mererdog

Well, you made a guess, but your guess wasn't super accurate.

When I mentioned two wrongs, I was not addressing the specifics of this topic, but rather the general flaws of the "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" justification. That particular truism is a variation of the Tu Quoque logical fallacy, or the Appeal To Hypocrisy. It exists only so that ,when discussing whether our actions are right, focus can be shifted onto the irrelevant fact that others do not do what is right. Do you disagree? As to the specifics of the topic, my point has not been that there is anything inherently wrong being done. But, in practical terms, the first rule of diplomacy is "Never insult anyone by accident." To say that putting up a sacrilegious billboard does no harm is like saying there is no harm in calling a random stranger a **. Sure, they are responsible for their own actions, and sure, they shouldn't get upset over what some random guy says. And maybe you even happen to be the first person to ever say it as a compliment. But... Emotional responses are usually predictable, so not factoring them in is as irresponsible as not seeing how much the billboard costs before you rent it.

Yes. As stated earlier, emotional reactions are not logical. As for geese and ganders...Two wrongs do not make a right, and if they were jumping off a bridge would you jump too?

There are more definitions than that. It can also refer to any of the authors of the Gospels, a patriarch in the Mormon Church, or anyone who promotes anything fervently. It is a good rule of thumb that if your dictionary lists only one definition for any word, it is not a very good dictionary. In the context of the phrase in question, it is that last definition that applies. And, for the record, Urban Dictionary is not a good way to learn anything other than what opinionated high schoolers think. I posted this explanation earlier, but it apparently got lost in a software glitch....

Emotional reactions are not logical, but they are usually predictable. This is where empathy comes in. If I hurt your feelings with something I do or say, focusing on my opinion that you shouldn't have been hurt is simply a way of deflecting responsibility. Focusing, instead, on why you were hurt allows me to act responsibly in the future by making informed decisions about how to get the results I want. And that bit about how sacrilege should only apply to members of the faith is your standard, so it is illogical to hold others to it, no?

KThe problem with the Christmas without God thing is simply that it is sacrilege. Whenever you do not treat what someone considers sacred with what they consider due reverence, you are probably going to provoke a strong negative emotional reaction. Whether you refuse to salute a flag, you wash your feet it the holy water, you insult Ghandi, or you say the Bible is just a book. For those of us who don't really hold anything sacred, that reaction can be hard to empathize with.

I said it seems that way based on your explanation. So, yes, I took it as you gave it. And the way you gave it leaves it looking shoddy. Telling you how it looks allows you the option of leaving it how you gave it, or trying to improve how it looks. Your choice. No pressure. No offense meant.

I suspect it is http://www.ulcseminary.org/forum/ that you are asked to post them to. Not that there is anything wrong with you posting them here, but I think you may be more likely to get feedback from others taking the course if you use that forum. If you stay with this forum, please know there is a feature allowing you to block (ignore) posts from specific members, and that any harassment or other policy violations can be reported directly to the admins.

Morality is subjective, therefore logic is opinion? Not only do I disagree with your premise, but your logic seems shoddy. How does the one follow the other? A more sound argument based on your premise would seem to be "Morality is subjective and logic is objective, therefore morality is illogical".

Whether a thing is logical is a matter of opinion, not fact?

It is illogical to act as if you don't believe what you believe. It is illogical to want others to do so. We are not creatures of pure logic, and it is illogical to expect us to act as if we are.

Jealousy is about want, not need. Specifically, it is about wanting what someone else has. Still a strawman.

The problem with that is that what we think is coming after life is part of what shapes what we think qualifies as a better now- not only for ourselves, but for others. After all, if you are weighing temporary pains versus eternal torments, it may seem way more important to keep a man from sinning than to keep him from starving. Similarly, a man who worries about how he will be remembered might see a life without heroic risk as unworthy, while a man concerned he will never see his wife again after death may be averse to any risk to his life. And how many people can never be happy unless they think that, long after they have died, the children they raised will be happy?

No. And please note that no one said anything about God having needs except in order to attack the notion. It is a simple strawman. My understanding is that putting God first means putting God's desires and commands (or at least assumed desires and commands) first. One example would be someone who is starving but does not steal food because they believe God forbids stealing. In that sense, putting God first is basically just putting principle before expedience, which is something I try to do. Another example would be professing to be a Christian when doing so can get you killed. In that sense, it is a matter of having the courage of one's convictions- which I have trouble seeing as a flaw, in and of itself.

Many people from many different faiths claim there is no difference between putting people first and putting God first. I think that art is an important resource and that funding from religious groups has made that resource available to a lot of people who would otherwise do without. My grandmother's explanation for why people should dress up for church was that people need to treat some things as special in order to feel that they are special themselves. I always liked that. While things like stained glass and walnut benches may seem frivolous, I think they help pull people out emotional ruts and inspire them to greater personal achievement. Things like the Sistine Chapel may be of no use to a starving man, but I think we need them if we want to build a world where no one starves...

Yes. But we have eyes. We are able to see, and to compare our personal experiences of sight with each other. People are able to make simple observations about how light is effected by things like prisms and form complex theories for why light behaves as observed. Using more and more sophisticated methods to test those theories leads to more and more sophisticated theories designed to explain new observations. If no one can see the prism in the first place, what chain of events leads to us having any understanding of wavelengths in the visible spectrum, never mind wavelengths outside of it?

From the Forum Policies topic.... " 11b: Account Removal It is not necessary to request that your account be removed. You may simply stop pointing your browser at this site. Inactive accounts are periodically removed as a part of regular housekeeping. If your account is removed and you wish to return simply re-register as a new member. However, if you feel the need to announce your departure to the entire forum and you do so in a derogatory manner, or violate any forum rules when doing so, your account will be marked as BANNED and you will not be allowed to re-register in the future." He's never been real specific about how long it takes to go inactive, but I don't think anyone's ever asked?

That is a pretty easy conclusion to come to when you are thinking about stuff like sex, drugs and rock and roll. When you are thinking about things like rape and murder, it gets a lot harder to say "Hey, it may not be right for me, but if someone else wants to do it..."

Which the Brits and Aussies like to call "positive discrimination." Other examples include things like senior citizen discounts, policies that penalize employees who express racist beliefs, legal exemptions from laws based on religion or tribal affiliation, child labor laws, and legal protections preventing employers from firing employees who miss work due to military obligations. Each is considered a good thing by the majority of people. Each is patently discriminatory. The key being that when the group being discriminated against is seen as bad, or the group benefitting from the discrimination is seen as in need of help, it becomes clear that opposition to discrimination is rarely actually a matter of principle.

I am pretty sure that is not accurate. Luckily it doesn't matter if it is, in this case.... low chances not being the same as no chance. If a doctor doesn't sign off on it at least being possible that a surgery will provide benefits to the patient, the VA isn't allowed to do it. Anorexics demanding gastric bypass will not get it, you know? Beating long odds is impressive, but not really that miraculous seeming. That is why the story was presented in a way that makes the survival seem like doing the impossible... As I said, "kind of forced."

Most discrimination is based on hasty generalization, in the form of the assumption that what is true for some in a group is true for most or all in the group. Like assuming anyone who discriminates must be full of hate. See, despite what you said, a lot of discrimination has nothing to do with hate. Instead, it can take the form of a paternalistic desire to protect or help people who are assumed to be somehow weaker. That can lead to people attempting to fight one form of discrimination by institutionalizing another. Dangerous stuff....

I don't really have anything to add. Just wanted to say hi. Hi!

A guy has 115 surgeries and his survival is a miracle the doctors can't explain? If they didn't think he had any chance of surviving, what did they use up so many resources on all those surgeries for? The crew of a plane perform CPR, use a defibrillator, and set up an IV drip for a man, but a man who prayed gets credit for the save? It feels kind of forced...

Dan, it is true that you did not call them a schoolgirl. What you did was use the analogy of a schoolgirl to unfavorably characterize them as being weak and overly emotional. You were not only personally attacking them, but also engaging in casual misogyny. Regardless of how justified you may feel in doing it, it is what it is. And what it is is against the rules you agreed to follow when you signed up for the forum. What's your word worth, Dan?

That is a dangerous assumption to make. It is never a good idea to think you know the cause of, and therefore the cure for, another man's violently antisocial behavior. I've seen too many women think that once he gets off the booze it will all be better, only to find that sobriety just makes him a more efficient abuser. My personal suspicion is that absent the religious justifications for his acts, he would simply adopt secular justifications. People who want to be violent can always find ways to convince themselves they are in the right, you know?