candrew
Well-Known Member
Then he intended the rape to happen too?
Scalzi on Rape and Abortion
- Thread starter AtheistPreacher
- Start date
Then he intended the rape to happen too?
You're missing the point. Everyone keeps going back to that. The answer is irrelevant. People are outraged because he committed a social faux pas. He publicly stated an unpopular opinion. Had he said "I believe god gave women the right to choose to have an abortion in cases of rape", then very few would have objected. But the problem is still present in both cases; he is using his opinion on his deity's take on an issue to justify policy. That is what we should be concerned about. Policies based on a stinking pile of unjustified ******** being imposed on us. Not just sound bites that we find mean-spirited.
candrew
Well-Known Member
If he's using his "deity's take on an issue to justify policy" then that take should be subject to examination. Logic doesn't occur in a vacuum. If he feels pregnancy due to a rape is God's will then it's a perfectly appropriate question to ask if God intended for the rape to happen as well. That's why "everyone keeps going back to that".
Why do you want to legitimize his role of God in public policy which controls you instead of Siromar's marginalizing stance?
I don't think so. People go back to that question because they are not happy with the possibility. But no rational discussion can be had. Just a bunch of people expressing how god REALLY is and what the Bible/whatever REALLY says. Not only can those opinions not be verified, the statements themselves are utterly meaningless. If you have a direct line to some supernatural cosmic encyclopedia of omniscience, then I'd like to take a look. I won't take your word for it whether it is "god is love" or "god wants us to kill redheads". Neither is more logical than the other. They are both based on some ethereal concept of "faith" that is, by definition, personal. Trying to justify policy using unverifiable access to privileged information is unacceptable. Regardless of whether we are in agreement.
Long story short, the discussion of god's intentions is pointless and counterproductive. The fact is, his invocation of god's alleged will would have been acceptable had it been more aligned with the zeitgeist. And that is the problem.
Edit: And one more thing. Unlike most atheists, I have absolutely no problem with politicians expressing their religious beliefs in public. I do not see it as a violation of the separation of church and state. The president can begin each speech with a Catholic Mass or a Druidic sex ritual for all I care. I am simply interested in using religion to justify human law.
AtheistPreacher
Well-Known Member
AtheistPreacher
Well-Known Member
There is no facepalm hard enough for all this fail:
https://preliatorcausa.blogspot.com/2012/10/27-vox-day-co-dont-get-satire-or-basic-decency-3892.html
I suppose a double facepalm will have to do:
https://preliatorcausa.blogspot.com/2012/10/27-vox-day-co-dont-get-satire-or-basic-decency-3892.html
I suppose a double facepalm will have to do:
Hmm. I'm guessing there's supposed to be a "not" in there somewhere?
Is being completely blind to the logically obvious a pre-requisite at liberal humanities colleges?
I thought everyone here knows what religion SiroMar prefers, and the general political situation in countries where the people believe that their religion should be the whole purpose of their law.
So I read the link and a lot of the comments there. Besides the obvious reality I see everywhere I look that humans rarely achieve consistency with any belief they hold---- and my opinion that it's often a tragedy of epic proportions when they come close---whether liberal or conservative, I think this writer is just pompous and ignorant.
I don't think there are very many rapists capable of discussing their business, and the attempt to link rapists with conservatives is hyperbolic hate at it's worst.
Most humans have the decency to first of all realize their views need to be dressed up with a little civility before attempting to parade them out on the street in any sort of persuasive project. While I am myself capable of, and have done, such derisive pieces of dismissive take-downs of some political fashions just for the sake of making a point. . . . I'm pretty sure it's a very slim minority of either liberals or conservatives who wouldn't call rape a reprehensible crime. I labor under the prejudice that liberals have in many cases fallen for some kind of self-imposed restriction against applying the worst of punishments to rapists, and similarly believe most conservatives are inclined to reject applying charitable understanding to them. So it would appear to me that liberals are really just displaying the rankest hypocrisy for trying to claim the ground of supporting the victim's rights.
The liberals are also logically inconsistent in their willingness to degrade the value of unborn life, while professing to champion the rights of the born.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Except, of course, that isn't the point behind the piece, so this particular viewpoint is irrelevant even if it were true.
And again, irrelevant to the point of the piece, and seemingly an attempt to try to devolve conversation into a political talking point (a ridiculous one at that). I thought you were better than PearlWatson.
Missed the point and took a cheap shot all dressed up as babe missing the point. You're a tool.
And where do you pull "devolve conversation into a political talking point" from? The link in the OP was entirely political.
Babe often uses our logical inconsistencies as an argument to cast doubt on the utility of pure objectivity. He is wrong about that, but comparing one of our most thoughtful posters to PW is a bit absurd. And taking that name lightly also robs it of its meaning. Gays used that strategy to reappropriate the word 'queer'. We should only mention PearlWatson when we're talking about the most extreme levels of stupidity.