|
Fulchrum posted:You'll notice they never make those two arguments to the same people. They also never make those two arguments in the same conversation, since even they have enough self-awareness to know that it would be contradictory. Edible Hat posted:I don't get it. How does this not confirm that there is no ahistorical system of morality that applies to all circumstances, considering the GOP stand-in can willfully murder someone? And what does it say about the effectiveness of conservative Christian morality that a person supposedly embracing that system can do that? It's just the usual argument evangelicals make. They believe that without God, you cannot have a system of objective morality. If there's no objective morality, then that makes morality subjective. If you have subjective morality, then nothing can ever truly be wrong because what is wrong can change at any time. The conservative stand-in is showing how dumb those dumb liberals are for believing morality is subjective. For you see, if morality is subjective, then I can decide it is good to shoot and kill you. Since you would believe shooting and killing you is wrong, that proves that there is objective morality. And since you cannot have objective morality without God, therefore God exists, and you're being willfully ignorant by not following God's rules. It's supposed to be "Aha I am showing you what happens if you actually believe in moral relativism."
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 20:46 |
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:The conservative stand-in is showing how dumb those dumb liberals are for believing morality is subjective. For you see, if morality is subjective, then I can decide it is good to shoot and kill you. Since you would believe shooting and killing you is wrong, that proves that there is objective morality. And since you cannot have objective morality without God, therefore God exists, and you're being willfully ignorant by not following God's rules. Its very convenient that the "objective morality" of god is so open to interpretation. God said its ok to murder you because of these rationalizations I just made up *bombs hospital*
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Its very convenient that the "objective morality" of god is so open to interpretation. God said its ok to murder you because of these rationalizations I just made up *bombs hospital* The pacifist interpretation of the ten commandments has not necessarily been the dominant view through all of history. It only seems obvious to us because of the English translations which use the word kill in lieu of the word "murder." The original text of the 10 commandments technically really only bans, "murder" as in an unwarranted killing of an innocent person. The old testament of the Bible makes it pretty clear that God was fine with killing as long as it wasn't "murder" as further defined in the rest of the texts. The commandments applying to people who are not members of the tribe also relies on an interpretation of the word "neighbor." We think of it as being any fellow human being in the modern day, but for much of the old testament it was interpreted to mean a fellow tribe member. So there's actually biblical backing for all sorts of crazy violence if you approach it from a more literalist view. You had a lot of people during slavery actually using bits of the bible to justify slavery as the natural state of the world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 07:29
|
|
ErIog posted:So there's actually biblical backing for all sorts of crazy violence if you approach it from a more literalist view. You had a lot of people during slavery actually using bits of the bible to justify slavery as the natural state of the world. I thought the general view on slavery in the bible was that it was only wrong to keep Christians as slaves?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
The OT allowed for Hebrew slaves, but it was only a temporary deal that's similar to indentured servitude. They'd serve for a number of years and then they got their freedom, along with some money/property from their master. They usually did this if they were in debt to someone and couldn't repay. There is one stipulation the Law lays out though, which is if a Hebrew man got married while he was a slave, his wife/kids became property of the person he was indebted to once his obligation was over. He could choose to stay with his family, but if he did, he would remain a slave for his entire life. This only applied if it happened while he was a slave, if he was already married when he became a slave, this didn't apply. Not that it makes it any less lovely, obviously, but it is a difference. Parents could also sell their daughters into slavery too, so there's that. Women who became slaves were slaves for life, unlike the men. The New Testament does not prohibit owning Christians as slaves, even if the master is Christian. In fact 1 Timothy says that Christian slaves who have Christian masters must serve them even better than they would serve a non-believer. The only commandment to slave owners was that they should treat their slaves well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:This actually raises a weird conundrum for me. My facebook gets assaulted regularly by libertarian types railing against Lincoln. I think it was the Daniel Day Lewis movie recently that brought them out of the woodwork.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 08:53
|
|
.
|
So far 17 (!!!) women have come out against Bill Cosby, with some of them even saying he laced their drinks with drugs during the sexual assault. Conservatives still feel the need to defend him because he's a black person that called out other blacks to stop being lazy. At some point, can't you stop and say "maybe I shouldn't support a psychopath?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:So far 17 (!!!) women have come out against Bill Cosby, with some of them even saying he laced their drinks with drugs during the sexual assault. Conservatives still feel the need to defend him because he's a black person that called out other blacks to stop being lazy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:That's not the reason people are supporting him (or at least not the only reason). Rather, it's because people in general (and Republicans are really bad about it) are doubtful of sexual assault claims, and Cosby has this image as this upstanding figure, so he surely can't be a rapist. Turns out that even nice-seeming people can do horrible things. I don't think it's a partisan thing so much as an age thing. Case in point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scandal Jimmy Savile wikipedia posted:Sir James Wilson Vincent "Jimmy" Savile, OBE, KCSG (/ˈsævɪl/, 31 October 1926 – 29 October 2011) was an English DJ, television presenter, media personality and charity fundraiser. He hosted the BBC television show Jim'll Fix It, was the first and last presenter of the long-running BBC music chart show Top of the Pops, and raised an estimated £40 million for charities.[1] At the time of his death he was widely praised for his personal qualities and as a fund-raiser.[2] After his death, hundreds of allegations of sexual abuse were made against him, leading the police to believe that Savile was a predatory sex offender,[3] and may have been one of Britain's most prolific sexual offenders.[4][5][6][7] There had been allegations during his lifetime, but they were dismissed and accusers ignored or disbelieved; Savile took legal action against some accusers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:That's not the reason people are supporting him (or at least not the only reason). Rather, it's because people in general (and Republicans are really bad about it) are doubtful of sexual assault claims, and Cosby has this image as this upstanding figure, so he surely can't be a rapist. Turns out that even nice-seeming people can do horrible things. I don't think it's a partisan thing so much as an age thing. There does seem to be, inexplicably, some political element to it (I couldn't say how widespread, however): 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
I absolutely promise you nobody ever thought Jimmy Saville was an upstanding person and the reason he was doubted was because everyone was sure he was having sex with his mothers corpse. The fact it didn't get exposed then has nothing to do with him and everything to do with who else may or may not have been drowning children in bathtubs while loving them inbetween their daytime job as an MP.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Rolf Harris may be a better example.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Rolf Harris may be a better example. Rolf was still turned upon pretty quick as I remember? Maybe John Peel? poo poo I've still not heard anything, absolutely anything against him. He wrote about having sex with underage girls in his biography, and he is still a hero of BBC music. e; Seriously though everyone, everyone knew Saville was a paedophile. The police, hospital staff, care workers, comedians, tv presenters. It was just a thing. HIGNFY talk about it when they said that you simply cannot present an accusation to someone on hearsay, and the police were suppressing the abuse reports (which they knew about) because of the fact that 80s Britain was openly paedophile friendly. Spangly A fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Nov 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:That's not the reason people are supporting him (or at least not the only reason). Rather, it's because people in general (and Republicans are really bad about it) are doubtful of sexual assault claims, and Cosby has this image as this upstanding figure, so he surely can't be a rapist. Turns out that even nice-seeming people can do horrible things. I don't think it's a partisan thing so much as an age thing. I, for one, am going with "innocent until proven guilty." Maybe Cosby is a rapist, maybe he isn't, but far as I can tell it's too early in the game to say for sure and "court of public opinion" is not how we should be doling out punishments. If there's enough substance to the accusations the sure, let's put him on trial. If there isn't then sorry, that's how the law works. If he is guilty then let's throw him in a jail cell for a while. It's worth remembering that, at the moment, false rape allegations against prominent men do happen and we have seen quite a few high profile rape cases that turned out to be complete bullshit over the years. The major problem is that allegations of sexual crimes are very frequently "guilty until...no wait you're just loving guilty" in the public eye.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:It's worth remembering that, at the moment, false rape allegations against prominent men do happen and we have seen quite a few high profile rape cases that turned out to be complete bullshit over the years. The major problem is that allegations of sexual crimes are very frequently "guilty until...no wait you're just loving guilty" in the public eye. Care to put some numbers behind that claim? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Care to put some numbers behind that claim? The FBI has run the numbers it's 2%
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Care to put some numbers behind that claim? From what I've read the numbers vary wildly so I can't really comment on how prevalent it is but the fact is it still happens. I'm thinking about the gigantic media circuses that surrounded things like the lacrosse team. How often did we have people screaming for blood and about how they just knew the guys were guilty? Not saying we should ignore all rape allegations just that we should not be, you know, automatically jumping to conclusions. Sorry but "guilty until proven innocent" is not, and should not be, how such things work. I'm not presuming Bill Cosby is innocent I'm just saying let the justice system do its job. Too much publicity can make proper investigation all but impossible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
I enjoy LL101 as much as the next guy but could you please not post screen captures of text articles? Or is this some elaborate meta thing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
If anyone watches House of Cards, there was a good episode where a public figure gets called out for sexual abuse, and the main character who makes the allegations tries to find other victims because the public already has a hard time believing you. If you add other victims then your case looks a lot stronger. It's much worse than "false rape reports" than MRAs love to parrot as a talking point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:There does seem to be, inexplicably, some political element to it (I couldn't say how widespread, however): "Crosby?" Is he defending an accused rapist or an accused child abuser? Also, when someone says someone was convicted "in the court of public opinion," I think my response will be "what was his sentence, and how does it compare to the sentence of someone actually convicted of this crime?" I haven't tried it yet, but it might work. Edit: I fully agree that "innocent until proven guilty" is how it should work legally, but that doesn't have anything to do with what I personally believe. Especially considering that most of the women accusing Cosby are talking about things that are well past any statute of limitations (and also aren't seeking any monetary damages), it's impossible that he would ever be convicted in a court. By that logic, then, we can never decide whether it's true or not, no matter how much evidence there is. Jurgan fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Nov 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:I, for one, am going with "innocent until proven guilty." Maybe Cosby is a rapist, maybe he isn't, but far as I can tell it's too early in the game to say for sure and "court of public opinion" is not how we should be doling out punishments. If there's enough substance to the accusations the sure, let's put him on trial. If there isn't then sorry, that's how the law works. If he is guilty then let's throw him in a jail cell for a while. There will never be a trial. The statute of limitations for criminal prosecution has long-since passed. The court of public opinion--the simple act of being believed--is the only justice these women will ever get. In fact, the only way that this will end up in court is if Cosby were to sue the women for libel, defamation, slander, or breach of some prior settlement agreement where he paid them for their silence with regard the rape. Unfortunately, the best defense against libel, defamation or slander would be "Truth." It would open Cosby up for weeks or months of testimony from women accusing him of rape, allow the defense to subpoena the NBC employee who acted as his fixer, hotel staff, agents etc. He would never do that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:That's not the reason people are supporting him (or at least not the only reason). Rather, it's because people in general (and Republicans are really bad about it) are doubtful of sexual assault claims, and Cosby has this image as this upstanding figure, so he surely can't be a rapist. Turns out that even nice-seeming people can do horrible things. I don't think it's a partisan thing so much as an age thing. Can't it be both? I've known about the story for a bit, but this conversation led me to read a couple articles on it, and the corresponding comments because I hate myself. There's a big crossover of both the doubt of sexual assault charges against celebrities with pristine public personas like you mention and "this is just blacks/liberals trying to take him down for talking poo poo on urban thugs" defenses. I think it's that the same people are likely to hold both same ideas at the same time, and those people are conservative. Granted, it may not have helped that the comedy bit the set off the social media reaction was questioning how Cosby could smugly lecture the black youth community on their behavior when he had a long history of rape and sexual abuse allegations. Hell, the LL101 gives away that there definitely are Cosby supporters that are even 100% on the side of this being liberals and blacks framing Cosby for criticizing the black community, by projecting the opposing logic onto their strawman opponent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
 "I can only express my ideas through the lens of gaming analogies"
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:
And not even well, at that. Barbie's playing Nintendogs while her friends raid, while she tells them "watch out for enemies" and reads them the raid guide over Vent.  It's probably the worst "girls can do things too" story I've heard lately, since the (young) girls exist only to 1) cause the problem (Skipper) and 2) find someone else to fix it (Barbie), with the older woman being the only competent female character involved - and rather than ask "hey, can you supervise me while I do what you told me to do", Barbie takes the laptop to her two male friends to have them do all the work. poo poo, Barbie doesn't even come across as doing anything other than "idea girl" right at the outset, and carries that the entire way through the story. Next up from the author: "I can be a pet groomer" Barbie puts a bow on a dog's tail after Steve and Ken do all the washing and trimming, "I can be a construction worker" Barbie paints a flower on the window of a finished skyscraper, and "I can be an astronaut" Barbie goes shopping at the Mall of Mars' 5th anniversary sale. Is it really that controversial of an opinion to say that a book telling girls that they can do things should show the girl in question actually doing things?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Staryberry posted:There will never be a trial. The statute of limitations for criminal prosecution has long-since passed. The court of public opinion--the simple act of being believed--is the only justice these women will ever get. Isn't there still the possibility of a civil trial or is the statute up on that too? edit: Also the major problem of the court of public opinion, whether Cosby is guilty or not, is that if throwing somebody under the bus based on that alone is a dangerous, dangerous thing. If that becomes acceptable you're going to start seeing that being used against prominent people that somebody, somewhere doesn't like. Get enough convincing accusations and you will eventually see people being severely punished by public opinion that are totally innocent. Like, you know, a particular lacrosse team. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Nov 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:
These "Barbie Apologists' (is that even a thing?) mostly miss the point of Barbie's behavior in the book. The point of the book was to show Barbie in an unconventional (for Barbie) STEM roll but she's a Computer Engineer in name only. She can't do most things by herself and has to consult other people for their expertise not because she's the leader. If the book was 'Middle Management Barbie' it would have made sense. If the book actually had her making code even for a cutsie project it would have made sense. But now we have a fusion of the two roles and the entire idea of the book falls apart and you can't excuse it with, 'well, that profession is actually like that.' That's like Reggie 'Asians can turn a television into a watch' White levels of stupidity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Isn't there still the possibility of a civil trial or is the statute up on that too? Even if it isn't, a civil trial would validate naysayers' claims that the women were just in it for the money.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:From what I've read the numbers vary wildly so I can't really comment on how prevalent it is but the fact is it still happens. It's pretty unlikely that it's just a coincidence that so many different women are claiming to have been sexually assaulted by this one specific famous person. I could sort of see your reasoning if it were just one, but the chances of someone who has 17 (or whatever the number is) women claim he sexually assaulted them not being a poo poo-stain are extremely low.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Rick_Hunter posted:These "Barbie Apologists' (is that even a thing?) mostly miss the point of Barbie's behavior in the book. The point of the book was to show Barbie in an unconventional (for Barbie) STEM roll but she's a Computer Engineer in name only. She can't do most things by herself and has to consult other people for their expertise not because she's the leader. I looked it up and found the Slate article. The story was clearly written by people who have little to no idea about what a computer engineer is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:edit: Also the major problem of the court of public opinion, whether Cosby is guilty or not, is that if throwing somebody under the bus based on that alone is a dangerous, dangerous thing. If that becomes acceptable you're going to start seeing that being used against prominent people that somebody, somewhere doesn't like. Get enough convincing accusations and you will eventually see people being severely punished by public opinion that are totally innocent. Like, you know, a particular lacrosse team. Well that's one prominent case where the charges were bogus, and then there's about a million where people ignored it. Probably not the greatest argument to make in a situation where people were accusing the guy for decades yet nobody listened.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
"tried, convicted, and sentenced in the court of public opinion" = people talking about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Isn't there still the possibility of a civil trial or is the statute up on that too? Several women did go to the police when it happened, they did report it, they did take him to court, and they were disbelieved/paid to shut up/swept under the rug/had their characters assassinated for their troubles. It's precious that you believe we are living in an age where a man's good reputation can be ruined by some lying slut, but what is far more common is that serial predators are allowed to keep victimizing people because people like you perpetuate the idea that it's just being prudent to ignore the victims until the criminal justice system has found someone guilty. Oh the police didn't believe you at the time and the statute of limitations has run out? Pity, if only you had done something differently somehow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Duke Igthorn posted:"tried, convicted, and sentenced in the court of public opinion" = people talking about it. It's more just "bringing up bad things about someone I like and making others dislike him."
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Jurgan posted:when someone says someone was convicted "in the court of public opinion," I think my response will be "what was his sentence, and how does it compare to the sentence of someone actually convicted of this crime?" 
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Got this in my e-mail direct from the GOP. An offer to buy a pair of these bad boys:   Hell yes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
I give up, what's written on the socks?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
Cercadelmar posted:I give up, what's written on the socks? Signed by George HW Bush.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
GAYMIEN SANDOW posted:Got this in my e-mail direct from the GOP. An offer to buy a pair of these bad boys: Going after the ironic hipster dollar, I see. Actually pretty clever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 20:46 |
|
|
GAYMIEN SANDOW posted:Signed by George HW Bush. The guy who said "Read my lips: no new taxes" and then raised taxes? They're actually embracing him instead of abandoning him as a liberal RINO?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 00:42
|
|