Cognisant
Prolific Member
- Local time
- Today 9:24 AM
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2009
- Messages
- 10,595
So as not to derail the memes thread.
It's a fair question and I will answer it but it's also a loaded question in that as we armchair philosophize about things we tend to be speaking about things in an ideal sense rather than a practical sense. It's all well and good to say if someone isn't motivated by their beliefs to act in a way that adversely affects you that you in turn have no justification to act in a way that adversely affects them. However if there's people with similar beliefs who are emboldened by the apparent ubiquity of those beliefs into acting in a way that adversely affects you then the person in the first instance is clearly enabling them but to what extent they're responsible for the people they've enabled is very hard to quantify.
Ideally people's beliefs are separate to their actions, in theory someone can be racist/misogynistic/homophobic/etc and it has no bearing upon their moral character so long as they don't act upon it. In reality thoughts are not irrespective of actions, words carry weight, maybe not the weight to kill someone (depends whether you consider talking someone into suicide is murder) but certainly weight enough to get someone killed. In practical terms there is a compromise to be made between the ideal case and the complications of reality because there are certain people who will abuse any clemency afforded to them. Ideally we would be tolerant of all without exception, in reality there are those who under the protection of "free speech" will preach hate and condone violence.
Does a jihadist preacher deserve rehabilitation? Ideally yes, but in reality they see nothing wrong with their actions and consider rehabilitation as their enemy's attempt at brainwashing and so they'll play along only so far as they feel their oppressor's eyes upon them and go right back to what they were doing the moment that gaze passes them. Such people cannot be reasoned with and they are by no means the exception, they are but the most extreme subset of an alarmingly large demographic of people who are no less unreasonable. So I suppose what I'm getting at is that (except for the rare exception) it is not the individual that deserves to be blamed for the consequences of their beliefs but rather it is the irrational beliefs themselves that are at fault, but shaking your fist at a cloud doesn't get you anywhere.
Practically speaking, though it is far from ideal, to treat the disease of irrationality you need to persecute the religious and not in the "throw them to the lions" kind of way, killing them just gives the death worshiping cultists what they want. Instead you need to mock them, at every opportunity mock the everloving shit out of them, give them no respect, take from them all their dignity, if they insist on being childish then treat them like children.
"She" is the cat's mother so I assume you mean @Marbles.She's asking you questions to determine the boundaries of what kind of discrimination you consider correct against religious people.
There's nothing disrespectful in it.
What you've said is that if someone's religious, you don't just think it's okay to discriminate against them but that they 'ought to be' (they deserve it). The limits of what you consider this discrimination 'ought to be' is a fair enough question.
It's a fair question and I will answer it but it's also a loaded question in that as we armchair philosophize about things we tend to be speaking about things in an ideal sense rather than a practical sense. It's all well and good to say if someone isn't motivated by their beliefs to act in a way that adversely affects you that you in turn have no justification to act in a way that adversely affects them. However if there's people with similar beliefs who are emboldened by the apparent ubiquity of those beliefs into acting in a way that adversely affects you then the person in the first instance is clearly enabling them but to what extent they're responsible for the people they've enabled is very hard to quantify.
Ideally people's beliefs are separate to their actions, in theory someone can be racist/misogynistic/homophobic/etc and it has no bearing upon their moral character so long as they don't act upon it. In reality thoughts are not irrespective of actions, words carry weight, maybe not the weight to kill someone (depends whether you consider talking someone into suicide is murder) but certainly weight enough to get someone killed. In practical terms there is a compromise to be made between the ideal case and the complications of reality because there are certain people who will abuse any clemency afforded to them. Ideally we would be tolerant of all without exception, in reality there are those who under the protection of "free speech" will preach hate and condone violence.
Does a jihadist preacher deserve rehabilitation? Ideally yes, but in reality they see nothing wrong with their actions and consider rehabilitation as their enemy's attempt at brainwashing and so they'll play along only so far as they feel their oppressor's eyes upon them and go right back to what they were doing the moment that gaze passes them. Such people cannot be reasoned with and they are by no means the exception, they are but the most extreme subset of an alarmingly large demographic of people who are no less unreasonable. So I suppose what I'm getting at is that (except for the rare exception) it is not the individual that deserves to be blamed for the consequences of their beliefs but rather it is the irrational beliefs themselves that are at fault, but shaking your fist at a cloud doesn't get you anywhere.
Practically speaking, though it is far from ideal, to treat the disease of irrationality you need to persecute the religious and not in the "throw them to the lions" kind of way, killing them just gives the death worshiping cultists what they want. Instead you need to mock them, at every opportunity mock the everloving shit out of them, give them no respect, take from them all their dignity, if they insist on being childish then treat them like children.