obfuscator Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Well, it's discrimination based on gender which is at the most basic level wrong.And what makes it "wrong"? "It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noxx Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 If a female driving against a car is against the law in Saudi and she drove, then i'm sure she was fully aware of the consequences. Whether or not it is moral or immoral is irrelevant. She broke the law and got the just punishment. Personally i believe it's a bit stupid, and i see no reason for such extremes. But it does not go against my moral standing. She broke the law regardless of how sensible said law is.I know i might sound a bit contradictory with what i just said, so to make it clear: I do believe it's a stupid law. I do not believe her punishment was unjust. Are ... you serious ? This is a dangerous attitude to have. And why would it be a dangerous attitude? "i see no reason for such extremes" - so you agree it is an extreme and unjustified, and then say " it does not go against my moral standing" then where is your moral standing - women actually being flogged for doing something that they ought to be able to do (any other "right" applies equally). what end would you go to to satisfy any law no matter how uncivilized and primitive ? ^a "bit" only haha ? Move to Iran or Pakistan ?I live in Qatar... we neighbor Saudi. I don't think i need to move to see how extreme Islam can be. I see it on a daily basis.Maybe this place has affected my judgement. and thinking. I do agree that it was an extreme, but i didn't agree that it was unjustified. If they don't want to be flogged for driving, they have the option of moving to a different country.And i think it might be their "uncivilized and primitive" enforcement that keeps it one of the safest countries in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nomrombom Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Well, it's discrimination based on gender which is at the most basic level wrong.And what makes it "wrong"? It is prejudiced, ignorant, and dehumanizes women. PM me for fitocracy invite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obfuscator Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Well, it's discrimination based on gender which is at the most basic level wrong.And what makes it "wrong"? It is prejudiced, ignorant, and dehumanizes women.Okay. And I think abortion is prejudiced, ignorant, and dehumanizes unborn children. So abortion is "at the most basic level wrong". "It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nomrombom Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Well, it's discrimination based on gender which is at the most basic level wrong.And what makes it "wrong"? It is prejudiced, ignorant, and dehumanizes women.Okay. And I think abortion is prejudiced, ignorant, and dehumanizes unborn children. So abortion is "at the most basic level wrong". There's nothing prejudiced about abortion. It's not discrimination. It would not matter the gender, race, size, health, whatever of the fetus, there is no judging without knowing as is the case in prejudice. Ignorant is defined as "lacking in knowledge or training; uninformed" and properly performed abortions are explained to the patient before the procedure. The patient must willingly accept the procedure, meaning they are competent to make that decision and think that the benefits outweigh the risks. Whether unborn children are human or not is debatable - women, however, are definitely human. PM me for fitocracy invite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obfuscator Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 There's nothing prejudiced about abortion. It's not discrimination. It would not matter the gender, race, size, health, whatever of the fetus, there is no judging without knowing as is the case in prejudice. Ignorant is defined as "lacking in knowledge or training; uninformed" and properly performed abortions are explained to the patient before the procedure. The patient must willingly accept the procedure, meaning they are competent to make that decision and think that the benefits outweigh the risks. Whether unborn children are human or not is debatable - women, however, are definitely human. On the contrary, it's pretty clear age-based discrimination. And I think it's ignorant (uninformed) to label a fetus not a human. The fetus also doesn't willingly accept the procedure and is not given the opportunity. "It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assume Nothing Posted September 28, 2011 Author Share Posted September 28, 2011 Not sure how relevant this quote is, but it's food for thought anyways: 'The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but rather, "Can they suffer?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nomrombom Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 A winrar is Obfuscator. Do you personally believe that it is wrong to bar women from driving? PM me for fitocracy invite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obfuscator Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Not sure how relevant this quote is, but it's food for thought anyways: 'The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but rather, "Can they suffer?"The answers to that are no, no, and yes. But I contest that the absence of any of those traits provides sufficient reason to kill. A winrar is Obfuscator. Do you personally believe that it is wrong to bar women from driving?Yes, absolutely. But all I'm trying to prove here is that not everyone holds that opinion - and without an absolute moral authority, who is to say whose opinion is correct? "It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nomrombom Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Not sure how relevant this quote is, but it's food for thought anyways: 'The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but rather, "Can they suffer?"The answers to that are no, no, and yes. But I contest that the absence of any of those traits provides sufficient reason to kill. A winrar is Obfuscator. Do you personally believe that it is wrong to bar women from driving?Yes, absolutely. But all I'm trying to prove here is that not everyone holds that opinion - and without an absolute moral authority, who is to say whose opinion is correct? I know. So what should happen...? Do you just need a majority to think it is wrong? Should we really let the government decide? PM me for fitocracy invite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obfuscator Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Well, that's the difficulty in practical application. But certainly as humans we are imperfect; and as a result are not a good source of absolute moral authority. "It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assume Nothing Posted September 28, 2011 Author Share Posted September 28, 2011 That's the point of debate - in order to persuade. It's also why the right for a free press is such a problem - they can bend the rules by manipulating people in subtle ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nomrombom Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Do you know the origin of the ban on women driving? PM me for fitocracy invite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obfuscator Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Do you know the origin of the ban on women driving?Sharia law, which is fairly sexist and controlling. (from what I've seen anyway, I won't claim to be an expert). "It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nomrombom Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Do you know the origin of the ban on women driving?Sharia law, which is fairly sexist and controlling. (from what I've seen anyway, I won't claim to be an expert). So it's based on religion? :rolleyes: :mellow: PM me for fitocracy invite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obfuscator Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Do you know the origin of the ban on women driving?Sharia law, which is fairly sexist and controlling. (from what I've seen anyway, I won't claim to be an expert). So it's based on religion? :rolleyes: :mellow:Yes. Did I deny this? You seem to think you've caught me in some kind of conspiracy or contradiction..... "It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nomrombom Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Do you know the origin of the ban on women driving?Sharia law, which is fairly sexist and controlling. (from what I've seen anyway, I won't claim to be an expert). So it's based on religion? :rolleyes: :mellow:Yes. Did I deny this? You seem to think you've caught me in some kind of conspiracy... No. That was meant only as that I think any law based on any religion is ridiculous and an imposition on everyone (rolleyes), but also that I don't get to say whether it's acceptable to use them (mellow). PM me for fitocracy invite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obfuscator Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 But according to your atheist belief, religion is man-made. Therefore religious law is man-made law. Therefore man-made law is ridiculous and an imposition on everyone... "It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nomrombom Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 I do not know how to accurately state what I am thinking at present. There is something fallacious in those three sentences, but I don't know how to explain. Bleh. If I figure it out I'll let you know... PM me for fitocracy invite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obfuscator Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 I do not know how to accurately state what I am thinking at present. There is something fallacious in those three sentences, but I don't know how to explain. Bleh. If I figure it out I'll let you know...There's nothing fallacious at all. What's fallacious and hypocritical is the atheist dogma that religion is man-made, all religious law is garbage, and their own man-made law should be followed instead. Either all men are fallible, or they aren't. Just because atheism is the flavour of the month doesn't mean its proponents are any less prone to fallacy than the religious. "It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duff Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 As for your third argument, people who do despicable things in the name of the Church, when the Church does not support such things, can't even be seen as reflecting Church teaching. The Church does not preach to go out and harass those who have had abortions. It is completely against it. So why should the Church be seen as responsible for such harassment? Any radical group can claim that any person/institution influenced their actions. so when the vatican actively and knowingly financing groups that picket and harrass outside medical centres that do abortions it doesnt count as support? expressing support for laws that make it illegal to have an abortion in countries like malaysia, which further victimise the women who undergo the procedure, that doesnt count as support? blackmailing those women by preaching abortion is a sin, and threatening them that theyll burn forever in hell as a result doesnt count as harrassment in and of itself? when the church authorities (almost exclusively old men) think they have any right over the bodies of others under the BS pretense "its for your own good", their armies of sycophants theyve trained up to hang on their every word start emulating this belief and act as if they have any right over other the bodies of others and so begins the harrassment and blackmail. your beliefs inform your actions after all, so whoever bears the responsiblity for planting those beliefs in those people (which the church is no doubt keen to attribute to itself) also bears a proportional part of the responiblity for the consequences of the actions that result from those beliefs (which is what apologetics tries to weasel out from when those actions arent favourable).You're straight up putting words into the Church's mouth. And they're so wrong. The Church finances groups to peacefully sit outside abortion clinics, not to harass those who go into the clinic. This is like what we've already gone over: you cannot hold the Church responsible if it's followers do something that the Church condones (i.e. harassing people going to the clinic). I've sat outside a Planned Parenthood myself; want to know what my family and I did? We prayed the rosary. There's nothing awful about that. "Expressing support for laws that make it illegal to have an abortion in counties like malaysia, which further victimise the women who undergo the procedure..." I don't see how this is a bad thing. Of course the Church is going to support the 'illegalization' of abortion; it's against it's teachings. That doesn't mean it supports the victimization of the women who undergo the procedure. We've been over this before. "blackmailing those women by preaching abortion is a sin..." How is stating that abortion is morally wrong equal to blackmailing? Am I blackmailing all women who have had abortions by believing it's wrong? That's just a stupid statement. "threatening them that theyll burn forever in hell as a result doesnt count as harrassment in and of itself..." Lmfao. You've made so many wrong accusations. Where does the Church say women who have abortions will burn in hell forever? Honestly, your arguments are all over the place. How is the Church teaching that "murder is wrong, abortion is murder, therefore abortion is wrong" not in the best interest of humanity? Who would say that murdering innocent children is not harming to our society? If I tell you that murder is wrong, are you going to tell me that I can't say that because I'm telling other people what they can and cannot do with their bodies? | My Tumblr | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magekillr Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Let's not try and think that Westerners have always been so much more enlightened, either. Women in Saudi Arabia had rights before women in the West (particularly in America). Women in Saudi Arabia could own property before women in America. Hmmm, let me rephrase that: women in Saudi Arabia were considered people rather than property before women in the West. Plus, the driving [cabbage]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65UIrMXhTtk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6evy_yokfog&feature=related No, that doesn't excuse the Wahhabis from their disgusting, misogynist behavior, but let's also not forget that we empower their sexism because of their energy production. And if Saudi Arabia ever tried to democratize itself, and overthrow the family, America would probably give King Abdullah the guns himself to mow down his citizens before allowing democracy to control that oil production. Oh wait, we already do that. edit: There's nothing fallacious at all. What's fallacious and hypocritical is the atheist dogma that religion is man-made, all religious law is garbage, and their own man-made law should be followed instead. Either all men are fallible, or they aren't. Not sure how it's hypocritical or fallacious. We should follow a society that embraces change; religious dogma, by definition, is just that: "dogma." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obfuscator Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Yeah, I was thinking on touching on that as well. Sexism is rampant in NA as well, it's just a little more disguised. Plus the political leeway we give to Saudi Arabia as well.. "It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_love_burritos Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Can you come up with a moral statement that could be said by a religious person but NOT by a non-religious person ? You can't. There's no significant mutual overlap between religion and morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duff Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Morals are universal, found in all people (save the psychologically disordered); so a truly basic moral statement is one that is believed by all people. Catholicism simply believes morals come from God. That's where religion plays into it. Also, Catholicism helps us apply these morals to modern day situations. I hate to bring it up again, but for example, abortion: the Church reminds us that abortion is murder, which is morally wrong, and therefore so is abortion. Of course, you can rationalize that abortion is not murder, which has been done ten times over. :P | My Tumblr | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now