New Testingstan

http://xkcd.com/1044/


I don't understand... Does this mean that Mitt Romney is in fact a pretty reasonable dude by American Republican standard, or what ?

it means romney has no actual opinions and will say whatever the polls tell him to

Questor wrote:ZOD! You're transgendered! A MOD HAS DECLARED IT SO!

Wait what? This statement demands a link for context.

I can't stop looking at that circumcision thread. I'm beginning to wonder if somehow I'm missing something.

We have people, including oldtimers, seriously arguing that circumcision shouldn't be banned because it would destroy Jewish cultural heritage worse than Nazi gas chambers if you stopped them from removing body-parts from infants.

Is there some way this makes sense that I'm not seeing?

You see, it's the only way for God to recognize Its Chosen People. It doesn't matter if your follow all of Its teachings to the spirit and the letter, if you have a whole penis, you aren't one of His Chosen Children.


- But what of the women ?

- Meh. They all go to Hell anyway.

Oxymoron wrote:You see, it's the only way for God to recognize Its Chosen People. It doesn't matter if your follow all of Its teachings to the spirit and the letter, if you have a whole penis, you aren't one of His Chosen Children.


- But what of the women ?

- Meh. They all go to Hell anyway.

But it's the rationalist, atheist oldtimers arguing for this. The viewpoint being put forward is that if a cultural identity is completely tied to cutting bodyparts off infants... then cutting bodyparts off infants is a lesser evil than possibly destroying a cultural identity. This is seriously being argued and, even for TEO, I simply can't wrap my brain around how supposedly rational people can come to that conclusion.

Oh, and of course there's the other argument of 'well they'll do it anyways even if it's banned'. Which is why we don't bother making racially motivated assault a crime.

Djinnkitty83 wrote:But it's the rationalist, atheist oldtimers arguing for this. The viewpoint being put forward is that if a cultural identity is completely tied to cutting bodyparts off infants... then cutting bodyparts off infants is a lesser evil than possibly destroying a cultural identity. This is seriously being argued and, even for TEO, I simply can't wrap my brain around how supposedly rational people can come to that conclusion.

Oh, and of course there's the other argument of 'well they'll do it anyways even if it's banned'. Which is why we don't bother making racially motivated assault a crime.

i'm pretty sure broomstick's not an atheist

and simon's kind of an idiot anyway

AFAIK Broomstick is a Wiccan "witch", or something close to it. Which explain her pseudo in equal part with her piloting planes if my understanding is right.

Now I'm really glad I left. I'd be the one guy who would be arguing really hard that people's religious rights stop a nanometer before colliding with someone else's body. Particularly those religious rites that take the form of a knife to the penis. If that's all a religion is, it can go to Hell!

The 'funniest' (and I really mean 'saddest') thing is, if I understand what has been said here (I'm not going to waste my time reading an N&P thread), it's the Atheist arguing it's somehow okay.

I'd ask Jewish people and I'm sure a majority of them would just be "yeah, okay, whatever ; he'll just choose to do it by himself later in his life if he want to". That's what a lot of turkish muslim in Germany do, as far as I know (when the child is around 7 and more from peer pressure than anything else, but you get the idea).



Related : I remember, one of my uncle (in Spain), in the first days after one of his daughter was born, had the medical personnel pierce her ears and outfit her with medical earring. Just like that, because she's a girl, you know ?

It was a few year back, but I remember that even then I was pretty pissed-off at him internally (he's thousand of kilometers away, I almost never see him, and by this point it has been established he is a tool anyway ; what with being at his second divorce etc.).

Oxymoron wrote:The 'funniest' (and I really mean 'saddest') thing is, if I understand what has been said here (I'm not going to waste my time reading an N&P thread), it's the Atheist arguing it's somehow okay.

I'd ask Jewish people and I'm sure a majority of them would just be "yeah, okay, whatever ; he'll just choose to do it by himself later in his life if he want to". That's what a lot of turkish muslim in Germany do, as far as I know (when the child is around 7 and more from peer pressure than anything else, but you get the idea).



Related : I remember, one of my uncle (in Spain), in the first days after one of his daughter was born, had the medical personnel pierce her ears and outfit her with medical earring. Just like that, because she's a girl, you know ?

It was a few year back, but I remember that even then I was pretty pissed-off at him internally (he's thousand of kilometers away, I almost never see him, and by this point it has been established he is a tool anyway ; what with being at his second divorce etc.).

i don't think simon jester's an atheist either

seeing that in another thread he was arguing for objective morality (then ran away when i challenged him on it)

Hmmm... I don't think being a moral absolutist contradict the idea of being Atheist. From what I understand S_J's more of the "Stas Bush" school of thought that morality can be in some way "mathematically" deduced from the Laws of the Universe (TM), and that as such you can determine a moral framework that is Absolutely Right.

This would go well with his background as a particle physicist, at least.

Is "God didn't make the rules" the same as "there are no rules?"

Because that's almost the same argument fundies use to say atheists are evil. "If we didn't believe in God, why not torture and kill and steal for giggles? There'd be NO RULES!"

I myself am of the opinion that "morale" is only a social construct that naturally evolve from the fact that we are a social species. The fact that we as human tend to develop one form of morale code or another is ingrained in us - psychopath and people suffering from similar mental disabilities being a possible exception.

If we all have some sort of morale or another, the particulars of our systems are relative to time and space (cultural background, the society you live in and your own experiences).



I don't think we can say there are "good" or "wrong" morale systems - as long as a society keep working, it means the morale system is adequately doing its job of maintaining a semblance of society.

However, I am not a morale relativist - I believe that MY morale is better than other's

Moar seriously, I do not excuse what I would myself consider crimes by saying "well, it's in their culture" if they are doing it in my country. My rule is : "When in Rome, live like the Romans".


... This is why even though I am not opposed to living in a foreign land for a while I want to stay and live my life in France ; and this also open a can of worm as to what I would consider acceptable or not - and I've already had that trainwreck of a discussion with Bakustra before (re : french ban over burka)...

I think most people don't want things they don't like happening to them, so forming groups to prevent things they don't like happening to them is just a natural progression. The problem is when people don't agree on whether or not they want a certain thing happening to them.

Pieman wrote:Is "God didn't make the rules" the same as "there are no rules?"

Because that's almost the same argument fundies use to say atheists are evil. "If we didn't believe in God, why not torture and kill and steal for giggles? There'd be NO RULES!"

And to answer the question :

I think that "God didn't make the rules" does not equate "there are no rules"


I'm sure there's a school of philosophy somewhere arguing the point that the existence or the non-existence of God (in the sense of God = "Omnipotent and Omniscient Self-Aware Entity") has no influence whatsoever over the existence or the non-existence of an Absolute Universally Ever True morale code. And which would argue that you could basically have, like, the Bible (as an example of Absolute Universally Ever True morale code) without needing for God to exist.


But as I believe myself that morale is merely a social construct and not an universal truth I'm not going to argue the point in their place

Oxymoron wrote:However, I am not a morale relativist - I believe that MY morale is better than other's

Moar seriously, I do not excuse what I would myself consider crimes by saying "well, it's in their culture" if they are doing it in my country. My rule is : "When in Rome, live like the Romans".


... This is why even though I am not opposed to living in a foreign land for a while I want to stay and live my life in France ; and this also open a can of worm as to what I would consider acceptable or not - and I've already had that trainwreck of a discussion with Bakustra before (re : french ban over burka)...

Moral relativism is for the lazy.

Anyway, I must read that burka shit.

re the circumcision thing

are we actually at the point where we're complaining about what is a minority viewpoint on the other board for having a different opinion on what is basically a subjective issue, particularly since, you know, there are statistically-measurable health benefits to circumcision (and its effects on sensitivity and so forth are in fact pretty poorly-understood at best) that make its cost/risk vs benefit as a standard medical procedure a perfectly debatable subject in its own right

re issues of culture and moral relativism

i lol from my ivory tower

Nietzslime wrote:re the circumcision thing

are we actually at the point where we're complaining about what is a minority viewpoint on the other board for having a different opinion on what is basically a subjective issue, particularly since, you know, there are statistically-measurable health benefits to circumcision (and its effects on sensitivity and so forth are in fact pretty poorly-understood at best) that make its cost/risk vs benefit as a standard medical procedure a perfectly debatable subject in its own right

My only issue with it is the people who try to push it as a universal procedure. I mean sure, get it if you have some medical condition that makes one necessary or something. Or if your religion demands it, because it's pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things. But the only reason it's pushed universally in the US is because Kellogg wanted kids to stop masturbating. And they do it to babies because they aren't old enough to say no.

It's an elective procedure, and should remain as such. A lot of the same health benefits can be obtained with modern advances like condoms and keeping your dick clean.

Knubble tov wrote:Anyway, I must read that burka shit.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=145316

Who are you in that thread?

I am rabid is what I am



hint :

As I said, it was a trainwreck (my participation is limited to the last two pages and ended the thread)

i am proud i contributed nothing but scorn to that thread