys at the stadium are participating, and the woman seems flattered as well as flustered)? For the record, there ARE correct answers, and they are yes, yes, yes, and yes. But when people are told, "There is no absolute morality," we should not be surprised when their answers come back wrong.

[Phoenix-D]

Who gets to decide what's WRONG?

You'd say "God." Problem- so did everyone you cited as being religious in the wrong way. So do the people that stone women to death for being raped. Etc.

Since God isn't in the habit of popping in and saying "hey, you're [censored] up", what you have one way or the other is the word of men. No more, no less.

You can get morality from that, in a roundabout and extremely complicated fashion.

I'm not actually an atheist, but I'm an agnostic, so most of the people that annoy me in that manner just lump me in.