This is disgusting beyond words.

[SenorDingDong]

Originally Posted by highlordmugfug

1. No shit, also irrelevant.

2. Because if "it's their culture, so don't say anything about it" applies here, it should apply to all other situations we find issue with that happened in any country we don't live, so unless you support those as well, or explain how those are any different, you're being wildly inconsistent.

3. So, if a law exists, your only option is to follow it, regardless of how ridiculous or meanspirited it may be? Bad news black people: didn't like slavery? How ....ing dare you? All those lynchings and what not? Had it coming, don't run from massah, it's the law, morons! Just because you're not strong/brave/impassioned enough to stand against laws you don't agree with doesn't mean that other people aren't, so neither me nor anyone else gives a damn if you'd stick your neck out for what you believe or not. And obviously they ARE trying to stand up for what they believe in and they ARE trying to change things in their own country, but since they're apparently not in the majority no one really gives a damn and they're having issues (much like, hey look at that, every other ....ing large social change ever), which brings me to the last point...

4. I never said I was morally superior to them, nor did I say that we should wage war on them or do anything to try to actually change it. I expressed a humanist opinion about the situation that occurred. I have every right to express my opinion (after all that is OUR culture, isn't it?) and I have every right in the world to call you out for being a and yes, being smug. Telling me I'm "good at using a search engine" when really, I knew about those things already and since they were good enforcements of what I was saying aka evidence, a concept you seem to be only vaguely familiar with, (if you want to talk down to me, I have no issue returning the favor) I linked them makes you condescending. So yeah, up yours for that. And once again, you've just repeated again "well, you only think that because of where you're from!" Yeah, there's nothing (cough empathy cough) besides where I grew up that could possibly affect my opinions on things. And the USA has NEVER had any sort of issues with oppression, or religious intolerance, or violence against minorities (religious, ethnic or otherwise). And obviously, you know exactly what kind of people I've grown up around, or the predominant viewpoint in places I've been, or where exactly I've traveled to, or what kinds of intolerance I've seen on a day to day basis in some of these places, right? Because I'm from the US, I have to have a viewpoint that is solely based on being there, right? I mean, all those "USA vs UK" things I see all over the internet have strong basis and reasons to support them, right?

Your argument sucks ass, and you can't support it for shit.

1.

it's not really that pleasant for all the people getting beaten to death/threatened with death over mild disagreements.

Of course punishment isn't pleasant--who the .... ever said it was? If punishment was meant to make you feel good, we'd all be walking around doing whatever we like.

Seems relevant given what you said.


2. How am I being inconsistent? You made claims that I thought all these events enjoyable--never said anything remotely close to that. Of course, it made you sound like a crusader to argue against someone who has such atrocious views that you yourself appointed to them, but since they aren't my views, I won't argue them.


3. Never said anything remotely close to that either. Slavery was abolished because American's took action. Not because the French or some other country sat around and talked shit or hopped into the charade. As I said before, it is the people of a country's job to change the laws. Of course, you have no problem with making me out to be a monster if it makes you feel your argument will sound better

4. Of course I repeated--there isn't much more to the situation than what I've said throughout all three posts. This isn't a "discuss various atrocities throughout history" thread or a "what are your religious views and how upset can you get over them" thread. You seem to be the only guy slinging insults, but that's fine--read into things and feel insulted, it's your right.

But the closing of your argument:

Because I'm from the US, I have to have a viewpoint that is solely based on being there, right? I mean, all those "USA vs UK" things I see all over the internet have strong basis and reasons to support them, right?

Is just ridiculous. Unless you were born in a country with laws similar to Indonesia's, your views are most definitely dictated by the fact that you live in a free country. You also seem to be under the impression that your viewpoint has to be backed by large quantities of articles; why? We're (in essence) talking about two subjects; religion and law. One for which there is no factual backing, the other which it was proven he broke. You can post fifty articles, but they will not change the fact that he clearly and intentionally broke his country's law, for which there is a stated punishment.

You seem to be under the impression that I agree with their laws, because all your arguments are geared toward (as I said above) making me sound like a soulless monster--not so. My original statement--in case you forgot, as you seem to have become carried away with various attempts to make me out as if I am all for what they're doing--is that I believe it is terrible. Trying to claim that I am pro violence and persecution (as you have done numerous times now) is a blatant overreach on your part. Of course, it makes your argument sound much better if you are able to claim those things, so I understand why you did it.

You say my argument sucks ass, and you expect me to support it--well, if you look at a map, you'll clearly see that we are not in Indonesia, and if you do a nice little Google search, you'll also see that their laws are different than ours. Other than that, I don't get what I'm supposed to be supporting--the fact that he broke a law? Sticking up some quotes won't lend an opinion any more weight.

[Nimgoble]

HEY GUYS, DID I MISS THE MORAL RELATIVISM ARGUMENT?!

Edit: OT, this is a rather shitty situation. But that's what he gets for posting "God doesn't exist" in a nation populated by idiots that believe in a deity in one form or another. People that have made blasphemy illegal.

[Volteau]

I'll say one last thing on this topic since I know that, for the most part, it will be futile to expand further as I know I will not change anyone's mind/opinion/stance on the matter.

I understand that many of you dislike moral relativism since, well, to put in layman's terms, it sucks. It allows for a myriad of unjust acts to go unpunished by simply stating that "in their collective minds, this is in fact, just". But one thing people tend to overlook is that moral conservatism can be just as horrible. This moral conservatism then becomes the benchmark in which much of a society functions in. It is what has kept same-sex marriage illegal since, well, forever. Placing your societies moral system over another's (even in your own society) can be considered a type of "psychological imperialism" (if, of course, taken to the extreme of force-to-obtain). There will always be those who do not conform to this way of seeing morality of course, and sedition is a healthy part of any society (just look at Noam Chomsky). This dude posted God doesn't exist to provoke, to rebel. I for one applaud him for his acts and the gall he must have had, but if you are going to act in a seditious way against your societies moral paradigm, then get ready for the consequences (living there, he must have known what they were). I know it may seem trivial for us to write something so vain on FB, but obviously it wasn't to the many people that read what he wrote.

On a lighter note, he should go into hiding, and start an underground revolution! REVOLUTION CALLING!

No? Ok...

[TheHandOfStone]

Looks like I'm going to have to lay out an entire proof for a secular ethical framework if I want to participate in this thread. I'm not sure if it's worth doing to be quite honest.

[pink freud]

Originally Posted by TheHandOfStone

Looks like I'm going to have to lay out an entire proof for a secular ethical framework if I want to participate in this thread. I'm not sure if it's worth doing to be quite honest.

Just link to the Psychology article on wikipedia.

Empathy is a biological thing, so no religion needed

[Necris]

It blows my mind that at one moment people will argue in support of the state supported discrimination towards and murders of atheists in Muslim countries and then will decry the state supported discrimination and murders that took place in Nazi Germany during the holocaust. Have enough people not died for the former to be sufficiently outrageous to you?

.... cultural relativism and anyone who brings it up as an argument in support of what amounts to senseless murder.

[Nimgoble]

Originally Posted by Necris

It blows my mind that at one moment people will argue in support of the state supported discrimination towards and murders of atheists in Muslim countries and then will decry the state supported discrimination and murders that took place in Nazi Germany during the holocaust. Have enough people not died for the former to be sufficiently outrageous to you?

This is a really good comparison. Although, I don't know that I've ever heard these nations actually decry the actions of The Third Reich.

.... cultural relativism and anyone who brings it up as an argument in support of what amounts to senseless murder.

I'm going to go ahead and assume that this was said out of frustration and, as such, may not be articulated as well as you wanted. With that being said, I'm going to knit-pick a little bit, if only for the mental exercise.

I know that for the majority of people, moral relativism, culturally or otherwise, is frustrating. They want a universal, black-or-white set of rules/values. Indeed, your statement shows just that. But what it also reflects, and what I think most people miss, is the ethnocentricity of the speaker. How is it ethnocentric? Stating ".... cultural relativism" implies that there are some things that transcend culture, in your opinion, and you have the right view on said things. As an example, you stated that their actions would be "senseless murder". The "senseless" portion is the point of contention here. I'm sure for the people committing the murder, it makes a great deal of sense. Your cultural views on the matter, however, are different. So, you call their actions senseless, because you don't agree with their values.

Now, I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but I'm very much a cultural/moral relativist. And when I bring it up, it's usually in response to absolutist claims on morality, etc. That does not, however, mean that I'm using it to support the group these claims are being leveled at. I find the thought of this atheist being executed rather infuriating. If I were to spout my opinion of these people, it'd wind up being a long-winded rant full of disgust. And it'd be my opinion. And I know that. I'm just as ethnocentric as the people I'm arguing against. Which is the point that I'm trying to bring up when arguing against absolutist claims: We're ALL ethnocentric. And that's okay. Just know that you aren't any more right than the people you're condemning(in an absolutist sense).

A common complaint about that idea is: "Well, then how do we have rules? How do we charge people for crimes if no one is ever wrong?" The mistake these people are making is in thinking that you can't have a right or wrong if there isn't an absolute. The answer, though most people won't like it, is: The most powerful group makes the rules. Usually, this is the majority. Sometimes it can be a very powerful minority. Theoretically, a single person could do it. The problem here though is that without the illusion of absolutism, people start to feel like bullies for enforcing their rules on those who disagree with them. And that is why I argue against absolutism. People should always remember that, though they may be part of the moral majority, they are still just the biggest bullies on the playground. And I think this would give most people pause before they decided to make and/or enforce their rules on those who are different.


Aaaaaand that turned out longer than I meant it to be...

[ghstofperdition]

You don't have to be from America or from a certain faith (or lack thereof) to see that killing people over a lack of faith is both wrong and stupid. Arrogant as we may be, Americans haven't gained a monopoly on this just yet. If we have fault here, it would be that the way we handle issues like this sucks. (see Iraq and Saddam Hussein)

Freedom to believe in whatever you want is a basic human right, and is only questioned when it looks like others might actual have the chance to believe in something that contradicts your own beliefs. As was said, if we were trying to force walmarts on them, moral relativism is relevant. But killing people off because they favor science over religion? Moral conservatism has the stronger argument. I see both as necessary, and a balance of the two as vital. The problem then becomes, "Well where do we draw the line?" Sadly that is a hard question to answer. Truthfully, to gain better insight, one must shed their need for absolutism in order to better answer the question. Life is NEVER black and white, and the only time one can safely say something is good or bad is when the answer becomes self-apparent. In this case, trampling human rights is so inherently wrong on a massive scale that it becomes obvious that change is needed. But I feel it's up to the people of Indonesia to institute that change. We can and should express our disgust with this, but more lasting change would come from the minority rising up against their oppressors. (see civil rights movement)

[Nimgoble]

Originally Posted by ghstofperdition

You don't have to be from America or from a certain faith (or lack thereof) to see that killing people over a lack of faith is both wrong and stupid. Arrogant as we may be, Americans haven't gained a monopoly on this just yet. If we have fault here, it would be that the way we handle issues like this sucks. (see Iraq and Saddam Hussein)

I agree to some extent. You don't have to be from America to discern any of those things. Or, rather, American culture isn't the only culture that finds killing people over a lack of faith to be both wrong and stupid. I'm lumping all of those cultures in to one. A "humanist" culture, if you will.

However, that is the view of this one culture.

Freedom to believe in whatever you want is a basic human right, and is only questioned when it looks like others might actual have the chance to believe in something that contradicts your own beliefs. As was said, if we were trying to force walmarts on them, moral relativism is relevant. But killing people off because they favor science over religion? Moral conservatism has the stronger argument.

Not quite. There are no intrinsic basic human rights. "Basic human rights" are rights that the moral majority decides to grant to everyone. As such, not every culture agrees on what qualifies as a basic human right. Moral conservatism has the stronger argument to you and a great deal of people. But not to everyone.

I see both as necessary, and a balance of the two as vital. The problem then becomes, "Well where do we draw the line?" Sadly that is a hard question to answer. Truthfully, to gain better insight, one must shed their need for absolutism in order to better answer the question. Life is NEVER black and white, and the only time one can safely say something is good or bad is when the answer becomes self-apparent.

I was with you up to the conclusion. I guess I still AM with you, to a certain point. But I'm beginning to see that there's something you're overlooking: The only way that an answer to one of these questions becomes self-apparent is when it clearly violates one of your values.

In this case, trampling human rights is so inherently wrong on a massive scale that it becomes obvious that change is needed.

And there it is. I know I've said this above, but just to reiterate: Freedom to believe whatever you want to believe is a basic human right in the opinion of a certain group of people. Not to everyone. You may already know this, but your phrasing makes it seem like you think this is an intrinsic right that we humans are born with.

But I feel it's up to the people of Indonesia to institute that change. We can and should express our disgust with this, but more lasting change would come from the minority rising up against their oppressors. (see civil rights movement)

I agree. I would even like for this to all be solved peacefully, with the majority in Indonesia overturning the blasphemy law(if that's even possible). I doubt it will happen, but hey: It's a nice thought.

[Waelstrum]

Some people are claiming that the only people who are allowed to change a country's law (no matter how unjust they seem to us westerners) are the people from that country. Would you extend this claim to be against the economic sanctions that almost every country placed against South Africa during apartheid? If it wasn't for outside pressure helping Mandela and the ANC, apartheid might still be going. Was it wrong for us foreigners to interfere with their culture of racial segregation and oppression? What if somehow an extremist government took over Australia, would you leave them to oppress me out of cultural sensitivity?

[Jakke]

Originally Posted by Waelstrum

Some people are claiming that the only people who are allowed to change a country's law (no matter how unjust they seem to us westerners) are the people from that country. Would you extend this claim to be against the economic sanctions that almost every country placed against South Africa during apartheid? If it wasn't for outside pressure helping Mandela and the ANC, apartheid might still be going. Was it wrong for us foreigners to interfere with their culture of racial segregation and oppression? What if somehow an extremist government took over Australia, would you leave them to oppress me out of cultural sensitivity?

Man, that's like, imperialism man. You can't do that man, the white man is pure oppression man, you have to like fight the power man.

[highlordmugfug]

Originally Posted by Waelstrum

Some people are claiming that the only people who are allowed to change a country's law (no matter how unjust they seem to us westerners) are the people from that country. Would you extend this claim to be against the economic sanctions that almost every country placed against South Africa during apartheid? If it wasn't for outside pressure helping Mandela and the ANC, apartheid might still be going. Was it wrong for us foreigners to interfere with their culture of racial segregation and oppression? What if somehow an extremist government took over Australia, would you leave them to oppress me out of cultural sensitivity?

Yes.

We aren't from there, so we can't say anything.

I, personally, hope for another holocaust. Not because I support it or anything, it'd just be a really good reason to flex my moral relativist muscles.

If we're lucky, we might even get some slavery and maybe some child sex trafficking involved too!






















[/obviously_sarcastic]



EDIT: There are topics and issues where moral relativism can provide good arguments, hell I've had some discussions and used them myself, but when people are being killed or threatened with death for something as small as a disagreement, it's moronic to try to use it as validation for that, or as a reason why not to say anything against it. Your moral relativism can go .... itself if people are dying.

[Nimgoble]

Originally Posted by Waelstrum

Some people are claiming that the only people who are allowed to change a country's law (no matter how unjust they seem to us westerners) are the people from that country.

I'm not one of the people making that claim.

Would you extend this claim to be against the economic sanctions that almost every country placed against South Africa during apartheid? If it wasn't for outside pressure helping Mandela and the ANC, apartheid might still be going. Was it wrong for us foreigners to interfere with their culture of racial segregation and oppression?

No, it wasn't wrong. Because we said so. Our morality has more power behind it, therefore it's the one that is enforced.

What if somehow an extremist government took over Australia, would you leave them to oppress me out of cultural sensitivity?

You're asking me, personally? Personally, I don't care about much outside of my immediate world. Australia does not fall under that category. So yes, I would leave them to oppress you. Not because I'm culturally sensitive, but because I just don't care about Australia. Does that mean that I agree with what they're doing? Not at all.

Originally Posted by highlordmugfug

Yes.

We aren't from there, so we can't say anything.

I, personally, hope for another holocaust. Not because I support it or anything, it'd just be a really good reason to flex my moral relativist muscles.

If we're lucky, we might even get some slavery and maybe some child sex trafficking involved too!
[/obviously_sarcastic]

EDIT: There are topics and issues where moral relativism can provide good arguments, hell I've had some discussions and used them myself, but when people are being killed or threatened with death for something as small as a disagreement, it's moronic to try to use it as validation for that, or as a reason why not to say anything against it. Your moral relativism can go .... itself if people are dying.

I'm not sure if you're saying this in response to me. I don't see why you would be, seeing as how I haven't used moral relativism as a validation for the actions of these people, nor as a reason to not say anything against it. So...

[highlordmugfug]

^It wasn't directed at you, no.