Words fail me.
-
Granted, you can't be mentally stable that think that sticking a child in a microwave is a rational act. But... Sometimes I feel that mental illness is all the more reason to fry somebody. In this kind on case, I don't know why we feel a need to feel sorry for the insane. It doesn't make them any less guilty or dangerous. If anything, it's another argument against the possibility of rehabilitation. Insane or not, hurt a child like that and society doesn't need you to continue breathing.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
Certainly, this is a very emotional reaction, but it is inconsistent with the assertion that atheism is the truth about the nature of reality. If atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality, then there are no such things as "sane" and "insane" in the senses we *all* know those words to mean. If atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality, then there are no such things as "innocence" and guilt;" there are no such things as "choices" and "responsibility." Indeed, if atheism were actually the truth about the nature of reality, then there are no such things as "reason" and "rationality."
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I was speaking in the hypothetical.
I understand that; but I was replying in the concrete, as his original assertion was concrete rather than hypothetical.
And I was merely accepting the terms of his argument in order to counter-argue that the ethical nature of a given individual, as important as it may be, is not the point at all.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Granted, you can't be mentally stable that think that sticking a child in a microwave is a rational act. But... Sometimes I feel that mental illness is all the more reason to fry somebody. In this kind on case, I don't know why we feel a need to feel sorry for the insane. It doesn't make them any less guilty or dangerous. If anything, it's another argument against the possibility of rehabilitation. Insane or not, hurt a child like that and society doesn't need you to continue breathing.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
Who said we had to be sorry for the nsane? IMHO, the question between criminal and insane is relevant when it is about providing an answer. Should we put into jail mentally ill people? There's no chance that jail cures them, and the problem stays the same when they are released. Is jail a deterrent for such people? Probably not. So we put people behind bars after they committed such an action because we have no other solution to provide. We are not far from the Middle Age when insane people were locked somewhere.
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
-
But you're just so easy.
digital man wrote:
But you're just so easy.
We all know that assertion simply cannot be true; just look at how often some of you try to hit on me (*), to no avail: clearly, I am *not* easy. (*) How else do you people expect me to interpret all the sexual imagery that so many of you try to inflict upon me: extremely clumsy attempts at seduction.
-
Why? Why do you people get so bent out of shape when other people behave in ways consistent with the philosophy and metaphysics you yourselves espouse?
Ilíon wrote:
Why do you people get so bent out of shape
We dont.
Ilíon wrote:
people behave in ways consistent with the philosophy and metaphysics you yourselves espouse
We dont espouse boiling babies. We just espouse that god doesnt exist. The reason we have morality is that it is good for society as a whole, and what is good for society as a whole is good for the individual. Our gross morality is selfish. I will treat others as I want them to treat me. At a finer level morality is dictated by social expection.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Certainly, this is a very emotional reaction, but it is inconsistent with the assertion that atheism is the truth about the nature of reality. If atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality, then there are no such things as "sane" and "insane" in the senses we *all* know those words to mean. If atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality, then there are no such things as "innocence" and guilt;" there are no such things as "choices" and "responsibility." Indeed, if atheism were actually the truth about the nature of reality, then there are no such things as "reason" and "rationality."
-
And I was merely accepting the terms of his argument in order to counter-argue that the ethical nature of a given individual, as important as it may be, is not the point at all.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Ro0ke wrote:
Those statements don't make sense.
They do make sense. Moreover, they are all true. (For, after all, things may make sense, and yet be false.) I have no experience of you, so I have no idea whether you (presonally) are willing to think critically about these things (as I already know that most of the persons who most frequently post here are not so willing). Therefore, the reasonable thing to do is to assume, unless shown otherwise, that you are willing to think critically (and I am a reasonable man). What is that that you think "doesn't make sense?" What is it that you're having difficulty grasping? Until I know what piece(s) of information you're missing, I can hardly try to supply it.
-
Yep. A total moron. He's got 25 years to think about it and rot.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
Ro0ke wrote:
Those statements don't make sense.
They do make sense. Moreover, they are all true. (For, after all, things may make sense, and yet be false.) I have no experience of you, so I have no idea whether you (presonally) are willing to think critically about these things (as I already know that most of the persons who most frequently post here are not so willing). Therefore, the reasonable thing to do is to assume, unless shown otherwise, that you are willing to think critically (and I am a reasonable man). What is that that you think "doesn't make sense?" What is it that you're having difficulty grasping? Until I know what piece(s) of information you're missing, I can hardly try to supply it.
Ilíon wrote:
What is that that you think "doesn't make sense?" What is it that you're having difficulty grasping? Until I know what piece(s) of information you're missing, I can hardly try to supply it.
Fair enough. I don't understand what religion, or the lack of religion, has to do with the definition of guilt or innocence, sanity or insanity.
-
Ilíon wrote:
Why do you people get so bent out of shape
We dont.
Ilíon wrote:
people behave in ways consistent with the philosophy and metaphysics you yourselves espouse
We dont espouse boiling babies. We just espouse that god doesnt exist. The reason we have morality is that it is good for society as a whole, and what is good for society as a whole is good for the individual. Our gross morality is selfish. I will treat others as I want them to treat me. At a finer level morality is dictated by social expection.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Ilíon Why do you people get so bent out of shape when people behave in ways consistent with the philosophy and metaphysics you yourselves espouse? . fat_boy We dont espouse boiling babies.
*Real* stupidity is not intentional; the "stupidity" of your comment is intentional. Therefore, your comment is not a reflection of actual stupidity, but of something else. I'm thinking it's a reflection of intellectual dishonesty (or, in old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon, it's a reflection of lying).
-
Certainly, this is a very emotional reaction, but it is inconsistent with the assertion that atheism is the truth about the nature of reality. If atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality, then there are no such things as "sane" and "insane" in the senses we *all* know those words to mean. If atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality, then there are no such things as "innocence" and guilt;" there are no such things as "choices" and "responsibility." Indeed, if atheism were actually the truth about the nature of reality, then there are no such things as "reason" and "rationality."
What the hell are you talking about goober? You're so far off topic I'm not sure you're even on the right site, much less in the right forum. I wouldn't hazard a guess about the 'nature of reality' at all. And I've never claimed Atheism is the answer to anything, much less truth. I'm not an atheist. Sit down, take a few deep breaths, get a hold of yourself and take your medication. Or call your sponsor. Or do whatever it is that you're supposed to do when you start foaming at the mouth. Have you tried meditation? It has a good calming effect.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Ilíon Why do you people get so bent out of shape when people behave in ways consistent with the philosophy and metaphysics you yourselves espouse? . fat_boy We dont espouse boiling babies.
*Real* stupidity is not intentional; the "stupidity" of your comment is intentional. Therefore, your comment is not a reflection of actual stupidity, but of something else. I'm thinking it's a reflection of intellectual dishonesty (or, in old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon, it's a reflection of lying).
Ilíon wrote:
people behave in ways consistent with the philosophy and metaphysics you yourselves espouse
We do NOT espouse boiling babies. Get it? Its simple. YOU are wrong. We DO NOT espouse boiling babies. We espouse the non existence of God. Our morality has a different root from yours. Dont you get it?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Who said we had to be sorry for the nsane? IMHO, the question between criminal and insane is relevant when it is about providing an answer. Should we put into jail mentally ill people? There's no chance that jail cures them, and the problem stays the same when they are released. Is jail a deterrent for such people? Probably not. So we put people behind bars after they committed such an action because we have no other solution to provide. We are not far from the Middle Age when insane people were locked somewhere.
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
OK touché. But in a case like this, if there's a mental condition that caused this and not just a mix of evil and stupidity, what treatments would help him be 'normal?' Medication? Still can't let him out of confinement, all he has to do to kill somebody is stop taking his pills.
K. wrote:
Should we put into jail mentally ill people?
Plain old garden variety jail? Probably not. They should be treated for their illness in an institution that's equally secure as jail. But in a case like this, no jail, no treatment, just lethal injection. This guy is a fantastic argument for capital punishment.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Ilíon wrote:
What is that that you think "doesn't make sense?" What is it that you're having difficulty grasping? Until I know what piece(s) of information you're missing, I can hardly try to supply it.
Fair enough. I don't understand what religion, or the lack of religion, has to do with the definition of guilt or innocence, sanity or insanity.
Ro0ke wrote:
I don't understand what religion, or the lack of religion, has to do with the definition of guilt or innocence, sanity or insanity.
I didn't say anything about religion or irreligion ("religion" is rarely my topic); I'm talking about the logical consequences and logical entailments of atheism, of the denial that there is a God. I'm talking about assertions about the fundamental nature of reality. I'm talking about basic worldviews (there are only two available to us). The question of whether there is or is not a God isn't some irrelevant or unimportant (and/or uninteresting) hold-over from "the Dark Ages;" it is, rather, a question about the very nature of reality. It is, in fact, the First Question, because all other questions we can ask, and thus all answers we can possibly derive, logically follow from the answer we give to the question: "Is there a God?" edit: also, I wasn't talking about the definitions of such words as 'guilt' and 'innocence,' 'sanity' and 'insanity,' but rather the real existence of what those words refer to.
-
digital man wrote:
But you're just so easy.
We all know that assertion simply cannot be true; just look at how often some of you try to hit on me (*), to no avail: clearly, I am *not* easy. (*) How else do you people expect me to interpret all the sexual imagery that so many of you try to inflict upon me: extremely clumsy attempts at seduction.
Ahem, I've seen your picture: anyone who wears a burkha is automatically fugly and you compound it with your oversize ego and undersize intellect. Certainly not the type of lady I'd go for...
-
Ro0ke wrote:
I don't understand what religion, or the lack of religion, has to do with the definition of guilt or innocence, sanity or insanity.
I didn't say anything about religion or irreligion ("religion" is rarely my topic); I'm talking about the logical consequences and logical entailments of atheism, of the denial that there is a God. I'm talking about assertions about the fundamental nature of reality. I'm talking about basic worldviews (there are only two available to us). The question of whether there is or is not a God isn't some irrelevant or unimportant (and/or uninteresting) hold-over from "the Dark Ages;" it is, rather, a question about the very nature of reality. It is, in fact, the First Question, because all other questions we can ask, and thus all answers we can possibly derive, logically follow from the answer we give to the question: "Is there a God?" edit: also, I wasn't talking about the definitions of such words as 'guilt' and 'innocence,' 'sanity' and 'insanity,' but rather the real existence of what those words refer to.
-
digital man wrote:
But you're just so easy.
We all know that assertion simply cannot be true; just look at how often some of you try to hit on me (*), to no avail: clearly, I am *not* easy. (*) How else do you people expect me to interpret all the sexual imagery that so many of you try to inflict upon me: extremely clumsy attempts at seduction.
I bet you dress up in a skirt and wear makeup don't you? I bet you have a full length mirror that you look in all the time. You masturbate while you stick a dildo up your ass while watching in that mirror.
The Digital World. It is an amazing place in which we primitive humans interact. Our flesh made this synthetic machine. You see, we are so smart, we know a lot of stuff. We were grown from cells that came from the universe, which the matter and physics I'm typing in it is amazing how the universe is working. Human life is very amazing. How I experience this sh*t its like wow.
-
Ahem, I've seen your picture: anyone who wears a burkha is automatically fugly and you compound it with your oversize ego and undersize intellect. Certainly not the type of lady I'd go for...
digital man wrote:
Ahem, I've seen your picture: anyone who wears a burkha is automatically fugly and you compound it with your oversize ego and undersize intellect. Certainly not the type of lady I'd go for...
Actually this is his picture here: http://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142[^]
Furthermore, in Galileo's time and for quite some time afterwards, the "scientific evidence" was *against* heliocentrism. - Ilion
-
digital man wrote:
Apparently he was a born again christian...
Anyone can *claim* anything. You know, sort of like you are tendentiously doing here. His actions are consistent with atheism; his actions are consistent with what you fools assert is the truth about the nature of reality. *YOUR* (plural) actions in this thread are not consistent with what you (plural) assert is the truth about the nature of reality. You fools are acting as though this man is morally responsible for what he did. You fools are acting as though there is such a thing as objective morality (which you verbally deny), and that he has violated it. You fools are acting as though there is such a thing as justice (which cannot really exist were atheism true), and that justice demand that this fellow be punished, and worse than punished, for his violation of morality.
Once again you presume to speak for God. You pervert and degrade the teachings of Christianity with every breath you utter. You are an abomination and a liar who cares nothing about Christ or God, only about yourself.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface