Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In Vizio's own "holy" book, the God he worships tortures Isaac, apparently for fun. He was teasing Abraham with a little test - in that jocular, endearing-to-fundamentalists, psychotic way of his.
Seriously.
"Oh HA ha, come on man, just playin'...you can untie the kid."
(Abraham soils pants from combined horror and relief and faints on the spot)
An argument from incredulity. This is a logical fallacy. You already expressly stated that you don't believe it is a good thing or anyone will think it's a good thing; so it will not be possible to give you an example that you think will be a good thing. This is subjective though.
For instance, if you honestly believe that killing your son because an angel told you to is a good idea; you've lost it; yet this is a commonly believed to be a good thing among Christians.
Jeez, I left an hour ago with half a page of posts. Slow down guys, I wanna keep up with my own post...
This is just simply false. Not everyone sees it that way. You do. You are not everyone. Maybe some of your friends do. They are a not everyone. Everyone includes the people blowing up buildings for Allah, the people people shooting up students who bullied them, the people murdering Jews because they're an inferior race, the people lynching blacks for the same reason. The list goes on. Is lynching a person morally objectionable? Because we have plenty of examples of people who thought it was a good thing. What do you say?
Actually, I believe those instances were for reasons other than simple personal pleasure. They were sacrifices.
My we please see your examples of just-for-personal-pleasure infant torturing with no insanity/imbalance/pedophilia/history of other antisocial (e.g. warped/non-typical) acts, etc. driving the act now? I've been waiting.
You say it exists. JUST for personal pleasure. That's it. May we see your supporting examples?
Well, the Bible seems to disagree with you. Psalm 137:9.
It's the word "happy" in there that's the issue (or one of the issues...obviously the entire thing is a horror...but that's just my opinion).
Now if it were being done solemnly because God said so or something like that, it might be a different issue. These dudes are happy and the Bible is stating the passage in such a way that this feeling is to be lauded.
You also have no way of knowing that ANYBODY tortures for babies for "no other reason than personal pleasure," at least in their opinions. This is quite obviously a mentally ill behavior. The person might be subconsciously be acting out against someone who had abused him/her. The person might be nutter enough to think the baby is somehow evil. There could be many different "reasons" other than "personal pleasure" that a mentally ill person would torture a baby. Are you prepared to say there ARE cases where a person is NOT mentally ill and tortures babies and further, does so "just for personal pleasure"? Would you please state your supported examples here?
I've heard that argument before, and I'm guessing you know the answer, but you are still bringing this up. Does Psalm 137 suggest that we should go out and do that? No. It describes the happiness that an oppressed people has at being freed. The people that were oppressed, beat down, etc by an occupying people. They were happy to be free and they expressed it. God did not command such a thing.
My we please see your examples of just-for-personal-pleasure infant torturing with no insanity/imbalance/pedophilia/history of other antisocial (e.g. warped/non-typical) acts, etc. driving the act now? I've been waiting.
You say it exists. JUST for personal pleasure. That's it. May we see your supporting examples?
He's got as many of those as jeff does proofs for his God.
That's not the point. The point is that they believed what they were doing was morally good. Subjective morality.
But they weren't for personal pleasure, were they?
Can you tell me a reason where it would be moral for no other reason but personal pleasure?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ
My we please see your examples of just-for-personal-pleasure infant torturing with no insanity/imbalance/pedophilia/history of other antisocial (e.g. warped/non-typical) acts, etc. driving the act now? I've been waiting.
You say it exists. JUST for personal pleasure. That's it. May we see your supporting examples?
I haven't suggested that it exists, or that anyone has done it. I'm using it as a hypothetical argument. It does demonstrate an objectively immoral behavior.
I've heard that argument before, and I'm guessing you know the answer, but you are still bringing this up. Does Psalm 137 suggest that we should go out and do that? No. It describes the happiness that an oppressed people has at being freed. The people that were oppressed, beat down, etc by an occupying people. They were happy to be free and they expressed it. God did not command such a thing.
I'm sorry, Vizio.
It's an example of personal pleasure derived from horrifically murdering infants, which would absolutely qualify as torture.
It by extension tortures the parents as well, as they have to watch their infants' brains being blown all over the rocks. But of course per your parameters the focus is on the infants here.
It doesn't matter that "the people were oppressed, beat (sic) down, etc (sic) by an occupying people." They - people apparently of sound mind and normal moral judgment, if you will - were HAPPY to PAINFULLY AND GORILY MURDER infants and this reaction was Biblically supported.
So, again. The Bible disagrees with your stance. Now if you don't believe the Bible is inerrant/infallible then that's all right. Not making a judgment there.
But they weren't for personal pleasure, were they?
Can you tell me a reason where it would be moral for no other reason but personal pleasure?
I haven't suggested that it exists, or that anyone has done it. I'm using it as a hypothetical argument. It does demonstrate an objectively immoral behavior.
What does that have to do with anything? Does morality only correlate with happy and sad? There's no morally correct and morally wrong? Just morally happy and morally not happy?
It's not objectively moral because a people did it believing they were doing the right thing. How is it objective if everyone has their own opinions on it?
It's an example of personal pleasure derived from horrifically murdering infants, which would absolutely qualify as torture.
It doesn't matter that "the people were oppressed, beat (sic) down, etc (sic) by an occupying people." They were HAPPY to PAINFULLY AND GORILY MURDER infants and this reaction was Biblically supported.
So, again. The Bible disagrees with your stance. Now if you don't believe the Bible is inerrant/infallible then that's all right. Not making a judgment there.
No. This verse does not suggest that it's a good thing that people do that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
