This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: RPG.net user points out irony of mods "not wanting to ban people", gets banned  (Read 19141 times)

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11746
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.

Bruwulf

  • Dwarf Fanboy
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 489
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.

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.

VisionStorm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
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.

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.

Shasarak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4032
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.

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.
Who da Drow?  U da drow! - hedgehobbit

There will be poor always,
pathetically struggling,
look at the good things you've got! -  Jesus

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage

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.

Bruwulf

  • Dwarf Fanboy
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 489
Even 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!".

Cultures 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.

Shasarak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4032
Even 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
Cultures 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.
Who da Drow?  U da drow! - hedgehobbit

There will be poor always,
pathetically struggling,
look at the good things you've got! -  Jesus

Bruwulf

  • Dwarf Fanboy
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 489
IT 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".

Quote
You 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.

SHARK

  • The Great Shark Hope
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5039

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
"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security b

SHARK

  • The Great Shark Hope
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5039
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
"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security b

Kyle Aaron

  • high-minded hack
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9487
  • high-minded hack
    • The Viking Hat GM
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.
The Viking Hat GM
Conflict, the adventure game of modern warfare
Wastrel Wednesdays, livestream with Dungeondelver

shuddemell

  • Wondering Taoist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 621
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...

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.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2020, 03:32:20 AM by shuddemell »
Science is the belief in the ignorance of the expertsRichard Feynman

Our virtues and our failings are inseparable, like force and matter. When they separate, man is no more.Nikola Tesla

A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.Bruce Lee

He who lives in harmony with himself lives in harmony with the universe.Marcus Aurelius

For you see we are aimless hate filled animals scampering away into the night.Skwisgaar Skwigelf

jeff37923

  • Knight of Common Sense
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18318
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]
"Meh."

Ratman_tf

  • Alt-Reich Shitlord
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8330

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.
The notion of an exclusionary and hostile RPG community is a fever dream of zealots who view all social dynamics through a narrow keyhole of structural oppression.
-Haffrung

Ghostmaker

  • Chlorine trifluoride
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4013
I think we've kind of fallen far afield of the original topic. Can we get back to pointing and laughing at TBP? :)