TheRPGSite

I couldn't find somewhere to post this in an existing thread, sorry!

I was considering posting a LFG ad on RPG.net for this Wolves of God game I'm running, and thought I'd peruse the infractions thread for some entertainment. Lo and behold, came across this delight:

https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/dispatches-from-the-front-a-moderators-thoughts-on-moderating.870863/post-23540807

Quote from: rpg.net modImpression #4: We Really Don't Want to Ban You
The thing that surprised me the most after becoming a mod is how much work goes into not banning people.
...
But seriously folks, we don't want to ban you. If all we had to do to keep things on an even heading was ban the occasional spammer and and fix a missing tag or two, that would be just fine.

Quote from: LeoshowersI don't know if this segment of your post is represents a startling lack of self-awareness, or just habitual, reflexive dishonesty.

Mods of forums that "really don't want to ban you" tend to be rules light, with those said rules being very clearly defined to prevent possible misruling from the mods.

They don't contain page after page of bans for 'able-ism', 'sex-ism' (defined about as loosely as you could possibly define it) and what, for all intents and purposes, simply amount to bans for not conforming to a SJW worldview or alternatively expressing any sort of skepticism around progressive narratives.

I don't think I have ever seen a mod team so utterly overbearing and ham-fisted in enforcing their worldview across a site as the ones on rpg.net. You honestly do the users here a disservice by not warning them in advance that you have essentially banned any form of dissent from SJW orthodoxy on this site, especially regarding the ever evolving and utterly inconsistent 'speech codes' that the entire site must now labor under.

Some of the bans given out here truly defy any sort of logic. This three day ban of CanoeMan is especially egregious, and makes me, frankly, question the sanity of the mods when a statement as innocuous as:

   

QuoteCanoeMan said:
    No, seriously. I'm no rap aficionado, but from my understanding, you need two things to make a good rap song:

    1) Words put together well
    2) A beat

    These are both things that can be put together very cheaply, without any instruments, if you only have the skill for it. And in the middle ages, most people presumably did not have a lot of extra cash to spend on a lyre, and the time to learn how to play it. So it seems to me, that rap music would be ideal form of entertainment for the average 15th century french farmer. So why wasn't it a thing? Or was it, and I just don't know about it?

Produces a reply as unhinged as:

 

QuoteCrazyIvan said:
    The premise of this thread is...no. Just no. Either you are asking why spoken poetry didn't exist, which it did, or you are asking why French peasants didn't invent a historically Black music style. At which point our only reply is read the room.

Seemingly implying that even the hypothetical idea that French people could produce an artistic style that is similar to that of African-Americans is somehow an offensive concept??? Even the supposed reason given for the ban 'treating race as a hypothetical thought exercise' is quite amazing, as the thread in question makes no reference to race, either in the original post, or the resulting thread (I also have no idea what is meant by 'read the room' other than perhaps as a sort of reflexive statement of justification for non-justified moderation).

Since I have no confidence at all that reasoning with the mods to take a more relaxed attitude to moderation will produce any sort of change in behavior, can I at least make an appeal for honestly among the moderation team,

Rather than erroneously claiming that this is a forum for the discussion of RPG's, open to any RPG fan who will contribute in good faith and with decorum, the moderators should honestly state what they wish this forum to be: namely a forum for SJW aligned RPG fans, that is utterly unwelcoming of non-SJW's.

A statement along the lines of:

   

Quote from: Moderators
    Although the title of this website might lead you to believe that this is primarily a roleplaying game forum, it is not. This forum/site is, in practice, a safe-space for supporters of "social justice" causes, that also happen to practice the hobby of tabletop gaming. We have no desire to be inclusive to any person (irregardless of race or religion) who does not unreservedly support our political ideology, and what this specifies is not concrete, and may change at any time, at our whim.

    Anyone who participates on this site should understand that those who's primary desire is to discuss RPGs in a politically neutral fashion would be better served participating on just about any other RPG related forum than this one. Anyone who disagrees strongly with "Social Justice" (however we choose to define that on any given day) will be banned, if not immediately, then swiftly as evidence of dissent emerges offhandedly through their posting.

Would represent, if nothing else, a fair assessment of the reality of this site. I suggest that the sites name be similarly changed to reflect it's newfound focus on SJW politics, rather than tabletop gaming (I leave the specifics of this to the mods).

Burner account (that was his only post, and he had registered recently); no idea if the guy has a 'normal' account.

There was no way the mods were going to let that kind of challenge slip by. Of course, they're not going to frame it as such. Tanka (the mod in question) simply dismisses the argument as 'alt right bullshit'.

Look, I'm not going to mince words; as rough as it gets here, at least you're not going to eat a ban for commenting on the similarities between flyting and rapping. Or questioning the wisdom of changing an established property just to try and lure in a marginal, very small group of possible consumers.

Sadly, RPGnet's mods are wholly devoted to the idpol fallacy, and my only regret is that newbies to the roleplaying game hobby will find them as a first contact :(

"Although the title of this website might lead you to believe that this is primarily a roleplaying game forum, it is not. This forum/site is, in practice, a safe-space for supporters of "social justice" causes, that also happen to practice the hobby of tabletop gaming."

(https://i.imgur.com/qS3qztS.gif)

Elsewhere in that thread, they mentioned that they had been pleasantly surprised at the response to their "no support for Trump" policy. I wonder if it ever crossed their mind that one possible reason for that was that they'd already, by direct action, indirect action, or reputation, driven off almost everyone who would protest that decision.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 20, 2020, 12:08:58 PM
Burner account (that was his only post, and he had registered recently); no idea if the guy has a 'normal' account.

There was no way the mods were going to let that kind of challenge slip by. Of course, they're not going to frame it as such. Tanka (the mod in question) simply dismisses the argument as 'alt right bullshit'.

Look, I'm not going to mince words; as rough as it gets here, at least you're not going to eat a ban for commenting on the similarities between flyting and rapping. Or questioning the wisdom of changing an established property just to try and lure in a marginal, very small group of possible consumers.

Sadly, RPGnet's mods are wholly devoted to the idpol fallacy, and my only regret is that newbies to the roleplaying game hobby will find them as a first contact :(

Interestingly enough I had a conversation about RPGnet with a friend the other evening. He mentioned that he had looked the site up for the first time in probably a decade and was baffled by what it had become. I told him some stories about the drama that had occurred there over the years and his reaction was essentially "maybe the internet was a mistake".

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on October 20, 2020, 12:33:53 PM
Elsewhere in that thread, they mentioned that they had been pleasantly surprised at the response to their "no support for Trump" policy. I wonder if it ever crossed their mind that one possible reason for that was that they'd already, by direct action, indirect action, or reputation, driven off almost everyone who would protest that decision.

Which was presumably about 50% of their audience before they went down the purity spiral plughole.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on October 20, 2020, 12:33:53 PM
Elsewhere in that thread, they mentioned that they had been pleasantly surprised at the response to their "no support for Trump" policy. I wonder if it ever crossed their mind that one possible reason for that was that they'd already, by direct action, indirect action, or reputation, driven off almost everyone who would protest that decision.

Doubt it. It's like that meme of Mr. Skinner. 'Could it be me that's wrong? No, no, it's the posters who are wrong.'

I have to admit, the idea of them saying 'This worked out so well!' after two years of banning anyone who posted the slightest support for the current President... it's got a kind of dark humor to it.

I read through a few pages of that thread...

It was like a discussion group between prison-staff and Stockholm syndrome survivors asking about the lone prisoners who finally cracked, and the staff tsk-tsking about those "rare" cases - and how they had to travail themselves in coming up with new rules to undermine the expression of the surviving inmates.

Woe's them.

The mods can't even see what a bunch of self-obsessed narcissistic authoritarian assholes they are, lording over the shitheap of their kingdom.

RPG.net is its own online rpg.

The moderator said the following:

Quote from: TankaYou signed up just to spew alt-right bullshit at us. As we don't welcome alt-right bullshit on our forums, you're simply not welcome here.

Bye.

It pisses me off when anything that leftists don't like gets called "alt-right"

It would be one thing if "alt-right" meant anybody who disagrees with the far left, but they want alt-right to carry maximum stigma, to mean a literal Nazi, but also they use alt-right with the broadest brush possible to basically include anybody who dissents against their extreme ideology.

Of course, that particular poster expected to be banned, but everything he said was right.

Quote from: tenbones on October 20, 2020, 03:00:44 PM
I read through a few pages of that thread...

It was like a discussion group between prison-staff and Stockholm syndrome survivors asking about the lone prisoners who finally cracked, and the staff tsk-tsking about those "rare" cases - and how they had to travail themselves in coming up with new rules to undermine the expression of the surviving inmates.

Woe's them.

The mods can't even see what a bunch of self-obsessed narcissistic authoritarian assholes they are, lording over the shitheap of their kingdom.

RPG.net is its own online rpg.

Yes, it's really pretty sickening. They're a bunch of bullies and their sniveling toadies.

Oh they totally are.

It's kinda baffling to me that they are so aborbed with their experiment that they can't take a breath for air in the real world and see how they roll around in the excrement of their own hypocrisy on a post-by-post basis. Their rationalizations mark them as immoral and unethical assholes who have created a cult on their forum.

At no point do they have the internal capacity to ask whether they're wrong. And the only time they will admit they're wrong is when the inevitable slip occurs when challenged for their own purity - as you see when one of them gets called out with a passive-aggressive litany

"Am I just wrong or did I read this as sexist?" - Invocation of Purity Test 1.01 engaged. Seeking Ratification
"Oh good it wasn't just me! Yes it is a bit problematic." - Ratification protocol engaged. Negative attribution code accepted.

"Well if it's offensive in your personal dystopia I can see how you might be offended." - Passive-Aggressive Apology REJECTED.
"The joke was in poor taste. I apologize." - Contrition and Knee-Bent Posture affirmed. EXECUTE OFFENDER <OVER-RIDE> Target Class: MODERATOR <IMMUNITY PROTOCOL ENGAGED>.

RPG.net is the gift that just keeps on giving.

Strange Visitor just got banned. I remember him from the old days. Maybe even 2005.

What is even more ironic that the so called SJWs of the forum are conspicuously silent on the issue.

We are true Fascists for mocking Evil Hats latest rpg for including a Woke and SJW manifesto yet somehow the forums that behaves in a truly spectacularly Fascist is given a free pass on bad behavior. When faces with true repression and regression because it goes against their carefully constructed personal narratives lack the stones to actual do anything.

As I said before: Rolling rolling keep them Narratives rolling RAWHIDE!

Anyone else love the response/reason from the mods for the ban?

QuoteLeoShowers said:
*snip alt-right bullshit*
Moderator Text:
You signed up just to spew alt-right bullshit at us. As we don't welcome alt-right bullshit on our forums, you're simply not welcome here.

Bye.

And that's why I left.  At one time it used to be a good place to talk about RPGs but that was long, long, ago.

Quote from: Brad on October 20, 2020, 12:23:30 PM
"Although the title of this website might lead you to believe that this is primarily a roleplaying game forum, it is not. This forum/site is, in practice, a safe-space for supporters of "social justice" causes, that also happen to practice the hobby of tabletop gaming."

(https://i.imgur.com/qS3qztS.gif)

in other words they fess to having hijacked it for reasons unrelated to its original purpose; thus confessing to outright subversion. its doubtful they even play ttrpgs.

Quote from: lordmalachdrim on October 20, 2020, 04:45:42 PM
Anyone else love the response/reason from the mods for the ban?

QuoteLeoShowers said:
*snip alt-right bullshit*
Moderator Text:
You signed up just to spew alt-right bullshit at us. As we don't welcome alt-right bullshit on our forums, you're simply not welcome here.

Bye.

That's actually hilarious. It fully confirms everything the guy wrote in the process of getting banned.

Quote from: sureshot on October 20, 2020, 04:31:54 PM
What is even more ironic that the so called SJWs of the forum are conspicuously silent on the issue.

We are true Fascists for mocking Evil Hats latest rpg for including a Woke and SJW manifesto yet somehow the forums that behaves in a truly spectacularly Fascist is given a free pass on bad behavior. When faces with true repression and regression because it goes against their carefully constructed personal narratives lack the stones to actual do anything.

As I said before: Rolling rolling keep them Narratives rolling RAWHIDE!

What exactly would you have them do?

Quote from: sureshot on October 20, 2020, 04:31:54 PM
What is even more ironic that the so called SJWs of the forum are conspicuously silent on the issue.

We are true Fascists for mocking Evil Hats latest rpg for including a Woke and SJW manifesto yet somehow the forums that behaves in a truly spectacularly Fascist is given a free pass on bad behavior. When faces with true repression and regression because it goes against their carefully constructed personal narratives lack the stones to actual do anything.

As I said before: Rolling rolling keep them Narratives rolling RAWHIDE!

Well of course the SJW's are silent, if they said anything they'd get banned :)

I'm not too sure why you feel that they're given a free pass, I've always felt that they're used as the SJW gold standard here but I'm quite happy to be corrected. Alternately it could be because people here now consider Evil Hat to be more influential than rpg.net?

As someone who got banned from rpg.net long before it was fashionable... like... 2006? or something, and when I talked only about rpgs... the OP really went looking for drama.

17th century French rappers is kind of funny, though.

I was banned in 2005 and 2008 for YeOldeForgeWar. Pundit actually defended me back then, or at least my views. I found out I'm not banned anymore and just gave them some of my paranoia to chew on. I really hope the 'Owner' has a way of reclaiming the server once he runs out on PCCP charges! LOL!

I bet a fiver I get banned for asking a question though...  ::)

He's right that the topic which got the original 3 day ban is fucking ridiculous and not deserving of any kind of ban at all. And the mod didn't have any real reason for that ban. "Read the room" in that context was like saying "I don't know why this is bad but I think others might agree with me that this is bad in some way".

And it was "bad" because it could in theory touch on race. Not in a "racism" way but it could involve a racial topic and the mod couldn't figure out if that meant it was racist so, out of white guilt, just assumed it must be a no-no and simply stating "well obviously that's bad" would be sufficient without fear that someone might ask "uh, what is obviously bad about it?"

It was lazy, and not intellectual in any way. The mod basically didn't want to think about what the topic meant, and was dismissive of "white guy mentioning racial topic" so just assumed it must be bad and that nobody would dare question that half-thought-out conclusion.

Quote from: CrazyIvan
The premise of this thread is...no. Just no. Either you are asking why spoken poetry didn't exist, which it did, or you are asking why French peasants didn't invent a historically Black music style. At which point our only reply is read the room.

Then I want to know why African peasants didn't invent rap.

Quote from: Aglondir on October 20, 2020, 04:17:06 PM
Strange Visitor just got banned. I remember him from the old days. Maybe even 2005.

Quote from: Moderator Text
Jesus christ enough already. Between this and the irony thread, this unacceptable. You are banned for seven days; this will almost certainly be increased upon review.

Translation: Once I get validation from my peers.

Quote from: Mistwell on October 21, 2020, 02:21:18 AM
He's right that the topic which got the original 3 day ban is fucking ridiculous and not deserving of any kind of ban at all. And the mod didn't have any real reason for that ban. "Read the room" in that context was like saying "I don't know why this is bad but I think others might agree with me that this is bad in some way".

They like to imply that everyone else thinks like they do. After all who's going to disagree with them?

Quote from: HappyDaze on October 20, 2020, 07:39:22 PM
What exactly would you have them do?

To not be absolute hypocrites and call out Rpg.net for being repressive and regressive.

I don't think it will happen because we can't go against the narrative can we.

Since none of the usual Go Go SJW Rangers have said anything against Rpg.net actions it speaks volumes.

Again after all can't go against the carefully constructed personal narrative that the Rpgsite is full of evil alt-right Fascists.

Bravo to this gentleman! He is spot on and his post was so eloquent and completely true, I had to print it out to save.

Let me tell you of my experience with the moderator Nazis at RPG.net.

I want to post the screenshots of my banning on RPG.Net a while back because I want to demonstrate how incredibly tasteless and vile they can be.  I had the gull to mention in a discussion on the Christian view of homosexuality that the Bible mentions it is an abomination.  I was not in any way saying that people should hate or discriminate against homosexuals, the discussion was just talking about what is the Christian view of homosexuality and how some of the people in the thread were claiming that a lot of Christians are ok with the lifestyle today, so I discussed what the actual text of the Bible has to say on it and explained that this is why Christians cannot support that lifestyle.

This is the permaban response I received from the SJW degenerates of the mod team, specifically The Wyzard:

Continued:

And lastly:

How about this stunning but par for the course example from current events over at SJW Asshats R' Us?

QuoteFrom RPG.net thread: I played Chill 2nd. edition and it was my favorite horror game for a while until my mind got blown by Call of Cthulhu 7th. edition. I own both Cryptworld and Chill 3rd. edition as well but have not yet been able to play or run either one.

If you had to choose your favorite between Cryptworld and Chill 3rd. edition, which would you choose for horror? I want a versatile game that can do different types of horror. I am even thinking of running a gothic horror campaign soon and I might choose Call of Cthulhu 7th. edition or maybe even Vaesen.

Which would you choose?

QuoteResponse from Jack at RPG.net: If the choice is Chill 3E and Cryptworld? No question, Cryptworld. Mostly for reasons that have little to do with mechanics or content.

QuoteComment from SunlessNick: That's what I was going to say. More specifically, the one that doesn't involvegiving the McFarlands money.

QuoteNevander's Response: I already own Chill 3e, so the McFarlands are not making any money. What he did in his past does not concern if the game is any good or not at this point. I had already Kickstarted it and own it.

QuoteQuestion From Qerm: I'm out of the loop what is the diffrence between Cryptworld and Chill 3rd edition in regards to "McFarlands"?

QuoteAnswer to Qerm: There were folks that made allegations against Matthew McFarland of sexual assault. His wife was also accused of trying to keep these allegations hushed.

QuoteSunlessNick chimes in: Chill 3rd edition was developed by Growling Dog Games, which was run by Matthew and Michelle Lyons McFarland, who are the subjects of credible rape, abuse, and grooming allegations (Matthew McFarland admitted that "some" of them were true, though nothing about which). If you already own the game, that changes the calculus a bit, because you're not giving them any royalties if you use it.

Cryptworld has nothing to do with them, and is a retroclone of Chills 1st edition.

Even without this, I would suggest to the OP that Cryptworld comes with less of a built in setting (the PC's as agents of a dedicated monster hunting organisation doesn't quite ring true for gothic horror to me - I think hunters should be more ad hoc).

QuoteResponse from Darrin Kelley: Well, this thread has succeeded in doing one thing for me. Putting Cryptworld on my shopping list.

QuoteResponse from Neomaxim: This thread is a bummer. I love love love Chill 3rd Ed as my go-to, catch-all, rules-light horror system, but had never heard anything about the McFarlands. That is going to make it just a little weird for me to pull off the shelf.

I am glad that Cryptworld seems pretty analogous though, and as per my horror thread, it is on my to-buy, list.

Is there ongoing support for Cryptworld, whether official or 3rd party?

QuoteNevander's response: You can separate the work from the artist, as many people do when listening to music or watching movies made by people they loathe on a personal level. The game is out and even if you buy it today, the McFarlands make $0 off your purchase. Who knows who all else contributed to the making of the game as well?

QuoteCryaxe agrees: MacFarland gave the leased rights to Chill back to the IP owner shortly after deciding to leave the industry around two years ago. No proceeds from any purchases of Chill 3E products should be going to MacFarland or his shuttered company.

QuoteYsidro agrees: This. He doesn't own anything. If you check DriveThruRPG you'll see the publisher listed as Martin Caron, who I can only assume owns the IP.

That doesn't mean Matt didn't write what he wrote and that can be icky on its own (I know I haven't wanted to touch the books in awhile), but he's not part of Chill 3rd Edition any longer.

QuoteResponse from Molotov: I was just using materials from both lines for my Night Shift game. I have the full Chill 3e line, from prior to leaning about the McFarland awfulness. I'd had the Chill3 ematerials slated for removal, but as I'm running a Supernatural-ish / life on the road sort of monster hunting game, there's stuff I'm finding useful. It's a sunk cost for me at this point.

The CryptWorld stuff has been a lot of fun - I've run the adventure from the back of Monsters Macabre, and it was a lot of fun.

If I were to run one of the two games outright, it would be CryptWorld - hands down. CryptWorld is definitely lighter, and probably easy to tweak if you want to add items, more skill choices or whatever.

QuoteModerator Nazi Sphinx of Black Quartz is triggered and needs a safe space: nevander said:
I already own Chill 3e, so the McFarlands are not making any money. What he did in his past does not concern if the game is any good or not at this point. I had already Kickstarted it and own it.
Moderator Text:
No, we aren't going to pretend the author can't possibly have anything to do with the media they created. Especially not in this case.

Thread locked.

QuoteNevander receives a warning: I already own Chill 3e, so the McFarlands are not making any money. What he did in his past does not concern if the game is any good or not at this point. I had already Kickstarted it and own it.
Moderator Text:
RPG.net does not automatically ban discussion of all works by problematic authors, but neither do we pretend their work can be wholly divorced from the harm they do. Casually disregarding credible allegations toward an author merely because you like his work dismisses the harm that predators do, and the effect they have on their victims. Don't do it again. This is a warning.

This is insanely stupid.  So, Nevander is supposed to never play a game or discuss it that he Kickstarted to the tune of $150 just because some people made sexual assault allegations against the chief writer of the game? Allegations are NOT evidence of guilt.  That is why we have court.  And besides, is he supposed to never play the game because of that guy's stupid behavior? Is he supposed to abandon his $150 of gaming materials and just throw them in the trash? Why does the actions of the chief writer of the game have to overshadow the simple question of is the game any good?

Quote from: Batjon on October 21, 2020, 02:55:20 PM
This is insanely stupid.  So, Nevander is supposed to never play a game or discuss it that he Kickstarted to the tune of $150 just because some people made sexual assault allegations against the chief writer of the game? Allegations are NOT evidence of guilt.  That is why we have court.  And besides, is he supposed to never play the game because of that guy's stupid behavior? Is he supposed to abandon is $150 of gaming materials and just throw them in the trash? Why does the actions of the chief writer of the game have to overshadow the simple question of is the game any good?

Actually. I was involved in the Kickstarter for the Chill 3rd Edition book, Undead when the controversy hit. It caused me to withdraw my pledge, and to wait for the outcome of the whole affair. But yeah. I was thrown into the middle of that mess.

It was big enough of a thing that it caused rpg.net to de-mod and permanently ban Matt McFarland. And a short time later, they did the same thing to his wife. I don't know their behind the scenes particulars. But the whole thing was a big bad scandal for The Big Purple. That obviously the mods are still very much hot about.

Shortly after that, Matt and his wife closed Growling Door Games. Which was the publisher of the game line. And they left the RPG business behind.

What I'm going to say here is what I personally witnessed on RPG.net at the time. Matt McFarland was confronted by one of his victims in the middle of Tabletop Roleplaying Open. And he admitted to the allegations. Admitted them. There was no mistake. No misunderstanding. What happened was completely undeniable. As in evidence admissible in a court of law.

The reason the products are still for sale on drivethrurpg is that custody of them were given over to Chill's owner. Martin Caron.

Bear in mind. I was a supporter of Chill 3rd Edition. I bought every supplement up until that last one. I liked the game. I thought it had some great aspects. Which as a fan of the 2nd Edition, I really liked it. So withdrawing from that Kickstarter was neither easy nor something I truly desired to do. But I needed the distance.

You notice in that thread, I voiced my desire to get Cryptworld. Which is a retro-clone of Chill 1st edition. And yes, I am going to get it when my budget allows.

I have some sympathy for Nevander in this. I felt the same loss when the Chill 3rd Edition line ended abruptly. It sucks for the fans most of all. They didn't ask for any of this.

But in this case? The Big Purple is correct in the position they have taken on this.

Quote from: Batjon on October 21, 2020, 01:22:05 PM
This is the permaban response I received from the SJW degenerates of the mod team, specifically The Wyzard:

We could do a big song and dance about how the "Wyzard" is entitled to his own opinion no matter how wrong headed it may appear but really there is no excuse for this level of douchbaggery.

So now rpg.net is anti-Christian. Well, guess that's better than pissing off Muslims, right?

I don't think we should guilt trip someone that spent $150 on this game BEFORE any allegations came out for wanting to play the game he heavily invested in because the guy that wrote it ended up being a douche.  That is like never driving a car today because we now know Henry Ford was a racist in the 1800's.

Quote from: Brad on October 21, 2020, 04:23:43 PM
So now rpg.net is anti-Christian. Well, guess that's better than pissing off Muslims, right?

Actually, The Christians still following the contents of the Old Testament are going against the teachings of Christ. Christ's teachings were meant to supersede the Old Testament teachings. To end the savagery the Old Testament expoused.

The people spewing hate and bigotry based on Old Testament teachings are committing blasphemy in the eyes of the Christian faith.

I had a Christian upbringing. Studied the King James Bible extensively for a significant portion of my young life.

Quote from: Batjon on October 21, 2020, 04:46:53 PM
I don't think we should guilt trip someone that spent $150 on this game BEFORE any allegations came out for wanting to play the game he heavily invested in because the guy that wrote it ended up being a douche.  That is like never driving a car today because we now know Henry Ford was a racist in the 1800's.

I still own my Chill 3rd Edition products. And I have every intention of making use of those books. I paid good money for them.

But you have to know that The Big Purple has their own behind the scenes reasons for preventing discussion of the products produced by Matt McFarland. For refusing to allow anything even remotely resembling promotion of those products on their site or forums. They have that right as site owners.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley on October 21, 2020, 04:50:54 PM

Quote from: Brad on October 21, 2020, 04:23:43 PM
So now rpg.net is anti-Christian. Well, guess that's better than pissing off Muslims, right?

Actually, The Christians still following the contents of the Old Testament are going against the teachings of Christ. Christ's teachings were meant to supersede the Old Testament teachings. To end the savagery the Old Testament expoused.

I had a Christian upbringing. Studied the King James Bible extensively for a significant portion of my young life.

??? This is in reference to ...?

Quote from: Darrin Kelley on October 21, 2020, 04:50:54 PM

Quote from: Brad on October 21, 2020, 04:23:43 PM
So now rpg.net is anti-Christian. Well, guess that's better than pissing off Muslims, right?

Actually, The Christians still following the contents of the Old Testament are going against the teachings of Christ. Christ's teachings were meant to supersede the Old Testament teachings. To end the savagery the Old Testament expoused.

I had a Christian upbringing. Studied the King James Bible extensively for a significant portion of my young life.

Actually, that is not completely agreed upon in Christendom.  In Matthew 5:17 Jesus said in the Bible "I did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it."  In John 14:15 Jesus says "If you love me, then keep my commandments."

The apostle Paul also spoke to this in the New Testament.

At the end of the day, we are to love the sinner but hate the sin.  We are all guilty of sin and fall short if not for his grace.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley on October 21, 2020, 04:50:54 PMActually, The Christians still following the contents of the Old Testament are going against the teachings of Christ. Christ's teachings were meant to supersede the Old Testament teachings. To end the savagery the Old Testament expoused.

The people spewing hate and bigotry based on Old Testament teachings are committing blasphemy in the eyes of the Christian faith.

Spewing hatred and bigotry is absolutely antithetical to proper Christian practice, I would agree. Upholding the traditional Christian teachings on the proper role and function of sexuality -- which forbid quite a large array of modern sexual practices of all kinds, orientation notwithstanding -- need not constitute hatred and bigotry.

Unfortunately TBP's mods have long since abandoned that level of distinction; there is only one acceptable way to talk about the topic now, and it does not allow traditional Christians (or, strictly speaking, orthodox Jews or Muslims either) to defend their beliefs. If any discussion of such topics at all was limited by rule to Tangency, it would be less of an issue, but it's the explicit silencing by stance rather than context or manner that I find intolerable.

Quote from: Batjon on October 21, 2020, 05:06:14 PM
Actually, that is not completely agreed upon in Christendom.  In Matthew 5:17 Jesus said in the Bible "I did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it."  In John 14:15 Jesus says "If you love me, then keep my commandments."

The apostle Paul also spoke to this in the New Testament.

At the end of the day, we are to love the sinner but hate the sin.  We are all guilty of sin and fall short if not for his grace.

There is nothing in the Ten Commandments that calls homosexuality an abomination or even a sin. None. Zero. And those are the only commandments in the Old Testament. Everything else is based on the opinion of the writer of the individual book. Not the word of God.

To avoid annoying our host I might suggest that this particular rabbit hole is best not gone farther down into, at the moment.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley on October 21, 2020, 05:19:27 PM

Quote from: Batjon on October 21, 2020, 05:06:14 PM
Actually, that is not completely agreed upon in Christendom.  In Matthew 5:17 Jesus said in the Bible "I did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it."  In John 14:15 Jesus says "If you love me, then keep my commandments."

The apostle Paul also spoke to this in the New Testament.

At the end of the day, we are to love the sinner but hate the sin.  We are all guilty of sin and fall short if not for his grace.

There is nothing in the Ten Commandments that calls homosexuality an abomination or even a sin. None. Zero. And those are the only commandments in the Old Testament. Everything else is based on the opinion of the writer of the individual book. Not the word of God.

That argument requires believing that the prophets of the old testament and the apostles of the new testament were only speaking their own opinions, not the word of God.  I don't think that's defensible in light of the rest of the scriptures.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on October 21, 2020, 05:35:56 PM
To avoid annoying our host I might suggest that this particular rabbit hole is best not gone farther down into, at the moment.

Mr. Tannhauser has a good point.  I'll leave it at that.

I'm done. Not taking this any further.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley on October 21, 2020, 05:19:27 PM

There is nothing in the Ten Commandments that calls homosexuality an abomination or even a sin. None. Zero. And those are the only commandments in the Old Testament. Everything else is based on the opinion of the writer of the individual book. Not the word of God.

Are you one of those Atheists who love to tell Christians what they really believe?

Quote from: Hawkwing7423 on October 21, 2020, 05:43:56 PM
Are you one of those Atheists who love to tell Christians what they really believe?

I'm not an Atheist.

Quote from: Mishihari on October 21, 2020, 05:39:27 PM

Quote from: Darrin Kelley on October 21, 2020, 05:19:27 PM

Quote from: Batjon on October 21, 2020, 05:06:14 PM
Actually, that is not completely agreed upon in Christendom.  In Matthew 5:17 Jesus said in the Bible "I did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it."  In John 14:15 Jesus says "If you love me, then keep my commandments."

The apostle Paul also spoke to this in the New Testament.

At the end of the day, we are to love the sinner but hate the sin.  We are all guilty of sin and fall short if not for his grace.

There is nothing in the Ten Commandments that calls homosexuality an abomination or even a sin. None. Zero. And those are the only commandments in the Old Testament. Everything else is based on the opinion of the writer of the individual book. Not the word of God.

That argument requires believing that the prophets of the old testament and the apostles of the new testament were only speaking their own opinions, not the word of God.  I don't think that's defensible in light of the rest of the scriptures.

Greetings!

AMEN, brother! You know that's right!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Darrin Kelley on October 21, 2020, 05:19:27 PM

Quote from: Batjon on October 21, 2020, 05:06:14 PM
Actually, that is not completely agreed upon in Christendom.  In Matthew 5:17 Jesus said in the Bible "I did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it."  In John 14:15 Jesus says "If you love me, then keep my commandments."

The apostle Paul also spoke to this in the New Testament.

At the end of the day, we are to love the sinner but hate the sin.  We are all guilty of sin and fall short if not for his grace.

There is nothing in the Ten Commandments that calls homosexuality an abomination or even a sin. None. Zero. And those are the only commandments in the Old Testament. Everything else is based on the opinion of the writer of the individual book. Not the word of God.

Commandment 10: Do not covet your neighbors ass

Quote from: Batjon on October 21, 2020, 02:55:20 PM
This is insanely stupid.  So, Nevander is supposed to never play a game or discuss it that he Kickstarted to the tune of $150 just because some people made sexual assault allegations against the chief writer of the game? Allegations are NOT evidence of guilt.  That is why we have court.

Even if they're proven true, who cares?

Who has the time and interest to dig into the personal lives of everyone involved in the production of their favourite rpg, book, tv show or movie? Where do we draw the line? The writer? The editor? The illustrator? The graphic design guy? If the guy who held the mike during one episode of Firefly turns out to have a stash of kiddy porn, does that mean I have to delete that episode from my computer? If a morally upright bunch of people produce a game, then they die and it's inherited by a neo-Nazi who now gets the royalties, do I have to burn my copies?

Bill once asked me: so if Myaforg were a good game, would you buy it? And as a member of a group who the authour would love to machinegun into a ditch in the Ukraine, I say yes, if it were good I would buy it. The problem with the games of bigots is that they're all shit. Because whenever you produce some piece of media with an ideological aim, rather than the aim of entertaining or educating people, it's going to be shit.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on October 21, 2020, 09:27:39 PM

Quote from: Batjon on October 21, 2020, 02:55:20 PM
This is insanely stupid.  So, Nevander is supposed to never play a game or discuss it that he Kickstarted to the tune of $150 just because some people made sexual assault allegations against the chief writer of the game? Allegations are NOT evidence of guilt.  That is why we have court.

Even if they're proven true, who cares?

Who has the time and interest to dig into the personal lives of everyone involved in the production of their favourite rpg, book, tv show or movie? Where do we draw the line? The writer? The editor? The illustrator? The graphic design guy? If the guy who held the mike during one episode of Firefly turns out to have a stash of kiddy porn, does that mean I have to delete that episode from my computer? If a morally upright bunch of people produce a game, then they die and it's inherited by a neo-Nazi who now gets the royalties, do I have to burn my copies?

Bill once asked me: so if Myaforg were a good game, would you buy it? And as a member of a group who the authour would love to machinegun into a ditch in the Ukraine, I say yes, if it were good I would buy it. The problem with the games of bigots is that they're all shit. Because whenever you produce some piece of media with an ideological aim, rather than the aim of entertaining or educating people, it's going to be shit.

EXACTLY the point I was trying to make.  I was just trying to see if the game was a good game and how it compares to Cryptworld.  That doesn't make me a supporter of rape by proxy.

I loved Chill back in the day. Cryptworld is a good retroclone.

However, Kevin Crawford's SILENT LEGIONS is better than both.
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/145769/Silent-Legions (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/145769/Silent-Legions)

Quote from: Darrin Kelley on October 21, 2020, 04:59:15 PM

Quote from: Batjon on October 21, 2020, 04:46:53 PM
I don't think we should guilt trip someone that spent $150 on this game BEFORE any allegations came out for wanting to play the game he heavily invested in because the guy that wrote it ended up being a douche.  That is like never driving a car today because we now know Henry Ford was a racist in the 1800's.

I still own my Chill 3rd Edition products. And I have every intention of making use of those books. I paid good money for them.

But you have to know that The Big Purple has their own behind the scenes reasons for preventing discussion of the products produced by Matt McFarland. For refusing to allow anything even remotely resembling promotion of those products on their site or forums. They have that right as site owners.

Legal reasons, perchance?

Quote from: Spinachcat on October 22, 2020, 04:41:31 AM
I loved Chill back in the day. Cryptworld is a good retroclone.

However, Kevin Crawford's SILENT LEGIONS is better than both.
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/145769/Silent-Legions (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/145769/Silent-Legions)

I have Chill 1st boxed set and Cryptworld in print. What would be the motivating factor to use Silent Legions over one of those? Looks like it's on sale for $25, so I'll pull the trigger if it's worth the price.

EDIT: It's Sine Nomine, so I imagine it's his typical OSR-ification of an existing premise. I like everything he has produced so far, but this one must have just fallen off my radar.

I have Chill Third Edition and will stick with that. As it seems from what I can see from the only negative review for Cryptworld the same flaws that edition had are ported over to Cryptworld. With the proposed fix for one of the main flaws is for the GM to fix it. Also not interested in a new rpg that requires houseruling out of the box.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley on October 21, 2020, 03:20:41 PM

Quote from: Batjon on October 21, 2020, 02:55:20 PM
This is insanely stupid.  So, Nevander is supposed to never play a game or discuss it that he Kickstarted to the tune of $150 just because some people made sexual assault allegations against the chief writer of the game? Allegations are NOT evidence of guilt.  That is why we have court.  And besides, is he supposed to never play the game because of that guy's stupid behavior? Is he supposed to abandon is $150 of gaming materials and just throw them in the trash? Why does the actions of the chief writer of the game have to overshadow the simple question of is the game any good?

Actually. I was involved in the Kickstarter for the Chill 3rd Edition book, Undead when the controversy hit. It caused me to withdraw my pledge, and to wait for the outcome of the whole affair. But yeah. I was thrown into the middle of that mess.

It was big enough of a thing that it caused rpg.net to de-mod and permanently ban Matt McFarland. And a short time later, they did the same thing to his wife. I don't know their behind the scenes particulars. But the whole thing was a big bad scandal for The Big Purple. That obviously the mods are still very much hot about.

Shortly after that, Matt and his wife closed Growling Door Games. Which was the publisher of the game line. And they left the RPG business behind.

What I'm going to say here is what I personally witnessed on RPG.net at the time. Matt McFarland was confronted by one of his victims in the middle of Tabletop Roleplaying Open. And he admitted to the allegations. Admitted them. There was no mistake. No misunderstanding. What happened was completely undeniable. As in evidence admissible in a court of law.

The reason the products are still for sale on drivethrurpg is that custody of them were given over to Chill's owner. Martin Caron.

Bear in mind. I was a supporter of Chill 3rd Edition. I bought every supplement up until that last one. I liked the game. I thought it had some great aspects. Which as a fan of the 2nd Edition, I really liked it. So withdrawing from that Kickstarter was neither easy nor something I truly desired to do. But I needed the distance.

You notice in that thread, I voiced my desire to get Cryptworld. Which is a retro-clone of Chill 1st edition. And yes, I am going to get it when my budget allows.

I have some sympathy for Nevander in this. I felt the same loss when the Chill 3rd Edition line ended abruptly. It sucks for the fans most of all. They didn't ask for any of this.

But in this case? The Big Purple is correct in the position they have taken on this.

There is a difference between the explanation you just gave, and the way the Big Purple used a heavy handed moderation tactic to put the hammer down on someone who was not aware of that full background and only knew part of it. Explaining like you did, and then telling the user to not separate the author from the work in that context, would have been fine. Having a discussion about the sale of the company to another non-involved party and whether that changes things or not would also be appropriate. But just thwacking them unexpectedly without your kind of explanation doesn't help anyone.

That depends on what type of court guidance is involved. They very well could not be able to offer the explanation I did because of court restrictions.

On the one hand, RPG.net's moderation is heavy, arbitrary, and highly politicized. It's disgusting, I agree.

On the other hand, the amount of non-RPG related threads over there is close to zero.

Is it possible to support free speech while wanting to see all the anti-SJW threads contained? The main pen-and-paper section is filled with this stuff.

Anyway, pardon any offense, I'm new here.

Quote from: ShieldWife on October 20, 2020, 03:10:12 PMIt pisses me off when anything that leftists don't like gets called "alt-right"

I realized a long time ago I looked good in a black hat.

Yes, its incredibly dangerous to society for "anyone we dislike = Nazi" to become normalized because (a) it silences free speech and vilifies intellectual diversity, and (b) it creates confusion and over time, real evil (like actual Nazism) could use that confusion to move unhindered because of the soys that cried wolf. 

But that's only a concern if there's a society much longer.

However, in the meantime, don't let it piss you off because I doubt the majority of independents think conservative are Nazis, regardless of the media noise and the tard screeching.

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 23, 2020, 11:49:50 AM
On the one hand, RPG.net's moderation is heavy, arbitrary, and highly politicized. It's disgusting, I agree.

On the other hand, the amount of non-RPG related threads over there is close to zero.

Is it possible to support free speech while wanting to see all the anti-SJW threads contained? The main pen-and-paper section is filled with this stuff.

Anyway, pardon any offense, I'm new here.

No need to apologize. You're **PARSECS** away from offending anyone here. HAHAHAHAHAHA

The problem with RPGnet (among many many many things) is the idea of curtailing free-speech is only a side-effect of their desire to control you. And if they can't control you, they'd just as soon set you on fire. But since they can't do that, they'll just ban you.

Welcome aboard rytrasmi!!

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 23, 2020, 11:49:50 AMIs it possible to support free speech while wanting to see all the anti-SJW threads contained?

That's an issue that we've talked about A LOT, especially in the past year.

Here's where we're at currently.

1) Pure political / culture war threads are in RPGPundit's personal forum. That's the mosh pit for people who want to discuss non-RPG issues. It's a glorious shitfest.

2) The main forum is for RPGs...but unfortunately, the clown brigade is trying to drown our hobby in dumb and now we've got shit in our shinola so the RPG topics suddenly become culture wars.

3) RPGPundit - to whom I'm incredibly grateful - wants RPG culture war threads to be on the main forum, but he wants these threads to remain focused on the particular topic and not free range into general politics. That rule has been a mixed bag and it's what will eventually get me banned. Heavy handed moderation is easy, balancing free speech with keeping forums focused is much harder. 

Here's my best advice:
1) Start threads that interest YOU and moderate them yourself. If people are going off topic too much, reign in your own thread. While thread drift is inevitable, we forum weirdos also have an odd habit of returning to the main topic after a few dozen shitshow pages.

2) If you're in a thread you enjoy that's going off topic, either suggest the thread be moved to RPGPundit's forum OR just post back on the topic to encourage others to refocus. If that doesn't work, feel free to start a similar thread about the aspect of the topic that most interested you.

But remember, your favorite game suxxors, unless its also my favorite game, but in that case, you're playing it wrong!!

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 22, 2020, 08:04:22 AM
Legal reasons, perchance?

More than likely.

Quote from: Mishihari on October 20, 2020, 06:36:19 PM
And that's why I left.  At one time it used to be a good place to talk about RPGs but that was long, long, ago.

When would you say it went down the drain? I distinctly remember this bullshit as far back as 2010. It was already quite pervasive, with feminist bullies even managing to drive out one of the women on the site.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on October 20, 2020, 12:33:53 PM
Elsewhere in that thread, they mentioned that they had been pleasantly surprised at the response to their "no support for Trump" policy. I wonder if it ever crossed their mind that one possible reason for that was that they'd already, by direct action, indirect action, or reputation, driven off almost everyone who would protest that decision.

That was certainly when I left. In not so many words, it was made clear that I wasn't welcome to participate in any political discussions any longer on pain of banning, so I left.

Amazingly I still caught a ban after not posting for like two years.

Quote from: Trond on October 24, 2020, 10:03:18 AM
When would you say it went down the drain? I distinctly remember this bullshit as far back as 2010. It was already quite pervasive, with feminist bullies even managing to drive out one of the women on the site.

It really started about the time Bush was reelected.
But it really got to rolling downhill in 2005, and hasn't ever stopped.
Here's a little blast from the past: https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/new-rule-proposal.185445/

Quote from: Trond on October 24, 2020, 10:03:18 AMWhen would you say it went down the drain? I distinctly remember this bullshit as far back as 2010. It was already quite pervasive, with feminist bullies even managing to drive out one of the women on the site.

I think the tipping point I saw was the 2008 U.S. presidential election; more specifically, though I'd be interested in arguments for other events, I think it was the very specific time around August 2008 when John McCain selected Sarah Palin as his running mate.

The fanatic support for Obama was a tidal wave in Tangency, and the appointment of Palin really crystallized the identity politics and intersectional theory that would rapidly take over much of fandom; people needed to have reasons why the first black president was more important than the first female vice-president, a field of argument that had already been viciously churned up by the intra-left debates over Obama vs. Hillary Clinton. (It's no coincidence that the fandom debacle known as "RaceFail" was the very next year, in 2009.) Very rapidly after that it became standard expectation that if you were any kind of Republican, conservative, right-wing or traditionally religious sort, your opinions were not welcome on Tangency, and to a larger degree on the board at large.

In the early 2000s when I joined, it was entirely possible for me to conduct reasoned arguments and exegeses about Catholic theology regarding sexuality; I sincerely doubt I could do that now. Still, what really drove me off was the flat change to a total "we're forbidding support for the Trump administration because we think its immigration policy is objectively evil" without any willingness to admit or even contemplate the reality that all the policies they condemned had come in under the Obama administration. To me, that was the last straw; I don't demand people agree with me, but I do demand they be honest with themselves.

There were a number of times in the 2010-2016 era where you saw the cracks widening. It got to be there was a sort of mod-enforced gaslighting going on with regards to some subjects... The mods had taken one side of a subjective issue to be objectively the only morally correct side, and any disagreement was banned. Any issue that fell into the periphery of Gamergate, for example. This was a sort of soft-widening of the "banned topics" concept, but while previously banned topics were usually limited to ones that were contentious, to the point discussion of them rapidly would elevate into shit-flinging - circumcision, for example - the new topic "bans" were explicitly making a moral judgement as to which side of the argument the forum held to be acceptable.

Quote from: Melichor on October 24, 2020, 05:11:18 PMIt really started about the time Bush was reelected.
But it really got to rolling downhill in 2005, and hasn't ever stopped.
Here's a little blast from the past: https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/new-rule-proposal.185445/

Accurate. It was always vocally leftist, but they started cracking down on opposing viewpoints around 2005-2006 (which is what created this site), and became unbearable around 2009-2011. By that time, the hysteria was firmly in place. I remember their 2008 Obama victory thread, filled with utterly terrified RPGNet posters being sure this specific event would unleash the right wing death squads in America, and they would soon be locked up in Camp Cheney with rabid Evangelicals for prison rights. This was right a few days after Obama soundly trounced John McCain, a sternly anti-Bush candidate. Surreal stuff, but explains a lot about the social dynamics in place.

Since 2010, it has just been a predictable slide down into Cuckoo Land. At least nothing from them surprises me anymore; it is a laughing stock.

I'd like to add a perspective that seems to be relatively rare on this site: that of someone who is politically left, but pro-free speech. Or if we use the Political Compass, I'm left-libertarian.

Not all "leftists" are authoritarian. It is just that there is a particularly virulent strain that has a loud voice, whether on twitter or places like RPGnet.

The corollary on the Right is the difference between right-libertarians (e.g. Ron Paul) and right-authoritarians (e.g. Mike Pence).

In both cases, whether left or right--or somewhere in-between--there is a range, a spectrum.

One thing that seems to be missing here is that not everyone on the Left, perhaps not even the majority, are part of the "Ctrl-Left." Just as the majority of people on the Right are not part of the Alt-Right.

Like many others here, I was banned from RPGnet. In my case, it was for saying things like "fat people would be healthier if they lost weight" (ableism) and "not all Trump voters are bad people" (Trump support) and "people should vote for issues, not identity" (anti-representational). The irony is that I have struggled with weight for most of my adult life (and also have direct experience of being healthier when I lost weight), dislike Trump, and am extremely left-leaning in terms of political (economic) outlook.

So I agree with the assessment that someone said above, that RPGnet is a perfect example of the "woke cult" - which is completely intolerant of any differing views, even those coming from the left. But let us not confuse that particularly toxic form of leftism with all--or even most--on the Left, just as we should not confuse alt-rightism with all those on the Right.

Good point Mercurius.

Though speaking for myself I never associated Leftist gamers as being the same as those on Rpg.net or Enworld.

It's kind of said to see some for fear or being banned tossing all their self-respect away and just follow the herd like sheep.

The irony is that we are apparently worse than either place because we refuse to give the more woke and sjw gamers on this site the echo chamber.

When unless one is just pushing a narrative and wants to see knows well enough that the other two places are worse than this place. Since we don't give them an echo chmaber like the other two places we are Fascists and Nazis of the highest caliber. Worse than Hitler even. 

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on October 24, 2020, 07:52:53 PM

In the early 2000s when I joined, it was entirely possible for me to conduct reasoned arguments and exegeses about Catholic theology regarding sexuality; I sincerely doubt I could do that now.

  No, you couldn't. Forgive me for those of you who've heard this story before, but after Geza Echs got driven off the board, I changed my user name to make my identity a little more concealed, and adopted a signature. "I accept, believe, and profess the Catholic Faith. Yes, all of it."

  That went under the radar for a couple of years, but then during one of their regular 'How can we improve the board?' threads, someone posted: "If you're conservative, stay out of Tangency and away from high-controversy topics." I said

QuoteThis is pretty much how I've managed to survive on the site, despite being a committed Catholic (and yes, the "all of it" statement in my sig includes positions on matters of sexuality that would probably not meet with the approval of the board culture) and politically right-wing.

   That, non-specific as it was, was enough for the mods to tell me "That means you get no benefit of the doubt." If I'd actually tried to argue for Catholic positions, I expect I'd have been fully banned. (As it was, I think it was a near-run thing. Three years later, I finally abandoned posting altogether and scrambled my email and password.)

Quote from: sureshot on October 25, 2020, 12:30:13 PM
The irony is that we are apparently worse than either place because we refuse to give the more woke and sjw gamers on this site the echo chamber.

When unless one is just pushing a narrative and wants to see knows well enough that the other two places are worse than this place. Since we don't give them an echo chmaber like the other two places we are Fascists and Nazis of the highest caliber. Worse than Hitler even.

You might be right about why some people think you're worse, but you're so wrapped in your own narrative that you believe that's the only reason one might think you're worse. As a result, your simple mind can't comprehend how anyone can think you're a piece of shit without fitting into your narrative that they're among the woke.

Quote from: HappyDaze on October 25, 2020, 01:59:49 PM
You might be right about why some people think you're worse, but you're so wrapped in your own narrative that you believe that's the only reason one might think you're worse. As a result, your simple mind can't comprehend how anyone can think you're a piece of shit without fitting into your narrative that they're among the woke.

I think you need to get laid badly and fast.

This hard on you have whenever I post is both funny and embarrassing lol.

You almost don't target anyone else. I'm flattered and all your simply not my type.

As for narrative I don't have one. Call me out on bullshit I don't mind. Yet to be called a Fascist by a woke SJW gamer who is clueless about what it an actual Fascist is. Well I am going to call them out on their hypocrisy. Note I don't mean you as you seem to be more level headed than that.

To claim this board and it's members are Fascist simply becuase we called out Evil Hat on their woke manifesto. When other forums are ten times worse fuck that. I don't seek common ground with purposeful naive, clueless SJW Woke fucktards. I am done. If I am the enemy for having a difference in opinion or a "fascist and nazi" to boot I won't piss on that person to put out a fire.

Quote from: Mercurius on October 25, 2020, 11:42:58 AM
The corollary on the Right is the difference between right-libertarians (e.g. Ron Paul) and right-authoritarians (e.g. Mike Pence).

How is Mike Pence authoritarian?

Quote from: Hawkwing7423 on October 25, 2020, 04:58:20 PM
How is Mike Pence authoritarian?

This was my question as well...maybe his strong Christian values?

Maybe authoritarian is a bit strong, especially as he hasn't been president - but I'd be very leery about a Pence presidency and yes, because of his fundamentalist beliefs, especially towards LGBT and women. He can have whatever Christian values he wants, but shouldn't try to legislate that others share them. More than anything Pence seems to be a corporate lackey of the Koch brothers and similar folk.

Quote from: Mercurius on October 25, 2020, 10:37:09 PM
Maybe authoritarian is a bit strong, especially as he hasn't been president - but I'd be very leery about a Pence presidency and yes, because of his fundamentalist beliefs, especially towards LGBT and women. He can have whatever Christian values he wants, but shouldn't try to legislate that others share them. More than anything Pence seems to be a corporate lackey of the Koch brothers and similar folk.

Greetings!

It makes me wonder, what are Vice President Mike Pence's "Fundamentalist" Christian views concerning LGBT and women?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on October 25, 2020, 11:43:35 PM

Quote from: Mercurius on October 25, 2020, 10:37:09 PM
Maybe authoritarian is a bit strong, especially as he hasn't been president - but I'd be very leery about a Pence presidency and yes, because of his fundamentalist beliefs, especially towards LGBT and women. He can have whatever Christian values he wants, but shouldn't try to legislate that others share them. More than anything Pence seems to be a corporate lackey of the Koch brothers and similar folk.

Greetings!

It makes me wonder, what are Vice President Mike Pence's "Fundamentalist" Christian views concerning LGBT and women?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I think that he is talking about the events detailed in this thread:

https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/gen-con-to-possibly-leave-indiana-politics/

When pro-gay marriage advocates trying to ruin wedding businesses that do not support gay marriage, Pence championed a bill that would protect Indiana businesses from suffering the repeated petty legal attacks that the Masterpiece Cakeshop has.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission

Quote from: Mercurius on October 25, 2020, 10:37:09 PM
Maybe authoritarian is a bit strong, especially as he hasn't been president - but I'd be very leery about a Pence presidency and yes, because of his fundamentalist beliefs, especially towards LGBT and women. He can have whatever Christian values he wants, but shouldn't try to legislate that others share them. More than anything Pence seems to be a corporate lackey of the Koch brothers and similar folk.

Strong Christian values and connections with the Koch's?

Seems like a Feature not a Bug.

Quote from: jeff37923 on October 26, 2020, 01:00:51 AM

Quote from: SHARK on October 25, 2020, 11:43:35 PM

Quote from: Mercurius on October 25, 2020, 10:37:09 PM
Maybe authoritarian is a bit strong, especially as he hasn't been president - but I'd be very leery about a Pence presidency and yes, because of his fundamentalist beliefs, especially towards LGBT and women. He can have whatever Christian values he wants, but shouldn't try to legislate that others share them. More than anything Pence seems to be a corporate lackey of the Koch brothers and similar folk.

Greetings!

It makes me wonder, what are Vice President Mike Pence's "Fundamentalist" Christian views concerning LGBT and women?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I think that he is talking about the events detailed in this thread:

https://www.therpgsite.com/the-rpgpundit-s-own-forum/gen-con-to-possibly-leave-indiana-politics/

When pro-gay marriage advocates trying to ruin wedding businesses that do not support gay marriage, Pence championed a bill that would protect Indiana businesses from suffering the repeated petty legal attacks that the Masterpiece Cakeshop has.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission

Greetings!

Thank you, Jeff!

Yes, it also makes me wonder, why is it that everyone in our society--LGBTQ, Feminists, Muslims, minorities of every colour and flavour--they can all demand their rights, demand to be respected, and make demands that THEIR customs and desires be embraced by everyone and everyone has to bow down to what they believe is important--but Christians, no, no, that's bad if Christians do the same. We can't have that, heh?

Maybe Christians are tired of watching their customs, their culture, their ways of life eroded, disrespected, and imposed upon. Just imagine the weeping and gnashing of teeth when Christians rise up and stop giving a fuck about what the non-Christians want or don't want.

The oh so anguished "REEEING! REEEING! REEEING!" ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on October 26, 2020, 01:23:56 AMJust imagine the weeping and gnashing of teeth when Christians rise up and stop giving a fuck about what the non-Christians want or don't want.

With very few exceptions, almost every church bowed to government overreach and shut their doors in fear of CoronaChan. Most haven't opened 8 months later and I wonder how many people will show up after a year (or more) of not attending church when the state finally grants them the right to worship again.

To me, it looks like America's Christians (and Catholics) are perfectly fine with being kicked in the teeth.

The cakeshop thing is one of several areas that I disagree with the liberal party line about. I don't think a shop owner should be forced to accept the patronage of anyone, and I don't know why a gay person would want to give money to a homophobe.

Christians can do their thing, just not enforce it on others. If you believe that abortion is murder, don't get one - but don't try to make that choice for others. And on down the line.

Pence has fundamentalist attitudes about women, gay people, and probably other things. He can have whatever attitudes he wants, just don't ask those who don't share such attitudes to abide by them.

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 02:07:28 AM
Pence has fundamentalist attitudes about women, gay people, and probably other things.

You keep alluding to these "fundamentalist attitudes" of Pence, but you have yet to give any examples. Please do so.

Quote from: jeff37923 on October 26, 2020, 02:26:32 AM

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 02:07:28 AM
Pence has fundamentalist attitudes about women, gay people, and probably other things.

You keep alluding to these "fundamentalist attitudes" of Pence, but you have yet to give any examples. Please do so.

He is against gay marriage, for one, and connected it to "societal collapse" and saying that being against gay marriage is "God's idea."

He is super weird about women. That "never dines alone with a woman" (other than his wife) thing. He wanted to redefine rape. Anti-abortion, etc.

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 02:07:28 AM
Christians can do their thing, just not enforce it on others. If you believe that abortion is murder, don't get one - but don't try to make that choice for others. And on down the line.

To make the argument,  If I believe that abortion is murder, then why should I tolerate society and government murdering people?

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 26, 2020, 05:24:52 AM

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 02:07:28 AM
Christians can do their thing, just not enforce it on others. If you believe that abortion is murder, don't get one - but don't try to make that choice for others. And on down the line.

To make the argument,  If I believe that abortion is murder, then why should I tolerate society and government murdering people?

Greetings!

You shouldn't, my friend. Everyone should stand and defend the helpless and the innocent. We can *enforce* our cultural and religious standards as we see fit--and we always have. Be proud of our culture and our religion, our heritage, and make no apologies, and refuse to back down.

Try performing animal sacrifice for whatever flavour of Pagan religion--see what that gets you in our society.

Some cultures believe that roasting Fido the Labrador Retriever on the BBQ is a good idea, and they eagerly set to eating Fido. Go down to the local park, and roast up a bunch of Labrador Retrievers. I imagine the response will be swift and unforgiving, and no one in law enforcement will want to arrive in time to save you from the wrath to come.

Some religions, like Islam--hold customs and traditions of Female Genital Mutilation--that is typically where they hold their 12 year old girls down and remove her clitoris. Yeah, that hasn't been legalized or tolerated here in America, either.

I asked a classroom on occasion--generally more than 50 women--if they were so on board with accepting other religions and customs, and not imposing or enforcing our own values on people here that sought to embrace such horrifying practices--if any of them wanted to volunteer for such a practice. They all fell silent, and the debate was over. I also asked them, who here wants to stand up and defend those that seek to bring this practice to their little girls? WHO?

None of them agreed to doing that, either.

So, yeah, we enforce our values and standards all the time, and have done so for generations, from the very beginning. Other cultures have that right, and so do we.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 02:53:08 AM
He is super weird about women. That "never dines alone with a woman" (other than his wife) thing. He wanted to redefine rape. Anti-abortion, etc.

Yeah, that would seem weird. If you're suffering from a concussion, maybe.

Do the math, Mercurius. Mike Pence lives and works in Washington D.C., or as one wag called it, 'Mordor on the Potomac'.

You don't think that nest of vipers would target him for a honeytrap op if they could get away with it?

It looks weird because most other cases fly under the radar. Linus Torvalds, for example, refused to mentor female programmers because he'd gotten wind of a similar attempted scheme to get him out of the limelight.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 26, 2020, 07:51:15 AM

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 02:53:08 AM
He is super weird about women. That "never dines alone with a woman" (other than his wife) thing. He wanted to redefine rape. Anti-abortion, etc.

Yeah, that would seem weird. If you're suffering from a concussion, maybe.

Do the math, Mercurius. Mike Pence lives and works in Washington D.C., or as one wag called it, 'Mordor on the Potomac'.

You don't think that nest of vipers would target him for a honeytrap op if they could get away with it?

It looks weird because most other cases fly under the radar. Linus Torvalds, for example, refused to mentor female programmers because he'd gotten wind of a similar attempted scheme to get him out of the limelight.

Greetings!

Excellent point, Ghostmaker. Far from such a policy being "weird" Vice President Mike Pence has demonstrated shrewd social judgment, and also excellent moral character and discipline. Typical Liberal bullshit--if a person is of excellent moral character, they seek to defame, criticize, and mock them at every opportunity. If they are a philandering jackass, they gloat and celebrate and seek to climb upon some fake moral perch--when at any other time, with other people, they roll about in the debauchery and love every wicked pleasure. Good for Vice President Mike Pence! I imagine that his beloved wife fully approves of such a policy!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 02:07:28 AMChristians can do their thing, just not enforce it on others. If you believe that abortion is murder, don't get one - but don't try to make that choice for others.

*facepalm*

Look. I'm pretty far from a hard-line pro-lifer. But just stop and parse what you said for a minute.

"If you don't agree with murder, fine, don't murder, but let other people murder if they wish."

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 02:53:08 AMHe is against gay marriage, for one, and connected it to "societal collapse" and saying that being against gay marriage is "God's idea."

As a gay man who campaigned for gay marriage, and shocked several people on the RPG.net forums back in the day with my support of it?

...

You know. Looking around at the world in the last decade or so?

Eeeeeehhhhhn. Not the strangest opinion I could imagine someone holding, right now.

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 02:53:08 AMHe is super weird about women. That "never dines alone with a woman" (other than his wife) thing. He wanted to redefine rape. Anti-abortion, etc.

Wait, "You do you" works for murder, but not who you choose to dine with?

Quote from: Spinachcat on October 23, 2020, 08:46:43 PM
Here's my best advice:
1) Start threads that interest YOU and moderate them yourself. If people are going off topic too much, reign in your own thread. While thread drift is inevitable, we forum weirdos also have an odd habit of returning to the main topic after a few dozen shitshow pages.

2) If you're in a thread you enjoy that's going off topic, either suggest the thread be moved to RPGPundit's forum OR just post back on the topic to encourage others to refocus. If that doesn't work, feel free to start a similar thread about the aspect of the topic that most interested you.

But remember, your favorite game suxxors, unless its also my favorite game, but in that case, you're playing it wrong!!

Thanks! That makes a lot of sense and fits the spirit of free speech.

Quote from: SHARK on October 26, 2020, 07:02:27 AM
Some religions, like Islam--hold customs and traditions of Female Genital Mutilation--that is typically where they hold their 12 year old girls down and remove her clitoris. Yeah, that hasn't been legalized or tolerated here in America, either.

I asked a classroom on occasion--generally more than 50 women--if they were so on board with accepting other religions and customs, and not imposing or enforcing our own values on people here that sought to embrace such horrifying practices--if any of them wanted to volunteer for such a practice. They all fell silent, and the debate was over. I also asked them, who here wants to stand up and defend those that seek to bring this practice to their little girls? WHO?

I hope you told them that this practice is not widely practiced, and most Muslims don't condone it, nor is it mentioned in the Quran. Otherwise you're spreading anti-Islamic propaganda.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 26, 2020, 05:24:52 AM

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 02:07:28 AM
Christians can do their thing, just not enforce it on others. If you believe that abortion is murder, don't get one - but don't try to make that choice for others. And on down the line.

To make the argument,  If I believe that abortion is murder, then why should I tolerate society and government murdering people?

Because you live in a society in which there are a diversity of beliefs. I'm not saying that you shouldn't try to fight for what you believe in, but you also need to accept that others don't believe as you. If you are a national leader, you govern not only those of your religion, but of other belief systems.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the anti-abortion view, except for the fact that abortions will continue to happen whether or not they are legal. Anti-abortionists are either willfully ignorant or don't care about the fact that back-alley abortions will happen, and women will die because of it.

Because the question of whether abortion is murder is debatable, if a choice has to be made I'd leave it up to the individual.

Quote from: Bruwulf on October 26, 2020, 08:22:50 AM

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 02:07:28 AMChristians can do their thing, just not enforce it on others. If you believe that abortion is murder, don't get one - but don't try to make that choice for others.

*facepalm*

Look. I'm pretty far from a hard-line pro-lifer. But just stop and parse what you said for a minute.

"If you don't agree with murder, fine, don't murder, but let other people murder if they wish."

See my response above. Maybe we should determine whether or not it is "murder" first, before assuming it is. Murder implies a living, sentient human being. We don't know that a first-trimester fetus passes that criteria.

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 11:30:24 AMSee my response above. Maybe we should determine whether or not it is "murder" first, before assuming it is. Murder implies a living, sentient human being. We don't know that a first-trimester fetus passes that criteria.

Sounds exactly the sort of thing that a murderer would say.

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 02:53:08 AM

Quote from: jeff37923 on October 26, 2020, 02:26:32 AM

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 02:07:28 AM
Pence has fundamentalist attitudes about women, gay people, and probably other things.

You keep alluding to these "fundamentalist attitudes" of Pence, but you have yet to give any examples. Please do so.

He is against gay marriage, for one, and connected it to "societal collapse" and saying that being against gay marriage is "God's idea."

He is super weird about women. That "never dines alone with a woman" (other than his wife) thing. He wanted to redefine rape. Anti-abortion, etc.

OK, where is the proof of all this? Do you have news clippings? Other media sources? Where are you getting that information?

Quote from: jeff37923 on October 26, 2020, 11:58:10 AM

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 02:53:08 AM

Quote from: jeff37923 on October 26, 2020, 02:26:32 AM

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 02:07:28 AM
Pence has fundamentalist attitudes about women, gay people, and probably other things.

You keep alluding to these "fundamentalist attitudes" of Pence, but you have yet to give any examples. Please do so.

He is against gay marriage, for one, and connected it to "societal collapse" and saying that being against gay marriage is "God's idea."

He is super weird about women. That "never dines alone with a woman" (other than his wife) thing. He wanted to redefine rape. Anti-abortion, etc.

OK, where is the proof of all this? Do you have news clippings? Other media sources? Where are you getting that information?

There are lots of articles out there. Google is your friend.

Quote from: Brad on October 26, 2020, 11:38:33 AM

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 11:30:24 AMSee my response above. Maybe we should determine whether or not it is "murder" first, before assuming it is. Murder implies a living, sentient human being. We don't know that a first-trimester fetus passes that criteria.

Sounds exactly the sort of thing that a murderer would say.

OK. But now you're just sticking your fingers in your ears. Regardless of what you personally believe, what your pastor tells you to believe, or what you read in a book written thousands of years ago by desert nomads, the question is debatable.

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 11:30:24 AM
See my response above. Maybe we should determine whether or not it is "murder" first, before assuming it is. Murder implies a living, sentient human being. We don't know that a first-trimester fetus passes that criteria.

So, abortions after the first trimester are murder?
Or will you say that any abortion is NOT murder, no matter how far along a pregnancy is?

The whole abortion debate is a sure sign we live in cushy times. Back in the day, children were good because they brought heirs and extra hands for work. Or children were bad because they had extra mouths to feed in times of scarcity. Don't abort or kill your children was practical advice when trying to out-breed or make war with competing tribes. Abortion/infanticide was also useful for hunter gatherers who faced lean times. Nobody in the debate faces these issues any more in first world countries, except in some cases the mother.

Also, the word "murder" is not conducive to full discussion of the issue.

Homicide: Is the fetus a human being?
Justifiable homicide: Was there a threat to the mother?
Murder: Did an unjustified homicide occur with intent.

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 12:01:09 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on October 26, 2020, 11:58:10 AM

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 02:53:08 AM

Quote from: jeff37923 on October 26, 2020, 02:26:32 AM

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 02:07:28 AM
Pence has fundamentalist attitudes about women, gay people, and probably other things.

You keep alluding to these "fundamentalist attitudes" of Pence, but you have yet to give any examples. Please do so.

He is against gay marriage, for one, and connected it to "societal collapse" and saying that being against gay marriage is "God's idea."

He is super weird about women. That "never dines alone with a woman" (other than his wife) thing. He wanted to redefine rape. Anti-abortion, etc.

OK, where is the proof of all this? Do you have news clippings? Other media sources? Where are you getting that information?

There are lots of articles out there. Google is your friend.

I'll just remind you that it was YOU who made the claims, so the burden of proof is also on YOU.

If you cannot provide proof, then you are just another liberal propagandist riding the bandwagon.

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 26, 2020, 12:21:11 PM
Also, the word "murder" is not conducive to full discussion of the issue.

You're right, we should stop listing murder rates and start listing involuntary induced passing rates instead. Then when that becomes a loaded term, we should change it again!

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 12:04:32 PM

Quote from: Brad on October 26, 2020, 11:38:33 AM

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 11:30:24 AMSee my response above. Maybe we should determine whether or not it is "murder" first, before assuming it is. Murder implies a living, sentient human being. We don't know that a first-trimester fetus passes that criteria.

Sounds exactly the sort of thing that a murderer would say.

OK. But now you're just sticking your fingers in your ears. Regardless of what you personally believe, what your pastor tells you to believe, or what you read in a book written thousands of years ago by desert nomads, the question is debatable.

I'm curious how you would make a distinction of life/not life at any point other than conception. Primarily because, there are humans that will fall into that criteria if you use any other benchmark. Braindead people on respirators (if you use brain activity), Hearbeat would be invalidated by people with pacemakers, breathing invalidated by respirators... Particularly when the self same people that claim it is a clump of cells, and then would take that same signal to be life if it were on Mars. Seems splitting hairs to justify mass murder...

Quote from: Pat on October 26, 2020, 12:50:58 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 26, 2020, 12:21:11 PM
Also, the word "murder" is not conducive to full discussion of the issue.

You're right, we should stop listing murder rates and start listing involuntary induced passing rates instead. Then when that becomes a loaded term, we should change it again!

Oh come on, that was a pretty lazy reply. The law recognizes many types of homicide, murder is just one type.

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 26, 2020, 01:06:25 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 26, 2020, 12:50:58 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on October 26, 2020, 12:21:11 PM
Also, the word "murder" is not conducive to full discussion of the issue.

You're right, we should stop listing murder rates and start listing involuntary induced passing rates instead. Then when that becomes a loaded term, we should change it again!

Oh come on, that was a pretty lazy reply. The law recognizes many types of homicide, murder is just one type.

It wasn't lazy, you just entirely missed the point. You're trying to preemptively win an argument by policing the words other people are allowed to use.

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 12:04:32 PMOK. But now you're just sticking your fingers in your ears. Regardless of what you personally believe, what your pastor tells you to believe, or what you read in a book written thousands of years ago by desert nomads, the question is debatable.

I'm Jewish, first of all, but that is  100% immaterial to the question at hand. Explain to me, scientifically, when "life begins". And be very specific, don't use nebulous generalities. I want the exact moment after conception. If you cannot do that, then we must assume it's at the moment of conception lest we make a mistake and murder a human being out of convenience.

But I'm sure you have a very good argument for murder, so lay it on me.

Quote from: shuddemell on October 26, 2020, 12:59:12 PM
I'm curious how you would make a distinction of life/not life at any point other than conception.

Are you saying sperm and ovum are dead? That life is not born from life?

We have met the artificial intelligence, and it is us.

Quote from: shuddemell on October 26, 2020, 12:59:12 PMI'm curious how you would make a distinction of life/not life at any point other than conception. Primarily because, there are humans that will fall into that criteria if you use any other benchmark. Braindead people on respirators (if you use brain activity), Hearbeat would be invalidated by people with pacemakers, breathing invalidated by respirators... Particularly when the self same people that claim it is a clump of cells, and then would take that same signal to be life if it were on Mars. Seems splitting hairs to justify mass murder...

Fucking... stop making me be the "in the middle" guy here, but you're being just as dense. The test is not "alive". Yes, a placenta is alive. Cell activity is going on. Nobody is questioning that.  The question is whether it really counts as a human, and where that line is. And I'm conflicted enough to say I don't know. But I do know it's alive, and so does anyone who is being honest.

Greetings!

Well, it seems to me just having common sense informs us that a pregnant woman is pregnant with a human child. Just like dogs have puppies, birds have baby birds in their eggs, cows have baby cows, and so on. A 14 year old girl living on the backside of outer Mongolia, with her belly swelling, will tell you her child grows in her belly--she wouldn't say it is a "Product of conception"; "slime in a petri dish" or any other such self-delusion or sophistry.

The child growing in a woman's belly is innocent, and deserves life. The child does not deserve to be murdered for the selfish convenience of others, including the mother.

What's right is right, and good people anywhere, everywhere, need to stand against the murder of innocent children.

Beyond that, the God of the Bible says that murdering the innocent is a terrible crime. I'm reminded of Joshua's words, "As for me and my house, we shall serve the Lord." God's will is always more important and takes absolute authority over the fucked up, selfish beliefs of mortal men. I think it is always important, especially in such circumstances involving a human life--an innocent human life--that people should stand for righteousness.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 02:53:08 AM
He is super weird about women. That "never dines alone with a woman" (other than his wife) thing. He wanted to redefine rape. Anti-abortion, etc.

That has to be the best "worst" thing to hate about someone since the old: my worst trait is that I work too hard.

Quote from: Melichor on October 26, 2020, 12:04:58 PM

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 11:30:24 AM
See my response above. Maybe we should determine whether or not it is "murder" first, before assuming it is. Murder implies a living, sentient human being. We don't know that a first-trimester fetus passes that criteria.

So, abortions after the first trimester are murder?
Or will you say that any abortion is NOT murder, no matter how far along a pregnancy is?

I don't know, and I'm guessing neither do you. That's the point: it is debatable, unless one eschews all individual thought and adheres to dogma.

Quote from: jeff37923 on October 26, 2020, 12:22:11 PM

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 12:01:09 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on October 26, 2020, 11:58:10 AM

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 02:53:08 AM

Quote from: jeff37923 on October 26, 2020, 02:26:32 AM

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 02:07:28 AM
Pence has fundamentalist attitudes about women, gay people, and probably other things.

You keep alluding to these "fundamentalist attitudes" of Pence, but you have yet to give any examples. Please do so.

He is against gay marriage, for one, and connected it to "societal collapse" and saying that being against gay marriage is "God's idea."

He is super weird about women. That "never dines alone with a woman" (other than his wife) thing. He wanted to redefine rape. Anti-abortion, etc.

OK, where is the proof of all this? Do you have news clippings? Other media sources? Where are you getting that information?

There are lots of articles out there. Google is your friend.

I'll just remind you that it was YOU who made the claims, so the burden of proof is also on YOU.

If you cannot provide proof, then you are just another liberal propagandist riding the bandwagon.

I offered some quotes. But here's a few links from a quick Google search:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/19/president-pence-women-week-in-patriarchy

https://time.com/4406337/mike-pence-gay-rights-lgbt-religious-freedom/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/mike-pence-women-quotes-kamala-harris-debate-b724539.html

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/23/the-danger-of-president-pence

My guess is that it doesn't matter what links I provide, as you'll say "liberal bias!" or some such.

I don't want this argument. But fine.

Quote from: SHARK on October 26, 2020, 03:41:03 PMWell, it seems to me just having common sense informs us that a pregnant woman is pregnant with a human child. Just like dogs have puppies, birds have baby birds in their eggs, cows have baby cows, and so on. A 14 year old girl living on the backside of outer Mongolia, with her belly swelling, will tell you her child grows in her belly--she wouldn't say it is a "Product of conception"; "slime in a petri dish" or any other such self-delusion or sophistry.

That 14 year old child living in a yurt on the steppes of Mongolia might also tell you that eclipses are a result of the monster Raah returning to eat the sun or the moon, causing them to flee in terror. And if you showed her a picture of a blastocyst, you might have a hard time explaining to her that was a child.

Please don't try to sway me with "the simple wisdom of the ignorant". It won't work. Ignorant people are ignorant, if I may be tautological for a moment. It's not a crime, but should not be mistaken for a great, secret wisdom to be ignorant. "Out of the mouths of babes" ignores that kids say some pretty stupid things a lot more often than they manage to say something profoundly insightful.

Likewise, this is where another comment of yours struggles...

Quote from: SHARK on October 26, 2020, 03:41:03 PMBeyond that, the God of the Bible says that murdering the innocent is a terrible crime. I'm reminded of Joshua's words, "As for me and my house, we shall serve the Lord." God's will is always more important and takes absolute authority over the fucked up, selfish beliefs of mortal men. I think it is always important, especially in such circumstances involving a human life--an innocent human life--that people should stand for righteousness.

Yes. The god of the Bible Unfortunately for your argument, not everyone worships that God. Or any god, in some cases. That same Mongolian peasant you want to use the wisdom of as to when a human life begins might instead worship Tengri, or be a Buddhist.

I have no fundamental problem with laws that draw inspiration from biblical sources. As it happens, I think about half of the Ten Commandments are a pretty good place to start when drafting a body of laws... But only half, for a reason. Because if the religion itself is critical to explaining the justification for your law, it starts to be a problem. We can explain why rampant, non-state-sponsored murder is illegal in pretty much every legal system known to man, for example, even cultures that are decidedly non-Christian. So "Thou shalt not kill", or whichever translation you prefer? Makes sense. But you can't explain why blasphemy is illegal, without relying on a purely religious argument... Essentially, "because God or our gods say so".

Quote from: SHARK on October 26, 2020, 03:41:03 PMThe child growing in a woman's belly is innocent, and deserves life. The child does not deserve to be murdered for the selfish convenience of others, including the mother.

What's right is right, and good people anywhere, everywhere, need to stand against the murder of innocent children.

The stupid thing about all this is I'm basically on your side in effect, I just don't think Captain America logic is really compelling outside of comic books, and I think it's a very poor tool for trying to make law.

Quote from: Shasarak on October 26, 2020, 03:47:17 PM

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 02:53:08 AM
He is super weird about women. That "never dines alone with a woman" (other than his wife) thing. He wanted to redefine rape. Anti-abortion, etc.

That has to be the best "worst" thing to hate about someone since the old: my worst trait is that I work too hard.

Thread win :D
You got the job, whatever it is.

Quote from: Bruwulf on October 26, 2020, 05:01:59 PM
I don't want this argument. But fine.

Quote from: SHARK on October 26, 2020, 03:41:03 PMWell, it seems to me just having common sense informs us that a pregnant woman is pregnant with a human child. Just like dogs have puppies, birds have baby birds in their eggs, cows have baby cows, and so on. A 14 year old girl living on the backside of outer Mongolia, with her belly swelling, will tell you her child grows in her belly--she wouldn't say it is a "Product of conception"; "slime in a petri dish" or any other such self-delusion or sophistry.

That 14 year old child living in a yurt on the steppes of Mongolia might also tell you that eclipses are a result of the monster Raah returning to eat the sun or the moon, causing them to flee in terror. And if you showed her a picture of a blastocyst, you might have a hard time explaining to her that was a child.

Please don't try to sway me with "the simple wisdom of the ignorant". It won't work. Ignorant people are ignorant, if I may be tautological for a moment. It's not a crime, but should not be mistaken for a great, secret wisdom to be ignorant. "Out of the mouths of babes" ignores that kids say some pretty stupid things a lot more often than they manage to say something profoundly insightful.

Likewise, this is where another comment of yours struggles...

Quote from: SHARK on October 26, 2020, 03:41:03 PMBeyond that, the God of the Bible says that murdering the innocent is a terrible crime. I'm reminded of Joshua's words, "As for me and my house, we shall serve the Lord." God's will is always more important and takes absolute authority over the fucked up, selfish beliefs of mortal men. I think it is always important, especially in such circumstances involving a human life--an innocent human life--that people should stand for righteousness.

Yes. The god of the Bible Unfortunately for your argument, not everyone worships that God. Or any god, in some cases. That same Mongolian peasant you want to use the wisdom of as to when a human life begins might instead worship Tengri, or be a Buddhist.

I have no fundamental problem with laws that draw inspiration from biblical sources. As it happens, I think about half of the Ten Commandments are a pretty good place to start when drafting a body of laws... But only half, for a reason. Because if the religion itself is critical to explaining the justification for your law, it starts to be a problem. We can explain why rampant, non-state-sponsored murder is illegal in pretty much every legal system known to man, for example, even cultures that are decidedly non-Christian. So "Thou shalt not kill", or whichever translation you prefer? Makes sense. But you can't explain why blasphemy is illegal, without relying on a purely religious argument... Essentially, "because God or our gods say so".

Quote from: SHARK on October 26, 2020, 03:41:03 PMThe child growing in a woman's belly is innocent, and deserves life. The child does not deserve to be murdered for the selfish convenience of others, including the mother.

What's right is right, and good people anywhere, everywhere, need to stand against the murder of innocent children.

The stupid thing about all this is I'm basically on your side in effect, I just don't think Captain America logic is really compelling outside of comic books, and I think it's a very poor tool for trying to make law.

It's always amusing to see people try to justify atheism in the context of common morality...

Quote from: Brad on October 26, 2020, 05:50:38 PMIt's always amusing to see people try to justify atheism in the context of common morality...

I'm not trying to do that.

Quote from: Bruwulf on October 26, 2020, 05:01:59 PM
I don't want this argument. But fine.

Quote from: SHARK on October 26, 2020, 03:41:03 PMWell, it seems to me just having common sense informs us that a pregnant woman is pregnant with a human child. Just like dogs have puppies, birds have baby birds in their eggs, cows have baby cows, and so on. A 14 year old girl living on the backside of outer Mongolia, with her belly swelling, will tell you her child grows in her belly--she wouldn't say it is a "Product of conception"; "slime in a petri dish" or any other such self-delusion or sophistry.

That 14 year old child living in a yurt on the steppes of Mongolia might also tell you that eclipses are a result of the monster Raah returning to eat the sun or the moon, causing them to flee in terror. And if you showed her a picture of a blastocyst, you might have a hard time explaining to her that was a child.

Please don't try to sway me with "the simple wisdom of the ignorant". It won't work. Ignorant people are ignorant, if I may be tautological for a moment. It's not a crime, but should not be mistaken for a great, secret wisdom to be ignorant. "Out of the mouths of babes" ignores that kids say some pretty stupid things a lot more often than they manage to say something profoundly insightful.

Likewise, this is where another comment of yours struggles...

Quote from: SHARK on October 26, 2020, 03:41:03 PMBeyond that, the God of the Bible says that murdering the innocent is a terrible crime. I'm reminded of Joshua's words, "As for me and my house, we shall serve the Lord." God's will is always more important and takes absolute authority over the fucked up, selfish beliefs of mortal men. I think it is always important, especially in such circumstances involving a human life--an innocent human life--that people should stand for righteousness.

Yes. The god of the Bible Unfortunately for your argument, not everyone worships that God. Or any god, in some cases. That same Mongolian peasant you want to use the wisdom of as to when a human life begins might instead worship Tengri, or be a Buddhist.

I have no fundamental problem with laws that draw inspiration from biblical sources. As it happens, I think about half of the Ten Commandments are a pretty good place to start when drafting a body of laws... But only half, for a reason. Because if the religion itself is critical to explaining the justification for your law, it starts to be a problem. We can explain why rampant, non-state-sponsored murder is illegal in pretty much every legal system known to man, for example, even cultures that are decidedly non-Christian. So "Thou shalt not kill", or whichever translation you prefer? Makes sense. But you can't explain why blasphemy is illegal, without relying on a purely religious argument... Essentially, "because God or our gods say so".

Quote from: SHARK on October 26, 2020, 03:41:03 PMThe child growing in a woman's belly is innocent, and deserves life. The child does not deserve to be murdered for the selfish convenience of others, including the mother.

What's right is right, and good people anywhere, everywhere, need to stand against the murder of innocent children.

The stupid thing about all this is I'm basically on your side in effect, I just don't think Captain America logic is really compelling outside of comic books, and I think it's a very poor tool for trying to make law.

Greetings!

Good to hear that you are on my side of the moral argument, Bruwulf! ;D

I learned many years ago--much to my chagrin--that attempting to argue essential moral logic and reasoning with people is largely pointless and a waste of time. Simple, emotional arguments are what win, and beyond that, most people just don't give a fuck about more comprehensive, articulated arguments.

So, yeah, when it comes to basic morality, I believe abortion is wrong, and immoral. I believe it is common sense to understand it is human life, and an innocent life of a child, that doesn't deserve to be murdered for the convenience of the mother--or anyone else. The gross profiteering involved in the abortion industry is a horrific shame, and something I hope will change. To me, it is murder. A horrible, monstrous action taken most of the time because people are immoral, irresponsible, lazy and selfish--and aided and abetted by others because they do not want to be inconvenienced--or be forced to assume responsibility--while others gleefully rub their hands at the thought of collecting another paycheck off the backs of stupid, immoral, selfish people. I oppose abortion and always encourage people to take responsibility for their own behavior, their own choices--and do the right thing--do that which is righteous. The innocent should never suffer for another person's selfishness or shitty judgment.

And yeah, I happen to also like Captain America logic. I'm an old school dinosaur, raised by parents from World War II. They largely believed in Captain America logic--and honestly, I'm not impressed with the smug, condescending, pseudo-intellectual delusions of self-styled experts and scholars of recent decades. Most of them blubber on with self-delusional, humanistic philosophy that is anti-Christian and entirely unbiblical.

I was raised by God-fearing, Christian parents. I have studied the Scriptures all my life, and I find the biblical moral framework to be an excellent guide for how we are to live in society. Of course people are going to disagree. They reject the truth of Scripture, and reject righteousness. That's ok. They can gnash their teeth, and disagree and object all they want.

I, however, will continue to oppose them. I will vote in support of Christian laws and other policies that reflect a Christian world view. The line of my fathers and forefathers go back, and all were Christians. So, I am happy to keep the faith. Before I could walk, my mother read to me from the Scriptures, and sang to me of our faith. My Christian faith is precious to me, and has always been cherished in my family. I would never foreswear my faith, no matter how many of the world clamour and screech against it.

In the end, all will answer for their deeds. I would never want the terrible sin of abortion on my conscience, and I have always counseled women and men alike to stand against it. Certainly, some may laugh at simple righteousness. There is an awesome and powerful joy in standing for righteousness, and doing that which is right. When I was a boy, my own father taught me that a man of honour does that which is right, no matter the cost to him personally. No matter what, no one can take a man's honour from him, but he can give it away, he can squander it through being unrighteous and doing that which is dishonorable. I would never violate my conscience by supporting abortion. To me, it is clearly wrong and immoral.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on October 26, 2020, 06:15:48 PM

Greetings!

Good to hear that you are on my side of the moral argument, Bruwulf! ;D

I learned many years ago--much to my chagrin--that attempting to argue essential moral logic and reasoning with people is largely pointless and a waste of time. Simple, emotional arguments are what win, and beyond that, most people just don't give a fuck about more comprehensive, articulated arguments.

So, yeah, when it comes to basic morality, I believe abortion is wrong, and immoral. I believe it is common sense to understand it is human life, and an innocent life of a child, that doesn't deserve to be murdered for the convenience of the mother--or anyone else. The gross profiteering involved in the abortion industry is a horrific shame, and something I hope will change. To me, it is murder. A horrible, monstrous action taken most of the time because people are immoral, irresponsible, lazy and selfish--and aided and abetted by others because they do not want to be inconvenienced--or be forced to assume responsibility--while others gleefully rub their hands at the thought of collecting another paycheck off the backs of stupid, immoral, selfish people. I oppose abortion and always encourage people to take responsibility for their own behavior, their own choices--and do the right thing--do that which is righteous. The innocent should never suffer for another person's selfishness or shitty judgment.

And yeah, I happen to also like Captain America logic. I'm an old school dinosaur, raised by parents from World War II. They largely believed in Captain America logic--and honestly, I'm not impressed with the smug, condescending, pseudo-intellectual delusions of self-styled experts and scholars of recent decades. Most of them blubber on with self-delusional, humanistic philosophy that is anti-Christian and entirely unbiblical.

I was raised by God-fearing, Christian parents. I have studied the Scriptures all my life, and I find the biblical moral framework to be an excellent guide for how we are to live in society. Of course people are going to disagree. They reject the truth of Scripture, and reject righteousness. That's ok. They can gnash their teeth, and disagree and object all they want.

I, however, will continue to oppose them. I will vote in support of Christian laws and other policies that reflect a Christian world view. The line of my fathers and forefathers go back, and all were Christians. So, I am happy to keep the faith. Before I could walk, my mother read to me from the Scriptures, and sang to me of our faith. My Christian faith is precious to me, and has always been cherished in my family. I would never foreswear my faith, no matter how many of the world clamour and screech against it.

In the end, all will answer for their deeds. I would never want the terrible sin of abortion on my conscience, and I have always counseled women and men alike to stand against it. Certainly, some may laugh at simple righteousness. There is an awesome and powerful joy in standing for righteousness, and doing that which is right. When I was a boy, my own father taught me that a man of honour does that which is right, no matter the cost to him personally. No matter what, no one can take a man's honour from him, but he can give it away, he can squander it through being unrighteous and doing that which is dishonorable. I would never violate my conscience by supporting abortion. To me, it is clearly wrong and immoral.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

That's some mighty unusual spelling for someone that claims to be an American...

Quote from: Bruwulf on October 26, 2020, 05:01:59 PM
Yes. The god of the Bible Unfortunately for your argument, not everyone worships that God. Or any god, in some cases. That same Mongolian peasant you want to use the wisdom of as to when a human life begins might instead worship Tengri, or be a Buddhist.

I have no fundamental problem with laws that draw inspiration from biblical sources. As it happens, I think about half of the Ten Commandments are a pretty good place to start when drafting a body of laws... But only half, for a reason. Because if the religion itself is critical to explaining the justification for your law, it starts to be a problem. We can explain why rampant, non-state-sponsored murder is illegal in pretty much every legal system known to man, for example, even cultures that are decidedly non-Christian. So "Thou shalt not kill", or whichever translation you prefer? Makes sense. But you can't explain why blasphemy is illegal, without relying on a purely religious argument... Essentially, "because God or our gods say so".

You dont need to use scripture to determine why Blasphemy is bad. 

You can look at the spread of atheism through the world and the uncanny way it maps directly on to the worst mass murders in human history.

Quote from: HappyDaze on October 26, 2020, 07:07:46 PM
That's some mighty unusual spelling for someone that claims to be an American...

To be fair, honour is an English concept.

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 11:26:50 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 26, 2020, 05:24:52 AM

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 02:07:28 AM
Christians can do their thing, just not enforce it on others. If you believe that abortion is murder, don't get one - but don't try to make that choice for others. And on down the line.

To make the argument,  If I believe that abortion is murder, then why should I tolerate society and government murdering people?

Because you live in a society in which there are a diversity of beliefs. I'm not saying that you shouldn't try to fight for what you believe in, but you also need to accept that others don't believe as you. If you are a national leader, you govern not only those of your religion, but of other belief systems.

We're not talking about tax policy or whether God wants us to wear pants on our heads.

If a group of people thought it was a keen idea to kill every redhead, I would be against that no matter why they thought it. If they started murdering redheads in the street, I'd like to think I'd fight them.

QuoteI'm somewhat sympathetic to the anti-abortion view, except for the fact that abortions will continue to happen whether or not they are legal. Anti-abortionists are either willfully ignorant or don't care about the fact that back-alley abortions will happen, and women will die because of it.

And murder will continue to happen whether or not it's illegal. But I don't think we should legalize murder.

QuoteBecause the question of whether abortion is murder is debatable, if a choice has to be made I'd leave it up to the individual.

There's an argument to be had there. But the idea that the individual should be allowed to decide whether killing someone is murder or not is not (IMO) a very solid foundation for abortion laws. For the same reason that we don't allow someone who killed their spouse in a domestic dispute decide it wasn't murder.

Quote from: Shasarak on October 26, 2020, 03:47:17 PM

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 02:53:08 AM
He is super weird about women. That "never dines alone with a woman" (other than his wife) thing. He wanted to redefine rape. Anti-abortion, etc.

That has to be the best "worst" thing to hate about someone since the old: my worst trait is that I work too hard.

A meaningless statement without context. Do you neglect your children? Your spouse? Yourself, and get sick a lot? Do you work doing something that you find uninteresting, lacking in meaning, or causes harm to others? If any of the above, maybe you do work too hard. If not, good for you - keep at it. Working hard for its own sake is meaningless without context.

Quote from: SHARK on October 26, 2020, 06:15:48 PM
Greetings!

Good to hear that you are on my side of the moral argument, Bruwulf! ;D

I learned many years ago--much to my chagrin--that attempting to argue essential moral logic and reasoning with people is largely pointless and a waste of time. Simple, emotional arguments are what win, and beyond that, most people just don't give a fuck about more comprehensive, articulated arguments.

So, yeah, when it comes to basic morality, I believe abortion is wrong, and immoral. I believe it is common sense to understand it is human life, and an innocent life of a child, that doesn't deserve to be murdered for the convenience of the mother--or anyone else. The gross profiteering involved in the abortion industry is a horrific shame, and something I hope will change. To me, it is murder. A horrible, monstrous action taken most of the time because people are immoral, irresponsible, lazy and selfish--and aided and abetted by others because they do not want to be inconvenienced--or be forced to assume responsibility--while others gleefully rub their hands at the thought of collecting another paycheck off the backs of stupid, immoral, selfish people. I oppose abortion and always encourage people to take responsibility for their own behavior, their own choices--and do the right thing--do that which is righteous. The innocent should never suffer for another person's selfishness or shitty judgment.

And yeah, I happen to also like Captain America logic. I'm an old school dinosaur, raised by parents from World War II. They largely believed in Captain America logic--and honestly, I'm not impressed with the smug, condescending, pseudo-intellectual delusions of self-styled experts and scholars of recent decades. Most of them blubber on with self-delusional, humanistic philosophy that is anti-Christian and entirely unbiblical.

I was raised by God-fearing, Christian parents. I have studied the Scriptures all my life, and I find the biblical moral framework to be an excellent guide for how we are to live in society. Of course people are going to disagree. They reject the truth of Scripture, and reject righteousness. That's ok. They can gnash their teeth, and disagree and object all they want.

I, however, will continue to oppose them. I will vote in support of Christian laws and other policies that reflect a Christian world view. The line of my fathers and forefathers go back, and all were Christians. So, I am happy to keep the faith. Before I could walk, my mother read to me from the Scriptures, and sang to me of our faith. My Christian faith is precious to me, and has always been cherished in my family. I would never foreswear my faith, no matter how many of the world clamour and screech against it.

In the end, all will answer for their deeds. I would never want the terrible sin of abortion on my conscience, and I have always counseled women and men alike to stand against it. Certainly, some may laugh at simple righteousness. There is an awesome and powerful joy in standing for righteousness, and doing that which is right. When I was a boy, my own father taught me that a man of honour does that which is right, no matter the cost to him personally. No matter what, no one can take a man's honour from him, but he can give it away, he can squander it through being unrighteous and doing that which is dishonorable. I would never violate my conscience by supporting abortion. To me, it is clearly wrong and immoral.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

It is unfortunate for you that crusader and inquisitor are no longer job options ;).

Quote from: HappyDaze on October 26, 2020, 07:07:46 PM

That's some mighty unusual spelling for someone that claims to be an American...

Yes, true. But in SHARK's favour, it is the right spelling

Regarding abortion -

The thing is that as far as I know, no mainstream Christian organization has historically treated life as starting at conception. The traditional norm has been that life starts at birth. If a woman miscarries (as has happened throughout history), the remains were traditionally *not* given last rites and a burial on consecrated ground.

It's only in very recent times that there has been a movement to have funerals for a fertilized egg or embryo. And as far as I read, it's still not the standard.


To me, what makes someone a living human soul is not their DNA, but their existence as a thinking, conscious human being. For example, if a person is fully brain-dead, then I do not consider it murder to terminate them. I can respect those who feel otherwise, but I don't think that should be a legal mandate. That is, if someone terminates a proven brain-dead loved one, I don't think they should go to jail for premeditated murder.

Quote from: Shasarak on October 26, 2020, 07:10:31 PMYou dont need to use scripture to determine why Blasphemy is bad. 

You can look at the spread of atheism through the world and the uncanny way it maps directly on to the worst mass murders in human history.

I could use that same level of logical connection to condemn anything. Blasphemy and atheism are not related. I've known atheists who are still respectful of such things in deference to other people's sensibilities, and I've known religious folks who blaspheme with regularity. Besides which, it's another place where it makes cultures incompatible... Or, in some cases, even different groups within the same broad culture. Listen to a hardcore protestant condemn popery and the papists, for example.

Quote from: jhkim on October 26, 2020, 08:12:23 PMTo me, what makes someone a living human soul is not their DNA, but their existence as a thinking, conscious human being. For example, if a person is fully brain-dead, then I do not consider it murder to terminate them. I can respect those who feel otherwise, but I don't think that should be a legal mandate. That is, if someone terminates a proven brain-dead loved one, I don't think they should go to jail for premeditated murder.

100% in agreement. Personally, I would even go as far as allowing euthanasia for any major incurable malady that would cause undue suffering.  I always roll my eyes whenever a pro-lifer brings up people in respirators or other high-tech means of artificially sustaining the life of an otherwise dead body as a counter argument to abortion, as if I wouldn't be even more in favor of pulling the plug than terminating an unwanted pregnancy.

Quote from: Bruwulf on October 26, 2020, 08:27:26 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on October 26, 2020, 07:10:31 PMYou dont need to use scripture to determine why Blasphemy is bad. 

You can look at the spread of atheism through the world and the uncanny way it maps directly on to the worst mass murders in human history.

I could use that same level of logical connection to condemn anything. Blasphemy and atheism are not related. I've known atheists who are still respectful of such things in deference to other people's sensibilities, and I've known religious folks who blaspheme with regularity. Besides which, it's another place where it makes cultures incompatible... Or, in some cases, even different groups within the same broad culture. Listen to a hardcore protestant condemn popery and the papists, for example.

Even the Pope, as bad as he is, never killed 50 million people.

Cultures are supposed to be incompatible, that is the whole point of Culture to separate in group from out group.

Quote from: Zirunel on October 26, 2020, 07:53:34 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on October 26, 2020, 07:07:46 PM

That's some mighty unusual spelling for someone that claims to be an American...

Yes, true. But in SHARK's favour, it is the right spelling

Leftists hate u.

Quote from: Shasarak on October 26, 2020, 09:57:13 PMEven the Pope, as bad as he is, never killed 50 million people.

... Which is not in any way, shape, or form a legitimate response to my post.

"Your logic is flawed" is not refuted by "STALIN KILLED MORE PEOPLE THAN THE POPE!".

Quote from: Shasarak on October 26, 2020, 09:57:13 PMCultures are supposed to be incompatible, that is the whole point of Culture to separate in group from out group.

Uh, no. Culture is a concept that exists regardless of if you name it. It transcends the idea of having a "point". It's just the recognition of a reality that exists.

Quote from: Bruwulf on October 26, 2020, 10:46:40 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on October 26, 2020, 09:57:13 PMEven the Pope, as bad as he is, never killed 50 million people.

... Which is not in any way, shape, or form a legitimate response to my post.

"Your logic is flawed" is not refuted by "STALIN KILLED MORE PEOPLE THAN THE POPE!".

IT WAS YOUR EXAMPLE!

Quote

Quote from: Shasarak on October 26, 2020, 09:57:13 PMCultures are supposed to be incompatible, that is the whole point of Culture to separate in group from out group.

Uh, no. Culture is a concept that exists regardless of if you name it. It transcends the idea of having a "point". It's just the recognition of a reality that exists.

You could call Culture "Bruce" if you want.  But then no one would understand what your "point" was.

Quote from: Shasarak on October 26, 2020, 11:05:55 PMIT WAS YOUR EXAMPLE!

I made the point that two religious groups in the same culture might blaspheme against the other without either descending into the terrible degeneracy of atheism. I used the fact that some protestants have a lot of hatred for Catholics as an example. That's it. It was in no way a "<X> is as bad as Hitler!!" example. Quite the opposite, if anything, my point was more along the lines of "two well-meaning groups with very similar ideologies can still have ideological resentment for each other".

QuoteYou could call Culture "Bruce" if you want.  But then no one would understand what your "point" was.

Yes. Congratulations. You have grasped the concept of language.

No part of the definition of culture is one of inherent incompatibility. That is not the "point" of culture, as you say. Culture doesn't have a point. It just is.

Quote from: HappyDaze on October 26, 2020, 07:07:46 PM

Quote from: SHARK on October 26, 2020, 06:15:48 PM

Greetings!

Good to hear that you are on my side of the moral argument, Bruwulf! ;D

I learned many years ago--much to my chagrin--that attempting to argue essential moral logic and reasoning with people is largely pointless and a waste of time. Simple, emotional arguments are what win, and beyond that, most people just don't give a fuck about more comprehensive, articulated arguments.

So, yeah, when it comes to basic morality, I believe abortion is wrong, and immoral. I believe it is common sense to understand it is human life, and an innocent life of a child, that doesn't deserve to be murdered for the convenience of the mother--or anyone else. The gross profiteering involved in the abortion industry is a horrific shame, and something I hope will change. To me, it is murder. A horrible, monstrous action taken most of the time because people are immoral, irresponsible, lazy and selfish--and aided and abetted by others because they do not want to be inconvenienced--or be forced to assume responsibility--while others gleefully rub their hands at the thought of collecting another paycheck off the backs of stupid, immoral, selfish people. I oppose abortion and always encourage people to take responsibility for their own behavior, their own choices--and do the right thing--do that which is righteous. The innocent should never suffer for another person's selfishness or shitty judgment.

And yeah, I happen to also like Captain America logic. I'm an old school dinosaur, raised by parents from World War II. They largely believed in Captain America logic--and honestly, I'm not impressed with the smug, condescending, pseudo-intellectual delusions of self-styled experts and scholars of recent decades. Most of them blubber on with self-delusional, humanistic philosophy that is anti-Christian and entirely unbiblical.

I was raised by God-fearing, Christian parents. I have studied the Scriptures all my life, and I find the biblical moral framework to be an excellent guide for how we are to live in society. Of course people are going to disagree. They reject the truth of Scripture, and reject righteousness. That's ok. They can gnash their teeth, and disagree and object all they want.

I, however, will continue to oppose them. I will vote in support of Christian laws and other policies that reflect a Christian world view. The line of my fathers and forefathers go back, and all were Christians. So, I am happy to keep the faith. Before I could walk, my mother read to me from the Scriptures, and sang to me of our faith. My Christian faith is precious to me, and has always been cherished in my family. I would never foreswear my faith, no matter how many of the world clamour and screech against it.

In the end, all will answer for their deeds. I would never want the terrible sin of abortion on my conscience, and I have always counseled women and men alike to stand against it. Certainly, some may laugh at simple righteousness. There is an awesome and powerful joy in standing for righteousness, and doing that which is right. When I was a boy, my own father taught me that a man of honour does that which is right, no matter the cost to him personally. No matter what, no one can take a man's honour from him, but he can give it away, he can squander it through being unrighteous and doing that which is dishonorable. I would never violate my conscience by supporting abortion. To me, it is clearly wrong and immoral.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

That's some mighty unusual spelling for someone that claims to be an American...

Greetings!

Yes, I suppose it is mighty unusual, especially nowadays in America. I have spent many years reading and studying perhaps far too many books on ancient and medieval history, philosophy, and theology--and many of those, whether dealing with the history of Ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, the development of the Germanic tribes, Celtic civilization, and more besides--are written by highly educated British scholars--who in turn, write and in the case of videos and documentaries, speak--in the King's English. I suppose it is a process of a gradual, academic osmosis. It began for me before I was in high school, as I began studying history with a great zeal and passion, even while in grade school. By the time I got into college, the osmosis had become unconsciously entrenched. My professors often remarked on it as well. ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 07:51:14 PM

Quote from: SHARK on October 26, 2020, 06:15:48 PM
Greetings!

Good to hear that you are on my side of the moral argument, Bruwulf! ;D

I learned many years ago--much to my chagrin--that attempting to argue essential moral logic and reasoning with people is largely pointless and a waste of time. Simple, emotional arguments are what win, and beyond that, most people just don't give a fuck about more comprehensive, articulated arguments.

So, yeah, when it comes to basic morality, I believe abortion is wrong, and immoral. I believe it is common sense to understand it is human life, and an innocent life of a child, that doesn't deserve to be murdered for the convenience of the mother--or anyone else. The gross profiteering involved in the abortion industry is a horrific shame, and something I hope will change. To me, it is murder. A horrible, monstrous action taken most of the time because people are immoral, irresponsible, lazy and selfish--and aided and abetted by others because they do not want to be inconvenienced--or be forced to assume responsibility--while others gleefully rub their hands at the thought of collecting another paycheck off the backs of stupid, immoral, selfish people. I oppose abortion and always encourage people to take responsibility for their own behavior, their own choices--and do the right thing--do that which is righteous. The innocent should never suffer for another person's selfishness or shitty judgment.

And yeah, I happen to also like Captain America logic. I'm an old school dinosaur, raised by parents from World War II. They largely believed in Captain America logic--and honestly, I'm not impressed with the smug, condescending, pseudo-intellectual delusions of self-styled experts and scholars of recent decades. Most of them blubber on with self-delusional, humanistic philosophy that is anti-Christian and entirely unbiblical.

I was raised by God-fearing, Christian parents. I have studied the Scriptures all my life, and I find the biblical moral framework to be an excellent guide for how we are to live in society. Of course people are going to disagree. They reject the truth of Scripture, and reject righteousness. That's ok. They can gnash their teeth, and disagree and object all they want.

I, however, will continue to oppose them. I will vote in support of Christian laws and other policies that reflect a Christian world view. The line of my fathers and forefathers go back, and all were Christians. So, I am happy to keep the faith. Before I could walk, my mother read to me from the Scriptures, and sang to me of our faith. My Christian faith is precious to me, and has always been cherished in my family. I would never foreswear my faith, no matter how many of the world clamour and screech against it.

In the end, all will answer for their deeds. I would never want the terrible sin of abortion on my conscience, and I have always counseled women and men alike to stand against it. Certainly, some may laugh at simple righteousness. There is an awesome and powerful joy in standing for righteousness, and doing that which is right. When I was a boy, my own father taught me that a man of honour does that which is right, no matter the cost to him personally. No matter what, no one can take a man's honour from him, but he can give it away, he can squander it through being unrighteous and doing that which is dishonorable. I would never violate my conscience by supporting abortion. To me, it is clearly wrong and immoral.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

It is unfortunate for you that crusader and inquisitor are no longer job options ;).

Greetings!

*Laughing* I remember when I was first in the Marine Corps, Father Sullivan exhorted me-- "Go forth as a Soldier of Christ. Lift up your brethren, and stand against the World. Always remember that God is with you, in life and in death, and in the halls of eternity. Everlasting Glory is to be our hope and our great reward!" In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti.

I have never forgotten his charge to me.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: jhkim on October 26, 2020, 08:12:23 PM
The thing is that as far as I know, no mainstream Christian organization has historically treated life as starting at conception. The traditional norm has been that life starts at birth. If a woman miscarries (as has happened throughout history), the remains were traditionally *not* given last rites and a burial on consecrated ground.

In Judaism you're not supposed to do the official mourning unless they last at least, I think 30 days - some number like that. In medieval times that'd be a compassionate thing. If you have 25% infant mortality it's a bit rough to have them in mourning for one year in four.

And come to think of it - I don't know if it's ever been studied, but surely when infant mortality is high, miscarriages would be high, too?

Now with much lower rates it becomes more of a question.

Quote from: Bruwulf on October 26, 2020, 03:34:44 PM

Quote from: shuddemell on October 26, 2020, 12:59:12 PMI'm curious how you would make a distinction of life/not life at any point other than conception. Primarily because, there are humans that will fall into that criteria if you use any other benchmark. Braindead people on respirators (if you use brain activity), Hearbeat would be invalidated by people with pacemakers, breathing invalidated by respirators... Particularly when the self same people that claim it is a clump of cells, and then would take that same signal to be life if it were on Mars. Seems splitting hairs to justify mass murder...

Fucking... stop making me be the "in the middle" guy here, but you're being just as dense. The test is not "alive". Yes, a placenta is alive. Cell activity is going on. Nobody is questioning that.  The question is whether it really counts as a human, and where that line is. And I'm conflicted enough to say I don't know. But I do know it's alive, and so does anyone who is being honest.

No it's not dense at all. It has to qualify as human life. We've established that it is alive, and we know the DNA is human and always will be, and that the parents were both human. What else would it be? More importantly, how would you make that determination? And if you cannot make that determination, why not err on the side of caution? Instead, what we're doing is essentially saying that the life doesn't matter until we've decide whether it's a human life or not. The callous hubris of that position is astounding, and sounds  far too similar to the same sort of justifications that tyrants and social engineers have used to justify the killing of those they find inconvenient.

Our application of laws and principles should be consistent. While I might disagree with jhkim on the demarcation point, his position is consistent and he has considered the logical and ethical consequences of that position. I am looking for the same consistency, and as such I see all human life as entitled to life, liberty ... and I am not about to decide the wholesale slaughter of that life is okay until we make up our minds whether it counts or not.

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 04:08:04 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on October 26, 2020, 12:22:11 PM

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 12:01:09 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on October 26, 2020, 11:58:10 AM

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 02:53:08 AM

Quote from: jeff37923 on October 26, 2020, 02:26:32 AM

Quote from: Mercurius on October 26, 2020, 02:07:28 AM
Pence has fundamentalist attitudes about women, gay people, and probably other things.

You keep alluding to these "fundamentalist attitudes" of Pence, but you have yet to give any examples. Please do so.

He is against gay marriage, for one, and connected it to "societal collapse" and saying that being against gay marriage is "God's idea."

He is super weird about women. That "never dines alone with a woman" (other than his wife) thing. He wanted to redefine rape. Anti-abortion, etc.

OK, where is the proof of all this? Do you have news clippings? Other media sources? Where are you getting that information?

There are lots of articles out there. Google is your friend.

I'll just remind you that it was YOU who made the claims, so the burden of proof is also on YOU.

If you cannot provide proof, then you are just another liberal propagandist riding the bandwagon.

I offered some quotes. But here's a few links from a quick Google search:

Good. I apologize for the wait in my response, but I had to go to work. Thank you for being patient.

Quote from: Mercurius
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/19/president-pence-women-week-in-patriarchy

For including this article in your proof as evidence, I would like to thank you from the bottom of my heart. You sent me a hit peace written by a die hard radical feminist who has a regular Guardian column entitled "The Week In Patriarchy" and tell me that I cannot dismiss it by saying it has "liberal bias". The article itself is so wonderfully over-the-top that my laughter would occasionally drown out the author's REEEEEEEEEEEEE!!! of outrage that came through the letters. I loved it!

The gist of the article is that Pence's wife is going back to work at an Evangelical Christian school which is ant-GBLT and because of that, Pence is Hitler and going to exterminate all GBLTs. Which makes about as much sense as saying that if you eat a Chick-Fil-A sandwich, then you will become an Evangelical Southern Baptist who hates gays (nobody dares suggest that maybe the chicken sammiches are tasty because narrative)

Quote from: Mercurius
https://time.com/4406337/mike-pence-gay-rights-lgbt-religious-freedom/

This one is less funny.
And was written in 2016 only after Pence had been chosen as Trump's running mate

I disagree with the first two because I don't believe gay couples are a prelude to societal collapse. The anti-discrimination law linked goes into detail and was passed with amendments in 2007 - so it doesn't look like it was that offensive.

I agree with the second two because repealing "don't Ask, Don't Tell" DID lead to the US Military becoming a backdrop for social experimentation by the Obama Administration and sorry, but trans (especially pre-op) identifying kids should not use the ladies restroom.

Not anything too weird.....

Quote from: Mercurius://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/mike-pence-women-quotes-kamala-harris-debate-b724539.html

In  this era of MeToo, I can understand why a public figure does not want to meet alone with a woman.

I'm getting punchy and will sleep soon, so I'll have to finish this later.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/23/the-danger-of-president-pence

My guess is that it doesn't matter what links I provide, as you'll say "liberal bias!" or some such.
[/quote]

Quote from: jeff37923 on October 27, 2020, 09:17:52 AM

In  this era of MeToo, I can understand why a public figure does not want to meet alone with a woman.

People scoffed at Pence's "old fashioned" attitude, but there's a reason for that idea. It's harder (not impossible) to make a false accusation, or have a misunderstood circumstance, if you simply don't put yourself in a questionable situation.

Having #metoo as a backdrop for Pence's statements just makes it darkly humorous.

I think we've kind of fallen far afield of the original topic. Can we get back to pointing and laughing at TBP? :)

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 27, 2020, 01:45:36 PM
I think we've kind of fallen far afield of the original topic. Can we get back to pointing and laughing at TBP? :)

How many ways can we say "They suck" until the next gossip happens?

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 27, 2020, 09:18:24 PM
How many ways can we say "They suck" until the next gossip happens?

What kind of a gamer would ask this question? Hello? Dice? Charts? Stats? We can quantify how much they suck!

Tabletop Roleplaying Open: Threads - 196,984, Messages - 5,317,922
Tangency Open: Threads - 109,161, Messages - 4,981,556

The tail at 48.36% the length of the whole animal appears to be wagging the dog.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on October 28, 2020, 02:22:27 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 27, 2020, 09:18:24 PM
How many ways can we say "They suck" until the next gossip happens?

What kind of a gamer would ask this question? Hello? Dice? Charts? Stats? We can quantify how much they suck!

Tabletop Roleplaying Open: Threads - 196,984, Messages - 5,317,922
Tangency Open: Threads - 109,161, Messages - 4,981,556

The tail at 48.36% the length of the whole animal appears to be wagging the dog.

Has anyone made a d666 random RPGnet modding encounter chart? Anyone want to?

Anyone know that happened to Ol' Jim on that site?

2 trouble tickets on 10/21
6 trouble tickets on 10/23 leading to a Permanent Ban

Quote from: lordmalachdrim on October 28, 2020, 07:09:21 AM
Anyone know that happened to Ol' Jim on that site?

2 trouble tickets on 10/21
6 trouble tickets on 10/23 leading to a Permanent Ban

I think he's a test target for when they modify/refine their disciplinary system.

Ol Jim is John Sumbitch's replacement because "bitch" is unacceptable language on rpg.net now.

It's funny how much the new orthodoxy looks like the old orthodoxy.

Quote from: David Johansen on October 28, 2020, 07:34:03 PM
Ol Jim is John Sumbitch's replacement because "bitch" is unacceptable language on rpg.net now.

It's funny how much the new orthodoxy looks like the old orthodoxy.

Heh. How ageist of them.

Quote from: David Johansen on October 28, 2020, 07:34:03 PM
Ol Jim is John Sumbitch's replacement because "bitch" is unacceptable language on rpg.net now.

It's funny how much the new orthodoxy looks like the old orthodoxy.

I was wondering why they retired poor John Sumbitch. Big if true! :D

Quote from: jhkim on October 26, 2020, 08:12:23 PM
Regarding abortion -

The thing is that as far as I know, no mainstream Christian organization has historically treated life as starting at conception. The traditional norm has been that life starts at birth. If a woman miscarries (as has happened throughout history), the remains were traditionally *not* given last rites and a burial on consecrated ground.

It's only in very recent times that there has been a movement to have funerals for a fertilized egg or embryo. And as far as I read, it's still not the standard.


To me, what makes someone a living human soul is not their DNA, but their existence as a thinking, conscious human being. For example, if a person is fully brain-dead, then I do not consider it murder to terminate them. I can respect those who feel otherwise, but I don't think that should be a legal mandate. That is, if someone terminates a proven brain-dead loved one, I don't think they should go to jail for premeditated murder.

Let us assume that an unborn individual does not count as a member of its species.

If that's the case, then there can be no objection to destorying bald eagle eggs. They aren't bald eagles.

Quote from: Dan Davenport on October 29, 2020, 11:20:58 AM
Let us assume that an unborn individual does not count as a member of its species.

If that's the case, then there can be no objection to destorying bald eagle eggs. They aren't bald eagles.

Except that a potential member of an endangered species is still valuable if you're trying to conserve that species. The argument is not that a fertilized egg never will become something else, but when that happens.

So your argument is that a potential bald eagle is more valuable than a potential human?

Quote from: shuddemell on October 29, 2020, 01:07:40 PM
So your argument is that a potential bald eagle is more valuable than a potential human?

No, that's not my argument, but for the purposes of trying to conserve the bald eagle population, yes, it's true. A potential human will never become a bald eagle. A potential bald eagle might.

Interesting, and basically that is your argument restated. And a potential human might become another Einstein, and a bald eagle never will. So the idea of evaluating the value of a person before they ever get to be born is ghoulish in the extreme.

Quote from: Bruwulf on October 29, 2020, 01:26:39 PM

Quote from: shuddemell on October 29, 2020, 01:07:40 PM
So your argument is that a potential bald eagle is more valuable than a potential human?

No, that's not my argument, but for the purposes of trying to conserve the bald eagle population, yes, it's true. A potential human will never become a bald eagle. A potential bald eagle might.

Ah. So by that logic, a bald eagle is more valuable than a human, and the killing of a bald eagle should carry a harsher sentence than should the killing of a human.

Quote from: Dan Davenport on October 29, 2020, 01:34:57 PM
Ah. So by that logic, a bald eagle is more valuable than a human, and the killing of a bald eagle should carry a harsher sentence than should the killing of a human.

::)

Come on. I used to have a lot of respect for you back on TBP. You're just inventing things you want me to have said to argue with now.

Quote from: shuddemell on October 29, 2020, 01:32:32 PM
Interesting, and basically that is your argument restated. And a potential human might become another Einstein, and a bald eagle never will. So the idea of evaluating the value of a person before they ever get to be born is ghoulish in the extreme.

Which is why I'm not doing that.

Also, incidentally, if you want to take the argument in that direction, the penalty for killing Einstein and a retarded ward of the state is, correctly, exactly the same, so that's a cheap rhetorical trick that doesn't actually work.

Quote from: Bruwulf on October 29, 2020, 01:39:11 PM

Quote from: Dan Davenport on October 29, 2020, 01:34:57 PM
Ah. So by that logic, a bald eagle is more valuable than a human, and the killing of a bald eagle should carry a harsher sentence than should the killing of a human.

::)

Come on. I used to have a lot of respect for you back on TBP. You're just inventing things you want me to have said to argue with now.

Not at all. I'm just following your argument to its logical conclusion. If a potential bald eagle is more valuable than a potential human, then an actual bald eagle must be more valuable than an actual human. How is that not the case?

A little more on ethics and life here.

Quote from: shuddemell on October 27, 2020, 02:48:31 AM
Instead, what we're doing is essentially saying that the life doesn't matter until we've decide whether it's a human life or not. The callous hubris of that position is astounding, and sounds  far too similar to the same sort of justifications that tyrants and social engineers have used to justify the killing of those they find inconvenient.

Our application of laws and principles should be consistent. While I might disagree with jhkim on the demarcation point, his position is consistent and he has considered the logical and ethical consequences of that position. I am looking for the same consistency, and as such I see all human life as entitled to life, liberty ... and I am not about to decide the wholesale slaughter of that life is okay until we make up our minds whether it counts or not.

First of all, thanks for recognition - even if we disagree. I'm not entirely sure I understand your position, though. Especially, do you have a general position on non-human life?

My ethics about individuals are based on whether someone is a thinking, conscious being. So if something is eliminated that has no brain function - like a sperm cell, an egg, or placenta - those should not be considered murder. I have no ethical problem with spermicidal jelly, for example. I also have no problem with IVF fertilization, where several eggs are fertilized and a number of them are disposed of.

I don't feel that most non-human animals should be considered, but I have some doubt about a handful with complex brain function like chimpanzees and dolphins - that they might be considered thinking, conscious beings. I don't think they should be considered in the same category as humans, but I might lean towards ethically treating them differently than we would cows or fish. I could consider requiring a trial or legal order before killing a chimpanzee, and giving them limited rights. In general, though, it seems to me that worrying about the lives of non-humans is considered to be bleeding-heart liberal thinking.

Quote from: Dan Davenport on October 29, 2020, 11:20:58 AM

Quote from: jhkim on October 26, 2020, 08:12:23 PM
The thing is that as far as I know, no mainstream Christian organization has historically treated life as starting at conception. The traditional norm has been that life starts at birth. If a woman miscarries (as has happened throughout history), the remains were traditionally *not* given last rites and a burial on consecrated ground.

It's only in very recent times that there has been a movement to have funerals for a fertilized egg or embryo. And as far as I read, it's still not the standard.

To me, what makes someone a living human soul is not their DNA, but their existence as a thinking, conscious human being. For example, if a person is fully brain-dead, then I do not consider it murder to terminate them. I can respect those who feel otherwise, but I don't think that should be a legal mandate. That is, if someone terminates a proven brain-dead loved one, I don't think they should go to jail for premeditated murder.

Let us assume that an unborn individual does not count as a member of its species.

If that's the case, then there can be no objection to destorying bald eagle eggs. They aren't bald eagles.

I'd have the same objection to destroying bald eagle eggs that I would to neutering fertile bald eagles. It has the effect of reducing the number and genetic diversity of the bald eagle population. Bald eagle sperm definitely does not count as a member of the species, but destroying it can harm the bald eagle population. I don't have any ethical issues with killing a bird, but I'd want the endangered species population and genetic diversity increased.

That said, as I said, I don't have a problem with people using birth control - including spermicidal jelly which destroys unique human DNA.

Outside of endangered species, though, I don't have an ethical problem with destroying bird eggs. I have respect for vegans and Jains, but I still eat meat and eggs, for example.

Of course that is what you are doing. You've agreed that it is alive at conception, it has to be human, the DNA is human, it's parents are human and still you are trying to find a way to say it isn't human until "we" as a society say so. Why would it not be human, but the bald eagle definitely be a bald eagle? By the way, the penalty for killing a bald eagle or destroying its eggs are the same, and you claim they have value because they are a potential bald eagle, and yet the potential human may or may not have value because you haven't decided yet. Obviously you've applied some sort of valuation of the lives involved, yet claim you are not "evaluating the value of a person"...

Quote from: jhkim on October 29, 2020, 01:46:40 PM
A little more on ethics and life here.

Quote from: shuddemell on October 27, 2020, 02:48:31 AM
Instead, what we're doing is essentially saying that the life doesn't matter until we've decide whether it's a human life or not. The callous hubris of that position is astounding, and sounds  far too similar to the same sort of justifications that tyrants and social engineers have used to justify the killing of those they find inconvenient.

Our application of laws and principles should be consistent. While I might disagree with jhkim on the demarcation point, his position is consistent and he has considered the logical and ethical consequences of that position. I am looking for the same consistency, and as such I see all human life as entitled to life, liberty ... and I am not about to decide the wholesale slaughter of that life is okay until we make up our minds whether it counts or not.

First of all, thanks for recognition - even if we disagree. I'm not entirely sure I understand your position, though. Especially, do you have a general position on non-human life?

My ethics about individuals are based on whether someone is a thinking, conscious being. So if something is eliminated that has no brain function - like a sperm cell, an egg, or placenta - those should not be considered murder. I have no ethical problem with spermicidal jelly, for example. I also have no problem with IVF fertilization, where several eggs are fertilized and a number of them are disposed of.

I don't feel that most non-human animals should be considered, but I have some doubt about a handful with complex brain function like chimpanzees and dolphins - that they might be considered thinking, conscious beings. I don't think they should be considered in the same category as humans, but I might lean towards ethically treating them differently than we would cows or fish. I could consider requiring a trial or legal order before killing a chimpanzee, and giving them limited rights. In general, though, it seems to me that worrying about the lives of non-humans is considered to be bleeding-heart liberal thinking.

Quote from: Dan Davenport on October 29, 2020, 11:20:58 AM

Quote from: jhkim on October 26, 2020, 08:12:23 PM
The thing is that as far as I know, no mainstream Christian organization has historically treated life as starting at conception. The traditional norm has been that life starts at birth. If a woman miscarries (as has happened throughout history), the remains were traditionally *not* given last rites and a burial on consecrated ground.

It's only in very recent times that there has been a movement to have funerals for a fertilized egg or embryo. And as far as I read, it's still not the standard.

To me, what makes someone a living human soul is not their DNA, but their existence as a thinking, conscious human being. For example, if a person is fully brain-dead, then I do not consider it murder to terminate them. I can respect those who feel otherwise, but I don't think that should be a legal mandate. That is, if someone terminates a proven brain-dead loved one, I don't think they should go to jail for premeditated murder.

Let us assume that an unborn individual does not count as a member of its species.

If that's the case, then there can be no objection to destorying bald eagle eggs. They aren't bald eagles.

I'd have the same objection to destroying bald eagle eggs that I would to neutering fertile bald eagles. It has the effect of reducing the number and genetic diversity of the bald eagle population. Bald eagle sperm definitely does not count as a member of the species, but destroying it can harm the bald eagle population. I don't have any ethical issues with killing a bird, but I'd want the endangered species population and genetic diversity increased.

That said, as I said, I don't have a problem with people using birth control - including spermicidal jelly which destroys unique human DNA.

Outside of endangered species, though, I don't have an ethical problem with destroying bird eggs. I have respect for vegans and Jains, but I still eat meat and eggs, for example.

My position is that since I cannot determine exactly at what point "sentient" life begins in human beings that I will not attempt to judge its value and must assume that it is already alive (which it is, biologically speaking anyway) and that I have no business deciding whether or not it is allowed to live. I fundamentally agree with your position, but I don't feel myself qualified to know at what point a human actually becomes sentient that I will be on the safe side and not make that determination except in the direst of circumstances (which an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy is not). Your examples of dolphins and chimpanzees kind of goes to my point... can I determine if they are sentient or not? Nope, so there too, I avoid killing them whether they are in utero or not.

Quote from: Dan Davenport on October 29, 2020, 01:43:29 PMNot at all. I'm just following your argument to its logical conclusion. If a potential bald eagle is more valuable than a potential human, then an actual bald eagle must be more valuable than an actual human. How is that not the case?

You're omitting the conditional I put on there: for the purposes of trying to conserve an endangered species. If I wipe out a bunch of starling nests, or a bunch of starlings, nothing will be done to me, because we aren't specifically trying to preserve an endangered species in that case.

The only reason bald eagles are specifically protected is because they are in danger of being wiped out. Now you can make whatever argument you want to about the sanctity of human life, and that's fine. But you can't say we're on the verge of going extinct and need to be conserved as a species, so a law specifically aimed at preventing that does not and should not exist.

Get it yet? I'm saying your example was dumb because the two things are significantly different situations and have significantly different rational behind them.

Quote from: shuddemell on October 29, 2020, 01:49:18 PM
Of course that is what you are doing. You've agreed that it is alive at conception, it has to be human, the DNA is human, it's parents are human and still you are trying to find a way to say it isn't human until "we" as a society say so. Why would it not be human, but the bald eagle definitely be a bald eagle? By the way, the penalty for killing a bald eagle or destroying its eggs are the same, and you claim they have value because they are a potential bald eagle, and yet the potential human may or may not have value because you haven't decided yet. Obviously you've applied some sort of valuation of the lives involved, yet claim you are not "evaluating the value of a person"...

You are bound and determined to try to twist my words into a position I didn't take but is easier to argue with, aren't you? You should go apply to be a mod on TBP. You're doing them proud right now.

I made a single, very constrained argument. I'm not going to restate it for the nth time, but you can go back and read the several places I've clarified and restated it. Virtually nothing in that post has any actual connection to my argument.

Quote from: Bruwulf on October 29, 2020, 01:55:06 PM

Quote from: Dan Davenport on October 29, 2020, 01:43:29 PMNot at all. I'm just following your argument to its logical conclusion. If a potential bald eagle is more valuable than a potential human, then an actual bald eagle must be more valuable than an actual human. How is that not the case?

You're omitting the conditional I put on there: for the purposes of trying to conserve an endangered species. If I wipe out a bunch of starling nests, or a bunch of starlings, nothing will be done to me, because we aren't specifically trying to preserve an endangered species in that case.

The only reason bald eagles are specifically protected is because they are in danger of being wiped out. Now you can make whatever argument you want to about the sanctity of human life, and that's fine. But you can't say we're on the verge of going extinct and need to be conserved as a species, so a law specifically aimed at preventing that does not and should not exist.

Get it yet? I'm saying your example was dumb because the two things are significantly different situations and have significantly different rational behind them.

I get that there is a special circumstance regarding bald eagles that does not apply to humans -- specifically, their rarity. My point is that if that rarity conveys special value on an unborn bald eagle that does not apply to an unborn human, then the same relative values must apply to the born members of both species. Again, how does this not follow?

Quote from: shuddemell on October 29, 2020, 01:53:10 PM
My position is that since I cannot determine exactly at what point "valid" life begins in human beings that I will not attempt to judge its value and must assume that it is already alive (which it is, biologically speaking anyway) and that I have no business deciding whether or not it is allowed to live. I fundamentally agree with your position, but I don't feel myself qualified to know at what point a human actually becomes sentient that I will be on the safe side and not make that determination except in the direst of circumstances (which an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy is not).

So, how do you feel about:

1) Chimpanzees and dolphins? Do you feel qualified to judge whether they are sentient?

2) Sperm and unfertilized eggs. These are unquestionably alive and represent potential human life. Do you feel qualified to judge them?

Quote from: Dan Davenport on October 29, 2020, 02:05:02 PM
I get that there is a special circumstance regarding bald eagles that does not apply to humans -- specifically, their rarity. My point is that if that rarity conveys special value on an unborn bald eagle that does not apply to an unborn human, then the same relative values must apply to the born members of both species. Again, how does this not follow?

They're completely different ethics. In the case of bald eagles, there is an end goal of keeping genetic diversity. That doesn't entail respect for individuals - it's a question of keeping up the population.

If we set aside the case of eggs - just consider bald eagle sperm versus human sperm. If a zookeeper takes great care with bald eagle sperm, and tries to keep up the population that way -- but is careless with their own human sperm. Does that mean that they think bald eagles are more valuable than humans?

Quote from: Dan Davenport on October 29, 2020, 02:05:02 PM
I get that there is a special circumstance regarding bald eagles that does not apply to humans -- specifically, their rarity. My point is that if that rarity conveys special value on an unborn bald eagle that does not apply to an unborn human, then the same relative values must apply to the born members of both species. Again, how does this not follow?

Because the potential is important in the one case, but not in the other. We aren't making a moralistic judgement. Essentially, hurting a bald eagle, or destroying their eggs, is a property crime, where the owner of the property is "the world", or "the country" I suppose. We're not saying "you did evil", we're saying "you did something we said not to do".

Hence why, as I said, we don't attach special legal imperative to other species of birds. Only rare ones.

ETA, also, what jhkim said is solid, as well, and probably clearer than my own argument.

Quote from: Bruwulf on October 29, 2020, 02:00:44 PM

Quote from: shuddemell on October 29, 2020, 01:49:18 PM
Of course that is what you are doing. You've agreed that it is alive at conception, it has to be human, the DNA is human, it's parents are human and still you are trying to find a way to say it isn't human until "we" as a society say so. Why would it not be human, but the bald eagle definitely be a bald eagle? By the way, the penalty for killing a bald eagle or destroying its eggs are the same, and you claim they have value because they are a potential bald eagle, and yet the potential human may or may not have value because you haven't decided yet. Obviously you've applied some sort of valuation of the lives involved, yet claim you are not "evaluating the value of a person"...

You are bound and determined to try to twist my words into a position I didn't take but is easier to argue with, aren't you? You should go apply to be a mod on TBP. You're doing them proud right now.

I made a single, very constrained argument. I'm not going to restate it for the nth time, but you can go back and read the several places I've clarified and restated it. Virtually nothing in that post has any actual connection to my argument.

Really? I understand that you tried to constrain your argument to apply a value to bald eagles only when we are trying to conserve the species. I still don't see how that has anything to do with the value of human life, and there are plenty of people interested in conserving human life. Even if we apply the apples to oranges comparison you made (Conservation vs. Non-Conserved Humans), you're placing a value on them, something rare but something plentiful is the valuation you are making (a highly collectivist point of view), but it is an evaluation of their worth. Everything I stated is either directly something you stated or a logical conclusion from your statements.

Quote from: jhkim on October 29, 2020, 02:17:11 PM

Quote from: shuddemell on October 29, 2020, 01:53:10 PM
My position is that since I cannot determine exactly at what point "valid" life begins in human beings that I will not attempt to judge its value and must assume that it is already alive (which it is, biologically speaking anyway) and that I have no business deciding whether or not it is allowed to live. I fundamentally agree with your position, but I don't feel myself qualified to know at what point a human actually becomes sentient that I will be on the safe side and not make that determination except in the direst of circumstances (which an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy is not).

So, how do you feel about:

1) Chimpanzees and dolphins? Do you feel qualified to judge whether they are sentient?

2) Sperm and unfertilized eggs. These are unquestionably alive and represent potential human life. Do you feel qualified to judge them?

As to chimpanzees and dolphins, NO I don't feel myself qualified to make that judgment. As for embryos, no, but sperm yes, because by itself it has no potential for sentience. It must have an egg and fertilization to occur.

Quote from: Dan Davenport on October 29, 2020, 02:05:02 PM
I get that there is a special circumstance regarding bald eagles that does not apply to humans -- specifically, their rarity. My point is that if that rarity conveys special value on an unborn bald eagle that does not apply to an unborn human, then the same relative values must apply to the born members of both species. Again, how does this not follow?

They're completely different ethics. In the case of bald eagles, there is an end goal of keeping genetic diversity. That doesn't entail respect for individuals - it's a question of keeping up the population.

If we set aside the case of eggs - just consider bald eagle sperm versus human sperm. If a zookeeper takes great care with bald eagle sperm, and tries to keep up the population that way -- but is careless with their own human sperm. Does that mean that they think bald eagles are more valuable than humans?

As to chimpanzees and dolphins, NO I don't feel myself qualified to make that judgment. As for embryos, no, but sperm and unfertilized eggs, yes, because by themselves, they have no potential for sentience. It must have an egg and fertilization to occur for sentience to occur.

Quote from: shuddemell on October 29, 2020, 02:22:29 PMReally? I understand that you tried to constrain your argument to apply a value to bald eagles only when we are trying to conserve the species. I still don't see how that has anything to do with the value of human life, and there are plenty of people interested in conserving human life. Even if we apply the apples to oranges comparison you made (Conservation vs. Non-Conserved Humans), you're placing a value on them, something rare but something plentiful is the valuation you are making (a highly collectivist point of view), but it is an evaluation of their worth. Everything I stated is either directly something you stated or a logical conclusion from your statements.

Really? Point me to these "plenty" of people who think the human species needs "conservation" in terms of population growth, please.

They do exist, I'll give you that.

Always in the opposite direction, though.

If we haven't already, we're about to cross the 8 billion threshold. We are not an endangered species that needs our population conserved. Maybe, arguably, certain specific bloodlines, you might be able to make that argument. Maybe we should be breeding gingers in captivity. But humans as a whole? No.

Quote from: Bruwulf on October 29, 2020, 02:29:11 PM

Quote from: shuddemell on October 29, 2020, 02:22:29 PMReally? I understand that you tried to constrain your argument to apply a value to bald eagles only when we are trying to conserve the species. I still don't see how that has anything to do with the value of human life, and there are plenty of people interested in conserving human life. Even if we apply the apples to oranges comparison you made (Conservation vs. Non-Conserved Humans), you're placing a value on them, something rare but something plentiful is the valuation you are making (a highly collectivist point of view), but it is an evaluation of their worth. Everything I stated is either directly something you stated or a logical conclusion from your statements.

Really? Point me to these "plenty" of people who think the human species needs "conservation" in terms of population growth, please.

They do exist, I'll give you that.

Always in the opposite direction, though.

If we haven't already, we're about to cross the 8 billion threshold. We are not an endangered species that needs our population conserved. Maybe, arguably, certain specific bloodlines, you might be able to make that argument. Maybe we should be breeding gingers in captivity. But humans as a whole? No.

Have you ever heard of fundamentalist Christians? I'm not saying I agree with them, but there are those that are concerned. My point is that there are those concerned more with humans than eagles. I personally think we can do them both justice without sacrificing them on the altar of our disregard. I am also not saying that Bald Eagles don't need conservation, they do. But it is an interesting shift to compare an ethical conundrum (human life and abortion) with essentially a legal one (at least that is the impression that I got from your post, though I would submit it too is an ethical consideration).

Quote from: shuddemell on October 29, 2020, 02:53:07 PMHave you ever heard of fundamentalist Christians? I'm not saying I agree with them, but there are those that are concerned. My point is that there are those concerned more with humans than eagles. I personally think we can do them both justice without sacrificing them on the altar of our disregard.

"Be fruitful and multiply" isn't an imperative for conservation, it's an imperative for overpopulation. Conservation works in both directions, not just one.

I never set out to make either a pro- or anti- abortion argument, only pointing out a bad example. Which I stand by. As far as my actual position on abortion goes, I'm very much on the "It's a really complicated, messy question" side of things. I tend to be more anti- than pro-, but not to the extent that would make true anti-abortionists happy. Basically I piss both sides off.

Quote from: shuddemell on October 29, 2020, 02:53:07 PMBut it is an interesting shift to compare an ethical conundrum (human life and abortion) with essentially a legal one (at least that is the impression that I got from your post, though I would submit it too is an ethical consideration).

But that was my point to Dan. He was trying to conflate a legal argument with a moral one. Killing a bald eagle is not immoral, it's just illegal... Well, also stupid and selfish and such, too, probably, but it's not Evil, and to the extent it's wrong at all, it's because you're potentially robbing future generations of getting to see living bald eagles.

Quote from: Bruwulf on October 29, 2020, 03:07:24 PM

Quote from: shuddemell on October 29, 2020, 02:53:07 PMHave you ever heard of fundamentalist Christians? I'm not saying I agree with them, but there are those that are concerned. My point is that there are those concerned more with humans than eagles. I personally think we can do them both justice without sacrificing them on the altar of our disregard.

"Be fruitful and multiply" isn't an imperative for conservation, it's an imperative for overpopulation. Conservation works in both directions, not just one.

I never set out to make either a pro- or anti- abortion argument, only pointing out a bad example. Which I stand by. As far as my actual position on abortion goes, I'm very much on the "It's a really complicated, messy question" side of things. I tend to be more anti- than pro-, but not to the extent that would make true anti-abortionists happy. Basically I piss both sides off.

Quote from: shuddemell on October 29, 2020, 02:53:07 PMBut it is an interesting shift to compare an ethical conundrum (human life and abortion) with essentially a legal one (at least that is the impression that I got from your post, though I would submit it too is an ethical consideration).

But that was my point to Dan. He was trying to conflate a legal argument with a moral one. Killing a bald eagle is not immoral, it's just illegal... Well, also stupid and selfish and such, too, probably, but it's not Evil, and to the extent it's wrong at all, it's because you're potentially robbing future generations of getting to see living bald eagles.

I agree, it's very complicated. That's why I default to the position I do. I can't make the determination, and so far, other than what we know about conception, no one else can either. I find it more ethically palatable to err on the side of not taking potential humans out of the running rather than allowing their extermination only to find out that they were indeed human.

Regarding the ethical line:  For me, the ethical line is whether someone is a thinking, sentient being *at the time*. If someone is brain-dead, it doesn't matter if that body held sentience in the past. If something could be turned into a sentient being some time in the future, it similarly isn't the same.

For example, if we were to develop true artificial intelligence - then even if a set of hardware *would* hold an AI in the future, it isn't murder if I turn it off before any intelligence develops.

Quote from: shuddemell on October 29, 2020, 02:24:59 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 29, 2020, 02:17:11 PM
So, how do you feel about:

1) Chimpanzees and dolphins? Do you feel qualified to judge whether they are sentient?

2) Sperm and unfertilized eggs. These are unquestionably alive and represent potential human life. Do you feel qualified to judge them?

As to chimpanzees and dolphins, NO I don't feel myself qualified to make that judgment. As for embryos, no, but sperm and unfertilized eggs, yes, because by themselves, they have no potential for sentience. It must have an egg and fertilization to occur for sentience to occur.

A fertilized egg also has no potential for sentience on its own. It needs to be implanted into a suitable spot for growing, and then the resulting growth needs to be fed and tended under proper conditions. For example, my friends Ben and Madeline recently had a fertilized egg implanted into a woman acting as surrogate host. They had a bunch of fertilized eggs created, and then worked on trying to implant them.

To my mind, if one of those egg fails to implant, that doesn't mean that a person has died, and we should hold a funeral. Likewise, it isn't murder if the remaining eggs are destroyed after one successfully implants.

The condition of "on it's own" seems like an arbitrary line to me. Development never happens on its own. A sperm and egg as a pair constitute potential on their own. It is destroying potential humanity to kill off the sperm or the egg and prevent fertilization.

A fertilized egg - just like an unfertilized egg - is still just part of the potential for a future sentient being, not a sentient being itself.

You could view any of these points as arbitrary. On it's own, meaning in the right environment, is chosen by me because at that point it's DNA is complete, and will be the same throughout its life. No less arbitrary than sentience, since you may struggle to prove exactly what "sentience" really is.

Quote from: shuddemell on October 30, 2020, 09:15:28 AM
You could view any of these points as arbitrary. On it's own, meaning in the right environment, is chosen by me because at that point it's DNA is complete, and will be the same throughout its life. No less arbitrary than sentience, since you may struggle to prove exactly what "sentience" really is.

When confronted with a difficult question, there are two fundamental approaches to it.

One is to try to address it, accepting you might end up being wrong. The other is to refuse to even try to answer it.

I told him exactly why I chose that spot, and I personally don't feel that standard is any less arbitrary than his standard of sentience, and my answer goes exactly to the point of why I exclude the unfertilized from the fertilized. I didn't refuse to answer anything. You are suggesting I am being dishonest, which I am not, so if you require any clarification, ask. Otherwise, you can politely gfy. I can accept being wrong, it won't be the first time, but I will not be flippantly accused of dishonesty.

Quote from: shuddemell on October 30, 2020, 12:38:41 PM
I told him exactly why I chose that spot, and I personally don't feel that standard is any less arbitrary than his standard of sentience, and my answer goes exactly to the point of why I exclude the unfertilized from the fertilized. I didn't refuse to answer anything. You are suggesting I am being dishonest, which I am not, so if you require any clarification, ask. Otherwise, you can politely gfy. I can accept being wrong, it won't be the first time, but I will not be flippantly accused of dishonesty.

I agree. I don't think you're being dishonest, shuddemell. But I do have disagreements.

For one, there's a difference between an incomplete definition and arbitrariness, though. Just because we don't have a rigorous definition that defines exactly what is or isn't sentient -- that doesn't mean that it is arbitrary, and we could just as easily substitute "blue eyes" for "sentient" and it would be the same. There is a thing called sentience, even if we're still studying and refining exactly what has it.

Also, it seems to me that you also care about sentience, which is why you consider dolphins and chimpanzees worth protection, and presumably also humans. So your criterion includes the definition of sentience (the same as me), and further adds to it a distinction that you'll also consider as sentient something that may become sentient in the future -- but only past a certain point of potential that you judge.

I don't fully understand your reasoning, yet, shuddemell -- but I'll describe what I encounter in some other arguments. Many of them break down to biological mandate. Sex and fertilization are biologically *supposed* to be for procreation, and morally, we should follow the Law of Nature to keep to that purpose. But if there is a *non-natural* fertilization such as in in-vitro fertilization (IVF), then we have no moral obligation to implant the fertilized eggs created that way. However, I don't believe that the Laws of Nature are moral laws, any more than I think the Law of the Jungle should be how we live as a society.

So to this end: How do you regard our moral obligation towards fertilized eggs created using IVF, that are only later implanted into fertile women?

Yes, I do care about sentience, and as such, without a specific definition of when that actually begins, I default to conception, because as I said before, it is the point at which the dna is complete to fully develop into a human (or chimpanzee or dolphin). You could say I am trying to err on the side of caution since we cannot as yet determine when exactly that begins. Also, in the case of brain death, I have a bit more trouble feeling okay with destroying them unless we are absolutely sure that they are truly and irrevocably brain dead, and as with many medical issues is very often not clear cut.

It's primarily because the new DNA acquired from fertilization is about a clear demarcation point as we presently have... obviously not perfect but I do find it a little more clear than the incomplete definition of "sentience".
If you or someone could actually define the point at which "sentience" begins, I would happily adopt essentially the same position as you have. Until that point, I don't feel comfortable using an incomplete definition as a criteria for life or death.

IVF is a sticky wicket. If the embryos are kept frozen and not destroyed, I have no real problem with that. The other is a point where I have trouble reconciling the idea of life begins at conception with human intervention for said conception. I really don't have a conclusive answer regarding that for myself.

Quote from: shuddemell on October 30, 2020, 12:38:41 PM
I told him exactly why I chose that spot, and I personally don't feel that standard is any less arbitrary than his standard of sentience, and my answer goes exactly to the point of why I exclude the unfertilized from the fertilized. I didn't refuse to answer anything. You are suggesting I am being dishonest, which I am not, so if you require any clarification, ask. Otherwise, you can politely gfy. I can accept being wrong, it won't be the first time, but I will not be flippantly accused of dishonesty.

I'll apologize in part. I was being flippant. But I was not accusing you of being dishonest. I was making a snarky, flippant commentary on what I read to be your stance and why you took it - that, as I read it, since you can't be sure of the correct answer, you're rejecting the possibility of nuance to be on the safe side.

Quote from: shuddemell on October 30, 2020, 02:46:51 PM
Yes, I do care about sentience, and as such, without a specific definition of when that actually begins, I default to conception, because as I said before, it is the point at which the dna is complete to fully develop into a human (or chimpanzee or dolphin). You could say I am trying to err on the side of caution since we cannot as yet determine when exactly that begins. Also, in the case of brain death, I have a bit more trouble feeling okay with destroying them unless we are absolutely sure that they are truly and irrevocably brain dead, and as with many medical issues is very often not clear cut.

You think that a fertilized egg cell by itself might be a sentient creature? I find that hard to fathom. Do you think that the cell has some sort of sentience as a property of its DNA, but it just can't communicate? If a fertilized egg might have sentience, how could you know for sure if any other cell or creature has sentience?

As I see it, sentience is a property of a complex brain. If a being has no brain - like a single cell or a plant - then it is definitely not sentient. But even among beings with brains, I have no doubts about most of them. I'm willing to give doubt to a handful of non-human animals like chimpanzees and dolphins, but I am sure enough about chickens and fish that I don't have a problem eating them. (Among other things, dolphins themselves eat meat.)

I am willing to respect vegans who don't want to take any animal life. They have their own views that taking animal life is wrong. But I feel that veganism should definitely be a personal choice, not something imposed by the government. I feel the same way about those who want to treat fertilized eggs as sentient. I'm willing to respect that as someone else's choice, but I don't think it should be imposed by the government.

Not rejecting nuance, just not willing to take a chance of becoming a mass murderer through ignorance. I am certainly willing to discuss all the details you want, but until I fell I have a clearly defined demarcation that I am not willing to risk lives on a lack of certainty.

Quote from: jhkim on October 30, 2020, 04:44:53 PM

Quote from: shuddemell on October 30, 2020, 02:46:51 PM
Yes, I do care about sentience, and as such, without a specific definition of when that actually begins, I default to conception, because as I said before, it is the point at which the dna is complete to fully develop into a human (or chimpanzee or dolphin). You could say I am trying to err on the side of caution since we cannot as yet determine when exactly that begins. Also, in the case of brain death, I have a bit more trouble feeling okay with destroying them unless we are absolutely sure that they are truly and irrevocably brain dead, and as with many medical issues is very often not clear cut.

You think that a fertilized egg cell by itself might be a sentient creature? I find that hard to fathom. Do you think that the cell has some sort of sentience as a property of its DNA, but it just can't communicate? If a fertilized egg might have sentience, how could you know for sure if any other cell or creature has sentience?

As I see it, sentience is a property of a complex brain. If a being has no brain - like a single cell or a plant - then it is definitely not sentient. But even among beings with brains, I have no doubts about most of them. I'm willing to give doubt to a handful of non-human animals like chimpanzees and dolphins, but I am sure enough about chickens and fish that I don't have a problem eating them. (Among other things, dolphins themselves eat meat.)

I am willing to respect vegans who don't want to take any animal life. They have their own views that taking animal life is wrong. But I feel that veganism should definitely be a personal choice, not something imposed by the government. I feel the same way about those who want to treat fertilized eggs as sentient. I'm willing to respect that as someone else's choice, but I don't think it should be imposed by the government.

No, I doubt that is possible, but I really don't like making value judgements where human life is concerned on what is essentially (though probably correct) assumptions. As far as governments mandating anything, I made no statement about that at all. Personally, at present, I leave that to the conscience of the individual. I was explaining the reasoning for my personal belief and my actions that follow from it.

Quote from: jhkim on October 30, 2020, 04:44:53 PM
You think that a fertilized egg cell by itself might be a sentient creature? I find that hard to fathom. Do you think that the cell has some sort of sentience as a property of its DNA, but it just can't communicate? If a fertilized egg might have sentience, how could you know for sure if any other cell or creature has sentience?

I don't agree, but shuddemell is taking a rational position. We don't know for sure when life starts, and we don't how to clearly define where sentience begins, or sapience, and we can't draw a clear line between what's human and what's not human. And when we have to make decisions where we can't clearly divine the answer, we shouldn't just draw the line at the most probable answer and call it quits, because we haven't considered the consequences. And the more severe the consequences of a bad guess, the more we should err on the side of caution. It's not that different from safety tolerances on bridge, or what level of background exposure to a chemical is considered carcinogenic -- it's more important to be safe than completely efficient. And in this case, it's a matter of life or death, so it's hard to argue against a conservative assessment. Shuddemell just has an exceptionally low risk tolerance on this issue.

Quote from: Pat on October 30, 2020, 05:02:17 PMI don't agree, but shuddemell is taking a rational position. We don't know for sure when life starts, and we don't how to clearly define where sentience begins, or sapience, and we can't draw a clear line between what's human and what's not human.

Yes and no. True, we don't have clear, bright-line answers to some of those questions. That's a fact. But we do have some pretty good understandings of negative answers to some of those questions. For example, we can conclusively say a fertilized embryo is neither sapient nor sentient. It has no brain. It won't have even the beginnings of one for a few weeks, and even then, it's many more weeks before it's something that could even plausibly be called a developed brain.

Quote from: Pat on October 30, 2020, 05:02:17 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 30, 2020, 04:44:53 PM
You think that a fertilized egg cell by itself might be a sentient creature? I find that hard to fathom. Do you think that the cell has some sort of sentience as a property of its DNA, but it just can't communicate? If a fertilized egg might have sentience, how could you know for sure if any other cell or creature has sentience?

I don't agree, but shuddemell is taking a rational position. We don't know for sure when life starts, and we don't how to clearly define where sentience begins, or sapience, and we can't draw a clear line between what's human and what's not human. And when we have to make decisions where we can't clearly divine the answer, we shouldn't just draw the line at the most probable answer and call it quits, because we haven't considered the consequences. And the more severe the consequences of a bad guess, the more we should err on the side of caution. It's not that different from safety tolerances on bridge, or what level of background exposure to a chemical is considered carcinogenic -- it's more important to be safe than completely efficient. And in this case, it's a matter of life or death, so it's hard to argue against a conservative assessment. Shuddemell just has an exceptionally low risk tolerance on this issue.

This is a version of Pascal's Wager - which I think is a flawed logical argument. Pascal said that it's better to believe in God, because (roughly) the consequences of not believing in God are so huge, it's best not to take the chance. Even though I am a Christian, I don't think that it's logically correct to claim this as rational logic. Pascal's wager holds just as true for Buddhist, Shinto, and any other religious belief. However, we can't act like we believe in all religions simultaneously.

I have no problem with believing in Christianity as a matter of faith. I do. But I think it should be admitted as a matter of faith, not a rational choice that logically follows from the limits of science.


I feel that there is a similar issue here. Maybe a single fertilized egg cell has an invisible sentience or soul to it. Can I prove it doesn't? No, I can't. But there are a million other possibilities of things that *might* be true. Are cows and pigs sentient? I can't prove that either. Many people avoid eating their meat for moral reasons. Others go further, and they are fully vegan, and avoid harming bugs and other living things. Ultimately, one has to choose among the millions of unprovable things to act on.

Quote from: Bruwulf on October 30, 2020, 06:22:06 PM
Yes and no. True, we don't have clear, bright-line answers to some of those questions. That's a fact. But we do have some pretty good understandings of negative answers to some of those questions. For example, we can conclusively say a fertilized embryo is neither sapient nor sentient. It has no brain. It won't have even the beginnings of one for a few weeks, and even then, it's many more weeks before it's something that could even plausibly be called a developed brain.

No, we can't say that. While it's true a fertilized embryo is not sapient, I was the one who added the term to the discussion, and I did it deliberately. The rest of you have been using "sentient" instead, and the two words are not synonyms. Sentient just means able to react to sensations. Which, depending on how define it, can certainly apply to an embryo, because it's a cell and cells reacts to chemical stimuli. That's a long way from a nervous system and a complex emotional response, but that's the point. There is no clear dividing line.

But conception? That's a fairly clear dividing line. It's true, it probably doesn't make much difference if you choose the moment of conception, or 3 days later; a cell vs. a clump of cells. But 3 days is purely arbitrary, it's not a good schelling point. (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Kbm6QnJv9dgWsPHQP/schelling-fences-on-slippery-slopes) And while there are some other natural breakpoints, they occur much later in development, like a heartbeat, or a detectable brainwave, or the emergence of a human shape. So if you want to draw a line before all that, then conception is the natural default.

Quote from: jhkim on October 30, 2020, 06:46:05 PM
This is a version of Pascal's Wager - which I think is a flawed logical argument. Pascal said that it's better to believe in God, because (roughly) the consequences of not believing in God are so huge, it's best not to take the chance. Even though I am a Christian, I don't think that it's logically correct to claim this as rational logic. Pascal's wager holds just as true for Buddhist, Shinto, and any other religious belief. However, we can't act like we believe in all religions simultaneously.

I have no problem with believing in Christianity as a matter of faith. I do. But I think it should be admitted as a matter of faith, not a rational choice that logically follows from the limits of science.


I feel that there is a similar issue here. Maybe a single fertilized egg cell has an invisible sentience or soul to it. Can I prove it doesn't? No, I can't. But there are a million other possibilities of things that *might* be true. Are cows and pigs sentient? I can't prove that either. Many people avoid eating their meat for moral reasons. Others go further, and they are fully vegan, and avoid harming bugs and other living things. Ultimately, one has to choose among the millions of unprovable things to act on.

I think Pascal's Wager is flawed, but I think the same about your analysis. Yes, you can make the same argument for any religion, or to bring up another common argument, you could say that anyone basing their belief on Pascal's Wager isn't really a believer and thus won't get any of promised rewards. But both those arguments miss the wider point: That Pascal's Wager is not based on a rational weighing of the benefits and risks. Because practicing a religion requires an investment of time and money, and involves non-trivial restrictions of behavior. If we look at the spectrum of certainty people have about the existence of God, then at some point on the diminishing spectrum of belief, the (significant) effort to conform won't be worth the (tiny) chance of a high return (Heaven), and conversely the (tiny) chance of a very negative result (Hell). Pascal's formulation simply ignores that risk/reward assessment.

Though I don't think any of this sheds any light on the topic of abortion.

(double post)

Quote from: Pat on October 30, 2020, 06:47:00 PMNo, we can't say that. While it's true a fertilized embryo is not sapient, I was the one who added the term to the discussion, and I did it deliberately. The rest of you have been using "sentient" instead, and the two words are not synonyms. Sentient just means able to react to sensations. Which, depending on how define it, can certainly apply to an embryo, because it's a cell and cells reacts to chemical stimuli. That's a long way from a nervous system and a complex emotional response, but that's the point. There is no clear dividing line.

Insofar as that definition of sentience goes, I frankly don't care about sentience. I eat meat daily, I've killed more than my share of animals (raised on a farm, hunter by choice), and I kill bugs that piss me off without even thinking about it.

So it's not an irrelevant difference, but the qualification is irrelevant.

Quote from: Pat on October 30, 2020, 06:47:00 PMBut conception? That's a fairly clear dividing line. It's true, it probably doesn't make much difference if you choose the moment of conception, or 3 days later; a cell vs. a clump of cells. But 3 days is purely arbitrary, it's not a good schelling point. (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yJfBzcDL9fBHJfZ6P/nash-equilibria-and-schelling-points) And while there are some other natural breakpoints, they occur much later in development, like a heartbeat, or a detectable brainwave, or the emergence of a human shape. So if you want to draw a line before all that, then conception is the natural default.

But like I flippantly responded to someone else with, this basically just avoids considering the issue at all. Which is fine, if you're comfortable with "No abortions, ever, under any circumstances" as the point to take. I'm not sure I am.

Quote from: Bruwulf on October 30, 2020, 11:12:26 PM
But like I flippantly responded to someone else with, this basically just avoids considering the issue at all. Which is fine, if you're comfortable with "No abortions, ever, under any circumstances" as the point to take. I'm not sure I am.

No, it fully considers the issue, it just places a great weight at on avoiding the negative consequences (taking a life that shouldn't have been taken), and as a result draws the line in a place that eliminates the risk. You yourself noted that in a later post. But that's not a lack of nuance, or avoiding the issue, it's just drawing a line in different place than you or I would.

For a myriad of reasons, I'm ethically fine with 1st trimester abortions, against 3rd trimester, and I think 2nd trimester is negotiable.
But I do want to give everyone their due argument, as I think the topic deserves at least a well thought out position, whatever it may be. Bad abortion arguments from both sides tick me off.

Quote from: Pat on October 30, 2020, 05:02:17 PM
We don't know for sure when life starts, and we don't how to clearly define where sentience begins, or sapience, and we can't draw a clear line between what's human and what's not human.

Human life begins at conception.
Sentience begins at age 30.

Quote from: DocJones on November 02, 2020, 10:05:27 PM
Human life begins at conception.
Sentience begins once you pass the Gom Jabbar.

fixed that.

Life begins when the kids move out and the dog dies.

Quote from: shuddemell on October 30, 2020, 02:46:51 PM
IVF is a sticky wicket. If the embryos are kept frozen and not destroyed, I have no real problem with that. The other is a point where I have trouble reconciling the idea of life begins at conception with human intervention for said conception. I really don't have a conclusive answer regarding that for myself.

This is why the Catholic Church opposes IVF. People give the Church a lot of crap over being "anti-sex", but there's deep logic behind its positions. If you believe life begins at conception then a system that relies on causing conception a dozen times over and then leaving all but one of those in Limbo (until they inevitably perish just because no cell can be preserved forever) or destroying them outright is mass murder of innocent and defenseless lives for the convenience of others.

It's also the logic behind "sex should be limited to husband and wife" because that is, as studies have shown, the ideal environment for raising children. This isn't to say it's the only way it can be done, but, to draw a correlary... just because some kids will succeed even in a failing school, doesn't mean we should make a failing school our ideal.

As to the Pascal's Wager... the way I've always heard it expressed it not "if you're wrong... Hell" it's that best case for the believer is Heaven and worst is non-existence after death; best case for the non-believer is non-existence after death and the worst case is Hell. Therefore since the believer's worst case is no worse than the non-believer's best case, you're better off believing whether it's true or not (particularly since those who hold to the charitable and benevolent lifestyle espoused by believers are also generally well regarded during their lives as well).

In other words, even if the believer is only right on a natural-20... they're critical fumble is no worse than the non-believer's critical hit.

For an added bonus, the Catholic Church holds that, to the extent something is true and good, it is of God, means that even those who guess wrong on the "which specific set of beliefs" part of the test still get positive credit towards the best possible believer result (and just like the "ideal conditions" for raising a child, the Catholic position is that The Church offers the ideal conditions for reaching Heaven, which is why you should pick them over other potentially viable, but less ideal, conditions).

Basically, if you're coming from a Catholic perspective, you're still better off sincerely believing in Odin (the Norse religion still holds truth, justice, charity and courage to be virtues... so at least points to God) than believing in Atheism (it's all just deterministic chemical reactions with no meaning but what our delusions of sapience tells us there is).

My own position on Abortion is pretty simple; I am for life in ALL situations. I am against abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia and all other forms of killing save for immediate self defense (and no... preemptive strikes are not immediate self defense). Likewise, food and water is not "life-support" (it is most typically a convenience vs. feeding by hand) as opposed to ventilators and the like (and even then, I'd want a pretty high standard that such life support would be both indefinite and not desired by the person on it for me to say that withholding it would be acceptable).

I am also against killing animals except for food and immediate self-defense and, even then, it should be done in as a humane a fashion as possible (no strangling or bleeding out or other savagery) and we should give thanks to the animal that died to sustain us.

I try to be as consistent as possible on this. It's why I started opposing the death penalty about twenty years ago. It's much easier to argue "Life in all cases" than "x degree of guilt deserves life, y degree forfeits their life."

Needless to say, in superhero games I skew very hard towards the Superman/Batman end of the spectrum vs. the Wolverine/Deadpool end. Even in Rifts my favorite character was a Ley Line Walker who specialized in non-lethal spells for combat (and non-combat magic in general) and often ticked off some of the players who just wanted to shoot people because they couldn't keep their good alignment if they killed helpless foes (on the other hand we made a fortune off all the fully intact armor we stripped off defeated foes).

Quote from: tenbones on November 02, 2020, 11:15:27 PM

Quote from: DocJones on November 02, 2020, 10:05:27 PM
Human life begins at conception.
Sentience begins once you pass the Gom Jabbar.

fixed that.

Facts!

Quote from: Pat on October 30, 2020, 07:05:16 PM

Though I don't think any of this <Pascal risk/reward> sheds any light on the topic of abortion.

It does however, make sense in regards to Making problematic posts on RPGnet. ;)

Huh. Someone copped a one day time out and threadban for espousing overpopulation rhetoric at TBP.

Since Malthusian nonsense is often linked to the left, I'm actually pleasantly surprised.

Quote from: Chris24601 on November 03, 2020, 11:06:36 AM
As to the Pascal's Wager... the way I've always heard it expressed it not "if you're wrong... Hell" it's that best case for the believer is Heaven and worst is non-existence after death; best case for the non-believer is non-existence after death and the worst case is Hell. Therefore since the believer's worst case is no worse than the non-believer's best case, you're better off believing whether it's true or not (particularly since those who hold to the charitable and benevolent lifestyle espoused by believers are also generally well regarded during their lives as well).

In other words, even if the believer is only right on a natural-20... they're critical fumble is no worse than the non-believer's critical hit.

For an added bonus, the Catholic Church holds that, to the extent something is true and good, it is of God, means that even those who guess wrong on the "which specific set of beliefs" part of the test still get positive credit towards the best possible believer result (and just like the "ideal conditions" for raising a child, the Catholic position is that The Church offers the ideal conditions for reaching Heaven, which is why you should pick them over other potentially viable, but less ideal, conditions).

Basically, if you're coming from a Catholic perspective, you're still better off sincerely believing in Odin (the Norse religion still holds truth, justice, charity and courage to be virtues... so at least points to God) than believing in Atheism (it's all just deterministic chemical reactions with no meaning but what our delusions of sapience tells us there is).

From a Catholic perspective, that's true. But the exact same wager applies to every other religion, from Jainism to Shinto, and there are hundreds of religions - plus maybe no real-world religion is true, but the truth is something completely different. For example, as I understand it, you eat meat. But is it really worth eating meat given the harm that you are doing to other life and to yourself if Jainism is true?

I think that Christianity - and really any religion - depends on faith. That's not a bad thing, in my opinion. Our beliefs and morality can't be derived from pure logic - there is some intuitive sense that guides us.

Quote from: Chris24601 on November 03, 2020, 11:06:36 AM
My own position on Abortion is pretty simple; I am for life in ALL situations. I am against abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia and all other forms of killing save for immediate self defense (and no... preemptive strikes are not immediate self defense). Likewise, food and water is not "life-support" (it is most typically a convenience vs. feeding by hand) as opposed to ventilators and the like (and even then, I'd want a pretty high standard that such life support would be both indefinite and not desired by the person on it for me to say that withholding it would be acceptable).

I am also against killing animals except for food and immediate self-defense and, even then, it should be done in as a humane a fashion as possible (no strangling or bleeding out or other savagery) and we should give thanks to the animal that died to sustain us.

This is one set of beliefs and I can respect that - but I don't see how it is any more logically justified than other beliefs - like in how you justify killing animals. To someone who believes killing animals is wrong, then humanely killing and eating a dolphin or cow doesn't justify that any more than eating a person after you kill them makes it more justified.

You divide up which life you respect and how in your own way - which is your beliefs that you're entitled to, but you're still dividing up which life you choose to respect.

From my point of view, I divide based on how close they are to sapience. I have no problem killing a single cell or killing an insect. I will sometimes catch spiders and bring them outside, but often I just kill them. However, I have my doubts about killing cows or especially pigs. I'm not fully vegetarian, but I avoid those meats.

Neither of us are for life in all situations - we just divide up differently what life we are supporting.

Quote from: Chris24601 on November 03, 2020, 11:06:36 AM
Needless to say, in superhero games I skew very hard towards the Superman/Batman end of the spectrum vs. the Wolverine/Deadpool end. Even in Rifts my favorite character was a Ley Line Walker who specialized in non-lethal spells for combat (and non-combat magic in general) and often ticked off some of the players who just wanted to shoot people because they couldn't keep their good alignment if they killed helpless foes (on the other hand we made a fortune off all the fully intact armor we stripped off defeated foes).

This seems like it's a different topic to me. For me, fiction is fiction. My RPG characters don't have to represent my real-life morality. Again, you can play in your way - but it's not automatic that anyone who plays a Deadpool character doesn't respect life in the real world.

Quote from: Pat on October 31, 2020, 12:59:59 AM

Quote from: Bruwulf on October 30, 2020, 11:12:26 PM
But like I flippantly responded to someone else with, this basically just avoids considering the issue at all. Which is fine, if you're comfortable with "No abortions, ever, under any circumstances" as the point to take. I'm not sure I am.

No, it fully considers the issue, it just places a great weight at on avoiding the negative consequences (taking a life that shouldn't have been taken), and as a result draws the line in a place that eliminates the risk. You yourself noted that in a later post. But that's not a lack of nuance, or avoiding the issue, it's just drawing a line in different place than you or I would.

Well, being an Oklahoman, I am still out of power and have been for the past 9 days. Looks like the discussion moved quite a way since I was gone. I'll not try and back track and honestly, I think Pat did a decent job of making my point clear. Thanks by the way. Sorry to have bailed mid-convo... icestorms not withstanding.