Please refrain from posting animated GIFs, memes, joke videos and so on in discussions other than those in the off topic area.

Dismiss this message to confirm your acceptance of this additional forum term of use.

Is this baseplate damaged? And what the rapture??

124

Comments

  • mldj77mldj77 Philadelphia, PAMember Posts: 63
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 11,601
    Yes, that gesticulates wildly.  

    (Thank you, confusing auto-correct.)
  • RirinetteRirinette CanadaMember Posts: 84
    legobod said:
    I'd say everyone has been pretty nice and civil about this, an internet first?
    Very much impressed myself!! 
    plasmodium
  • RirinetteRirinette CanadaMember Posts: 84
    TigerMoth said:
    Without rules there is no society. I doubt that anybody would argue for there being no rules.

    As Kant said, rules and laws are just empty suggestions unless backed by force. What religion provided was the force. It doesn't matter whether that force was real or not, just that people thought it might be.
    You know you've made it to the Circle of Internet Philosophers when someone mentions Kant. And you want to mention Nietzsche but feel like a tool. Then someone else brings in Freud and things get weird. And finally Camus turns it all into absurd.

    Just wait for it.
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    CCC said:
    So you think you can decide who is a follower of a particular faith based on their actions, and that it is not the decision of the individual?
    The individual makes the decision and demonstrates it through their actions. They either want to be a member of a particular club and choose to follow its rules, or they don't. What doesn't work is to say one thing and do another. In a sense, it is a different religion - their own.
    Some people believe that if they repent, then their god will forgive them.
    What the individual believes is irrelevant. What you have in most cases is a supreme being that defines the rules. His club and rules. If an individual wants to change those rules then its a different club.

    The original rules may or may not provide for repentance, but that is down to those rules and is not simply the choice of the individual.

    Furthermore I don't imagine that deliberately flaunting the rules all your life knowing that the rules say you can "repent" on your deathbed works particularly well, because that's not really repentance.  I realise that it's an approach adopted by many.
    CCC said:
    Also religions evolve with society. When they start losing power (like Christianity is in the UK), then previous rules or traditions start to be less important if that means that they can retain power.
    You are confusing two things. The rules of Christianity do not change. What changes are the rules of the sects based upon it which are just interpretations, and is why there are differences. Other religions also have sects.

    Those interpretations are constantly reviewed by scholars in the light of changing circumstances - essentially the only form of new input unless someone finds a cave full of hidden scrolls. That results in adjustments being made to those interpretations; it does not mean that the underlying principles have changed in the slightest.

    There is nothing to stop an individual coming up with their own interpretations based on the source material, but that is very different from arbitrarily deciding your own rules and then declaring them to be valid without having ever seen the source. The issue with an all-knowing power is that "all-knowing" covers intent.
    pharmjod
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    Ririnette said:

    You know you've made it to the Circle of Internet Philosophers when someone mentions Kant.
    Not really.

    If you express a view that happens to have been promoted by anybody notable, but without mentioning that individual, somebody will criticise you for not doing so. If you do mention them, then...

    You can't win.
  • oldtodd33oldtodd33 Denver 4800 miles to BillundMember Posts: 2,391
    CCC said:
     Some people believe that if they repent, then their god will forgive them. That it is not their fault that their body does immoral things but that their spirit is forgiven if they repent.

         This is the basis for Christianity, that if you do repent your sins you will be forgiven. Repenting your sins means you have seen the light of God's logic in His laws and that you won't commit that sin again. You can't run around doing what ever you feel like doing and go to church every Sunday and automatically be forgiven. That's not the way it works. I know people like this and they don't understand that if you truly repent, you not only won't do it again, because of your understanding of God's laws you won't want to do it again.  
    pharmjod
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 11,601
    TigerMoth said:
    Ririnette said:
    ...when someone mentions Kant.
    You can't win.
    You really Kant win.

    (Rimshot!)
    mldj77RirinetteMattsWhatSprinkleOtterricecakePitfall69cheshirecatgmonkey76
  • TheOriginalSimonBTheOriginalSimonB Felixstowe Member Posts: 1,252


    Must be time for this then.
    TheBigLegoskiPeteMRainstorm26Ririnette
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,338
    ben.jpg 46.6K
    SprinkleOtterSumoLegobobabricksTheBigLegoskiFurrysauruskiki180703
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    Good! It would keep you out of the way.
  • MrShinyAndNewMrShinyAndNew Member Posts: 240
    TigerMoth said:

    What is this "good" thing? It has no point of reference without religion, something that is demonstrated when two societies, with different definitions of "good" coming from different religions, get too close to each other.

    One of the problems with modern society is that many people feel that they are not bound by any religion, aren't constantly being watched, and can do what they like.
    "Good" doesn't need to be defined by religion. A much simpler moral philosophy is one that every child is taught: the Golden rule, or (simplistically stated) treat others the way you'd like them to treat you. Ultimately it boils down to doing no harm, or minimizing harm. When you examine your actions from a harm perspective, you can develop guidelines for determining whether something is good or not.

    Naturally people will disagree about the relative importance of certain harms or benefits, or will value some things more than others. But none of this depends on a fiat by priests who claim that an unknowable, invisible, all-powerful being speaks only to them.

    As for your notion that "modern society" is somehow rife with corruption because people feel they can get away with anything... I have to disagree. Modern society is chock full of people behaving pretty well. Crime is down across almost all statistics for the past few decades in the US and Canada and many other countries. Wars, world-wide, are generally fewer than before. Human rights are expanding in many countries. By quite a few metrics, people are treating each other better overall everywhere. Interestingly, this corresponds to a decline in religiousity in almost all the nations where these improvements are happening. In some cases it's a drastic decline. In fact, in Canada and the US, what I've observed is religion getting in the way of progress. For example, the (publicly funded) Catholic school board in Ontario (where I live) has been obstructing progress re: better treatment of its lgbt students, by preventing them from forming gay-straight-alliance student clubs, despite being ordered to allow it by the government, etc. In the US, the religious Right is constantly obstructing lgbt rights. 50 years ago the religious Right was obstructing desegregation of schools and other civil rights for blacks. There are other examples, such as Boko Haram. I could go on, but I think my point is made.
    RirinetteTechnicNickTheBigLegoskiBricklover18catwranglerkiki180703Aanchir
  • RirinetteRirinette CanadaMember Posts: 84
    For example, the (publicly funded) Catholic school board in Ontario (where I live) has been obstructing progress re: better treatment of its lgbt students, by preventing them from forming gay-straight-alliance student clubs, despite being ordered to allow it by the government, etc. 
    Hello fellow Ontarian! I agree with you. :-)
  • FauchFauch FranceMember Posts: 2,244

    By quite a few metrics, people are treating each other better overall everywhere. Interestingly, this corresponds to a decline in religiousity in almost all the nations where these improvements are happening. In some cases it's a drastic decline. 
    causation or correlation?
    Rainstorm26
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    edited June 2016
    MrShinyAndNew said:

    A much simpler moral philosophy is one that every child is taught: the Golden rule, or (simplistically stated) treat others the way you'd like them to treat you.
    Why should that moral stance take precedence over any other? Why is "good" the right thing to do? However it may seem, you need something to give it authority. That was an important function of the major religions - without which people would have carried on killing their neighbours to a much greater extent than they do now.
    As for your notion that "modern society" is somehow rife with corruption
    That's called twisting things. I said it was a problem, not that it was "rife with corruption".
    I think my point is made.
    What  - that you're happy because your version of morality is gaining ground? That says absolutely nothing. People in other cultures would take exception to some of the changes you mentioned and call them immoral. Indeed, the only reason you had a point to raise was because some people in your own community disagreed with what you see as progress.

    You criticise the rules of one group of people because you don't agree with them but then celebrate your own even though there are others that disagree with yours. So much for treating others as you would have them treat you.

    What's "obviously right" to you is "obviously wrong" to somebody else.
    SprinkleOtteroldtodd33kiki180703
  • MrShinyAndNewMrShinyAndNew Member Posts: 240
    TigerMoth said:
    MrShinyAndNew said:

    A much simpler moral philosophy is one that every child is taught: the Golden rule, or (simplistically stated) treat others the way you'd like them to treat you.
    Why should that moral stance take precedence over any other? Why is "good" the right thing to do? However it may seem, you need something to give it authority. 

    You criticise the rules of one group of people because you don't agree with them but then celebrate your own even though there are others that disagree with yours. So much for treating others as you would have them treat you.

    What's "obviously right" to you is "obviously wrong" to somebody else.

    Yes, I do feel it's obviously right that harm is bad. I don't know why I should have to justify that.

    You're partially right: I disagree with many of the rules that other people have, and consider their rules immoral. But it's not because "God says so" that I feel those rules are immoral, it's because they cause harm. I don't need an authority to bless my morality: as a human I can reason about it myself and come to my own conclusions.

    "Good" is indeed a nebulous term, and lots of people have called many an immoral thing "good". U.S. slave-owners considered slavery just and good. They used the Bible to back up their claims. But most people today would argue that slavery is fundamentally immoral because of the harm it does to other humans. Similarly, many religions call for the execution (usually via stoning) of adulterous women. Even most Christians and Jews admit today that the prescribed punishment for adultery is more immoral than the crime itself. Yet you seem to be arguing that I should not judge the religious beliefs that slavery is okay or that adultery demands death, on the basis that it's merely someone else's belief and their belief is justified by their gods (and I don't even have any higher authority! What audacity). 

    I reject the notion that religion necessarily provides better morals than the golden rule. I reject the idea that stoning adulterous women is moral because some old text claims some priests said some god told them. That is the broken telephone game played over millennia. It is begging the question. It is poor reasoning. Stoning people for adultery is immoral. Slavery is immoral. The burden of proof should be on the religious, to justify why their religion with all its immorality is somehow better than what I'm proposing. 

    TL;DR I wouldn't be happy to have gotten a Rapture ad in a bricklink order. 
    TheBigLegoskicatwranglerkiki180703
  • MrShinyAndNewMrShinyAndNew Member Posts: 240
    Fauch said:

    causation or correlation?
    The factors are probably all tightly intertwined. I expect a bit of both.
    TheBigLegoskicatwranglerkiki180703
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    MrShinyAndNew said:

    Yes, I do feel it's obviously right that harm is bad. I don't know why I should have to justify that.
    Perhaps because you're not the only one in the world. There are other people who would argue just as vehemently as you that their way is right.

    But it's not because "God says so" that I feel those rules are immoral, it's because they cause harm. 
    Ultimately it's because you live in society that has been conditioned in a particular way by the religions prevalent there. Those in other societies have been conditioned differently by different religions and see things rather differently.
    Yet you seem to be arguing that I should not judge the religious beliefs that slavery is okay or that adultery demands death, on the basis that it's merely someone else's belief and their belief is justified by their gods (and I don't even have any higher authority! What audacity).
    Every set of morals corresponds to somebody's belief - including yours.

    It's perhaps interesting that your beliefs, which you clearly think are better than those of certain other cultures and religions, mean that you should be able to judge others - including those who believe, through their religion, that it is wrong to judge others. Which of those represent the "better" moral position? Of course, it's a lot easier to pick on something a lot more emotive and contentious.
    I reject the notion that religion necessarily provides better morals than the golden rule.
    I haven't said it does, just that the authority of a religion is unassailable in a community of adherents.

    However, your "golden rule" actually comes from religion.
    Stoning people for adultery is immoral. Slavery is immoral.
    For you.

    In some countries, drug smuggling can see you executed, essentially because it can destabilise society. Westerners may not agree with that, but they can understand it. Adultery can also destabilise society. Some countries take a similar view of the two. For some reason, some people can't understand that.

    Or perhaps they can. I wonder how many people would be quite happy "executing" their partner and/or his/her lover if they arrived home to find extramarital activities taking place in their own marital bed - if they thought they could get away with it.

    If you are a member of, or visit, a particular club that has a particular set of rules and penalties, then you should not be surprised if those penalties are enforced if you break the rules.

    It seems to me that, despite criticising other religions, you want to set yourself up as a god that enforces your morals on others.
  • JudgeChuckJudgeChuck UKMember Posts: 1,089
    Purely in the interests of injecting a little light humour into a serious discussion:

    Hologram Newsreader of Groovy Channel 27: "Good evening. Here is the news on Friday, the 27th of Geldof. Archaeologists near Mount Sinai have discovered what is believed to be a missing page from the Bible. The page is currently being carbon dated in Bonn. If genuine it belongs at the beginning of the Bible and is believed to read "To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitious and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental." The page has been universally condemned by church leaders."

    As you were... :-)
    TheOriginalSimonBbandit778TheBigLegoskiShib
  • bandit778bandit778 Docking Bay 94. Member Posts: 1,897
    @JudgeChuck
    What with Zeppelin and now Red Dwarf, you have very good taste sir.
  • JudgeChuckJudgeChuck UKMember Posts: 1,089
    bandit778 said:
    @JudgeChuck
    What with Zeppelin and now Red Dwarf, you have very good taste sir.
    I have impeccable taste in everything... Including LEGO themes, which is why I like LEGO Minecraft.... ;-)
  • MaffyDMaffyD West YorkshireMember Posts: 2,439
    bandit778 said:
    @JudgeChuck
    What with Zeppelin and now Red Dwarf, you have very good taste sir.
    I have impeccable taste in everything... Including LEGO themes, which is why I like LEGO Minecraft.... ;-)

    You were so close in convincing me up until that last word! ;->
    JudgeChuckpharmjodlegomentalSumoLegoShib
  • TheLoneTensorTheLoneTensor MericaMember Posts: 3,950
    Oh my God, what a thread.

    Wait, did I just offend people there?
    SumoLego
  • TechnicNickTechnicNick Berkshire, UKMember Posts: 277
    Oh my God, what a thread.

    Wait, did I just offend people there?
    What you meant was : 
    ricecakeSumoLego
  • MrShinyAndNewMrShinyAndNew Member Posts: 240
    TigerMoth said:
    MrShinyAndNew said:

    Yes, I do feel it's obviously right that harm is bad. I don't know why I should have to justify that.
    Perhaps because you're not the only one in the world. There are other people who would argue just as vehemently as you that their way is right.

    So you're saying that other people will argue that harm is somehow good. I think at that point the confusion of ideas gets too muddled to continue. Harm is, by definition, bad. Otherwise it's not harm. People can debate whether something is harmful or not, that's fair. I already stipulated that pages ago.
    Ultimately it's because you live in society that has been conditioned in a particular way by the religions prevalent there. Those in other societies have been conditioned differently by different religions and see things rather differently.
    Wait, so it's because I'm from a culture steeped in Christianity that I consider slavery harmful? Is it not possible for me to reason about things and determine for myself that things are harmful? I try to do this all the time. My culture is steeped in sexism, yet over the years I've learned to spot the harms it does, as have many others. I don't need to be in or out of any particular culture to find harms, not even my own culture.
    Every set of morals corresponds to somebody's belief - including yours.

    It's perhaps interesting that your beliefs, which you clearly think are better than those of certain other cultures and religions, mean that you should be able to judge others - including those who believe, through their religion, that it is wrong to judge others. Which of those represent the "better" moral position?
    Oh psh. Every society judges people all the time, even religions that supposedly claim not to. Judging people is the basis of morality. You have to judge the rightness or wrongess of a thing before you can determine if it is right or wrong. The entire point of having rules is to judge people by them. That was your opening statement: that religion provided the very judging we needed to get where we are.
    the authority of a religion is unassailable in a community of adherents.

    However, your "golden rule" actually comes from religion.
    My "Golden rule" does not come from religion. That's simply false. Lots of religions include it; doesn't mean they invented it. And as for the authority of religion being unassailable to its adherents: that's a flaw, not a feature. That's exactly why religion can lead to awful things. Because anything the priests demand is perforce what the gods demand, and the gods are unassailable. The appeal to authority in religion is its biggest logical fallacy, its biggest flaw, and the cause of the most offensive things about it.
    For you.

    In some countries, drug smuggling can see you executed, essentially because it can destabilise society. Westerners may not agree with that, but they can understand it. Adultery can also destabilise society. Some countries take a similar view of the two. For some reason, some people can't understand that.

    Or perhaps they can. I wonder how many people would be quite happy "executing" their partner and/or his/her lover if they arrived home to find extramarital activities taking place in their own marital bed - if they thought they could get away with it.

    If you are a member of, or visit, a particular club that has a particular set of rules and penalties, then you should not be surprised if those penalties are enforced if you break the rules.

    It seems to me that, despite criticising other religions, you want to set yourself up as a god that enforces your morals on others.

    So your argument is that if everyone agrees that killing adulterers is good, then it must be good? That's just groupthink. That's not reasoning. And "adultery destabilizes society"... I'm sorry I don't find that a convincing argument. Adultery has clearly been a part of society since before we had society. But I don't want to derail this thread further by trying to explain that. Similarly the war on drugs, including the execution of drug dealers: lots of evidence shows that the war on drugs is worse for society than the drugs are. Countries that execute drug dealers are immoral. I don't need to be a citizen of one of those countries to decide that. All I need to do is imagine my own country doing it, then deem it immoral, then ipso facto any countries that do it are immoral. 

    I don't think there's much point in continuing this debate. Harm is harm, good is the avoidance of harm. From there you can extrapolate other rules which we could debate ad nauseum. Are drugs a serious enough problem that we should imprison dealers? Perhaps, perhaps not. But it should always boil down to the harm. Is the harm caused by imprisoning a person offset by the good caused (to others) by doing so? Any moral question can be answered using these tools, inasmuch as they can be answered at all. Appealing to the supposed authority of a god is fallacious. Anyone can claim that a god said one thing or another. To address your initial point again: religion provided rules, but some of those rules were good and some were harmful. If you're going to say that those rules were good because the adherents of those religions all agreed they were because they believed their god told them it was good, well, that doesn't hold water with me.
    TheBigLegoskilegomental
  • plasmodiumplasmodium UKMember Posts: 1,936
    While I'm impressed by the civility here, there are off-topic threads that are more on-topic than this...
    MattDawson
  • MattsWhatMattsWhat Studley, UKMember Posts: 1,643
    edited June 2016
    ^not really - still discussing whether it was harmful or goodful to put the card in with the #droopinessirrelevantasitwasthewrongcolouranyway baseplate.

    I checked, and for the record, that # isn't currently trending.

    Edit: or a username strangely...
    MattDawsonPitfall69
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    edited June 2016
    I'm glad it's not trending, I'm trying to picture whatever would make it trend.

    And now I'm trying to remove that picture from my mind. Thanks! At the moment it's a racist prostitute with a handful of viagra. But where's the harm in that?
    pharmjodPitfall69GallardoLUBrickDancer
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,338
    Is it me or does anyone else want to talk about "droopy holes" some more?
  • RirinetteRirinette CanadaMember Posts: 84
    Pitfall69 said:
    Is it me or does anyone else want to talk about "droopy holes" some more?
    I would MUCH rather talk about them droopy holes.
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    MrShinyAndNew said:

    So you're saying that other people will argue that harm is somehow good.
    It's not an unusual concept. A criminal is likely to be harmed, to various degrees, by the penal system in most countries. Most people would support that as being good.
    Harm is, by definition, bad.
    No it isn't; it's one of the definitions. Apart from which, you forcing the situation by choosing to use the word in the first place. It's the sort of argument used by animal rights activists who start by using the word "murder" without justifying it, and then spend the rest of the debate arguing that murder is wrong.
    I don't need to be in or out of any particular culture to find harms, not even my own culture.
    And there are people in other cultures who will find things that you find acceptable to be totally wrong. Your opinions and beliefs are no more valid than theirs.
    Every society judges people all the time, even religions that supposedly claim not to.
    Most religions come from times that didn't require judgements to be made. Laws were simpler and you either did something or you didn't. Lip-service is paid to that through the principle of "beyond reasonable doubt".
    My "Golden rule" does not come from religion. That's simply false. Lots of religions include it; doesn't mean they invented it.
    Seeing as you are so hot in religions having to prove their tenets, you, of course, can prove that. No? History demonstrates that it was far from a universal truth, and harming others was the norm.

    The "Golden Rule" is not yours but very specifically Christianity's although almost all religions have similar concepts. They're all part of something called the Ethics of Reciprocity. However, whilst Christianity can claim the "Golden Rule", it has no claim to the principle, as that demonstrably predates the religion by at least a couple of thousand years, at a time when rules were made in the name of religions that are no longer familiar to us.
    So your argument is that if everyone agrees that killing adulterers is good, then it must be good?
    That's not what I said. I said that different groups and cultures have different beliefs and it is not for an outsider, in particular, to determine whether they should pursue those beliefs.

    If you want to be allowed to follow your beliefs, then you ought afford the same courtesy to others.

    If you don't wish to follow a particular religion, or indeed any of them, you still have to allow others to do so and accept that their rules may seem alien or objectionable to you.
    Adultery has clearly been a part of society since before we had society
    It is also rejected in most societies. Even in the west today, it is sometimes criminalised, whilst it other countries it can be a capital offence. Clearly, in many nations it is considered sufficiently detrimental to society for it to be more than just a civil matter.
    If you're going to say that those rules were good because the adherents of those religions all agreed they were because they believed their god told them it was good, well, that doesn't hold water with me.
    I have quite deliberately not made any comments about whether any rules are good or bad, nor about specific religions. My beliefs are my own but, unlike you, I'm not about to try forcing them on other groups. You like to criticise religion; it is not religion that is the problem, but when one group decides that another must adopt their views and ways - as you are doing.

    You preach ethical reciprocity but don't want to practise it in areas where you disagree.

    It is actually fairly difficult to understand another culture in the way its members do, especially if you have no real contact with it. Everybody starts with preconceptions rooted in the background of their own society.
    SprinkleOtter
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    Ririnette said:
    Pitfall69 said:
    Is it me or does anyone else want to talk about "droopy holes" some more?
    I would MUCH rather talk about them droopy holes.
    I believe there was a suggestion that you might have particular experience with regard to that matter. Perhaps you would like to take the lead...
  • MrShinyAndNewMrShinyAndNew Member Posts: 240
    TigerMoth said:

    Your opinions and beliefs are no more valid than theirs.
    Well, again, I have to disagree. There are different kinds of beliefs. Some beliefs are rooted in evidence and reason. Some beliefs are rooted in faith. I take it as a given that evidence trumps faith. Obviously not everyone agrees with that, but I have never encountered any argument that proved that faith was better than evidence for evaluating competing beliefs. Some beliefs are more valid than others.
    Most religions come from times that didn't require judgements to be made. Laws were simpler and you either did something or you didn't. Lip-service is paid to that through the principle of "beyond reasonable doubt".
    I'm not sure what to make of this. All of morality is based on judgement. First a thing is judged to be right or wrong. Then when a person is accused of doing something they are judged to have done it or not. There is no society that never judges. Otherwise what is the point of having rules (which we both seem to agree are necessary?) If I break the rules, and you say "You broke the rules!", can I retort "Don't judge me!"? It seems facile.
    Seeing as you are so hot in religions having to prove their tenets, you, of course, can prove that [the Golden Rule doesn't come from religion].
    The wikipedia page about the Golden Rule lists countless examples that are far older than Christianity, including Confucianism, ancient Egypt, India, ancient Greek philosophy... it's very widespread. It certainly did not originate with Christianity.
    If you don't wish to follow a particular religion, or indeed any of them, you still have to allow others to do so and accept that their rules may seem alien or objectionable to you.
    I've never said people can't follow their religion. I've never tried to stop people from being religious. What I have pointed out is that there are specific cases of some religious people being demonstrably harmful due to their stated beliefs. One's right to believe whatever one wants extends only to the tip of their nose; where it infringes on another's life or liberty or health is where I have a problem with it.
    [Adultery] is also rejected in most societies. Even in the west today, it is sometimes criminalized, whilst it other countries it can be a capital offence. Clearly, in many nations it is considered sufficiently detrimental to society for it to be more than just a civil matter.
    And here is where I get to be all judgy: Based on the harm caused, I see no reason for it to be more than a civil matter for married people. Further punishments imposed by society seem disproportional. Governments or religions that mandate imprisonment or corporal punishment or death go too far, and become immoral. You're welcome to disagree.
    You preach ethical reciprocity but don't want to practise it in areas where you disagree. It is actually fairly difficult to understand another culture in the way its members do, especially if you have no real contact with it. Everybody starts with preconceptions rooted in the background of their own society.
    Well, as I originally stated, the "treat others like you'd want to be treated" morality is actually more complicated than that. One of the things it does not require is that we allow others to do whatever they want: we don't allow murderers to murder just because they want to, not even if their religious beliefs demand that they be allowed to. I wouldn't stop you from believing that only a virgin sacrifice will guarantee a new Winter Village set at Christmas, but I would stop you from actually sacrificing that virgin. As for understanding another culture, I agree that certain aspects of a culture are difficult to understand unless you're part of that culture. But that doesn't mean that nothing in that culture is understandable. In any case I was raised in a Catholic household in a broadly-Christian nation so I have a pretty good grasp on the flaws in that culture, even if I no longer subscribe to it. But this will be my last post on this topic. You initially jumped into this thread to say that without religion, none of us would be here. I tried to explain that that wasn't good reasoning: it's post hoc ergo propter hoc. That's all I really wanted to say. I think I've provided enough detail on why someone might find religious inserts offensive. Good day and happy building.
    RirinetteTheBigLegoski
  • RirinetteRirinette CanadaMember Posts: 84
    TigerMoth said:
    Ririnette said:
    Pitfall69 said:
    Is it me or does anyone else want to talk about "droopy holes" some more?
    I would MUCH rather talk about them droopy holes.
    I believe there was a suggestion that you might have particular experience with regard to that matter. Perhaps you would like to take the lead...
    Actually I confirmed that the suggestion was not for me, but since you insist that I speak on the subject, I will do my best.

    I did some research on my own and the image below is the only one that came close to my experience. 

    You will notice that this baseplate, although in a different grey colour, also has droopy holes. The thread where it was mentioned can be found here: http://bricks.stackexchange.com/questions/7496/help-with-marks/7500

    An interesting fact from this investigation is that both base plates exhibiting this "defect" have a series of quality control markings, as if someone needed to double check that they are suitable for the market. I noticed that my other "healthy" base plates do not have these markings. 

    So, Lego experts, do you think there is a correlation or a causation between droopy holes and quality control markings?
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    TigerMoth said:

    Your opinions and beliefs are no more valid than theirs.
    Well, again, I have to disagree.
    Well, that's it then isn't it? Your opinions are worth more than anybody else so we just have to do things your way.
    I take it as a given that evidence trumps faith.
    Evidence is interpreted, and it varies as to your point of view. I've already said that it's difficult to see things from the perspective of a different culture.

    But we're not actually talking about faith. We're talking about you wanting to change the rules in a different society. It does matter what the basis is for those rules - they are simply that society's rules.
    First a thing is judged to be right or wrong.
    Not in a society driven by religion. What is right or wrong is usually defined by sacred texts of some sort. If you are a non-believer then you will question the provenance of those texts; however, the faithful do not. As there are no absolute facts, you cannot once again insist that your views must prevail. Of course, it is the faithful who are governed by those texts.
    Then when a person is accused of doing something they are judged to have done it or not.
    We're talking about religion. For most things that religion defines as being right or wrong, it is fairly clear whether the rules have been breeched or not. Societies might have added all sorts of other rules, but that's nothing to do with religion.
    The wikipedia page about the Golden Rule lists countless examples that are far older than Christianity, including Confucianism, ancient Egypt, India, ancient Greek philosophy... it's very widespread. It certainly did not originate with Christianity.
    The Golden Rule is only 300 years old. It is Christian.

    As I stated earlier, but you seem to have ignored, the principle is much older, dating back at least 4000 years - but still has a basis in religion.
    What I have pointed out is that there are specific cases of some religious people being demonstrably harmful due to their stated beliefs.
    It is only demonstrable to some people. It is not a global truth. You do not KNOW whether a particular religion or set of beliefs is or is not true. You simply have your own beliefs. What you declare harmful may therefore not be harmful in the grand scheme of things. Many religions have the concept of some sort of afterlife, where you may be rewarded or punished. You may not believe in that sort of thing, but neither do you know whether it's correct.

    As I said before, I am loathe to bring particular religions into this, so I won't. Torturing somebody for a crime is obviously harmful to that person; on the other hand, if it prevents them from re-offending, it is beneficial to society, and quite probably the individual too. I'm not advocating torture, but some societies and religions have similar concepts.
    One of the things it does not require is that we allow others to do whatever they want
    Nor does allow you to impose your sense of morality on a culture which has a different one - and, quite often, a culture to which your "victim" actually subscribes.
    You initially jumped into this thread to say that without religion, none of us would be here.
    I jumped into this thread to question why some people find religion so offensive.

    What does a vegan do with an advert from the butcher? They chuck it in the bin. They have the sense to realise that it's part of the society in which they live.

    What do some atheists do with religious propaganda? Go all precious and claim some sort of moral high ground, that their particular beliefs are better than everybody else's, and that advertising contrary to those opinions should be banned.
    SprinkleOtter
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    edited June 2016
    Ririnette said:

    An interesting fact from this investigation is that both base plates exhibiting this "defect" have a series of quality control markings, as if someone needed to double check that they are suitable for the market.
    Most LEGO parts have markings that allow them to be traced.
    So, Lego experts, do you think there is a correlation or a causation between droopy holes and quality control markings?
    From examination of a number of baseplates, there isn't.
  • RirinetteRirinette CanadaMember Posts: 84
    Oy vey. Can we close this thread now please? I think we beat it to death, and to the afterlife. And I got all my answers thank you very much.
    MattDawsoncatwrangler
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,338
    This thread cannot be closed until we see a pic or a meme of dead horses being beaten ;)
    gmonkey76SumoLego
  • gmonkey76gmonkey76 ChicagoMember Posts: 1,391
    edited June 2016
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 11,601
    Ririnette said:
    Oy vey. Can we close this thread now please? I think we beat it to death, and to the afterlife. And I got all my answers thank you very much.
    About droopy holes or literally - death and afterlife?

    I liken this more to an adamatium jackhammer applied to Wolverine's skull.  Lots of noise, not a lot of progress.
  • Pumpkin_3CK5Pumpkin_3CK5 CaliforniaMember Posts: 762
    Droopy likes ricochet and Droopy likes your face


  • oldtodd33oldtodd33 Denver 4800 miles to BillundMember Posts: 2,391
    @Huw We could leave it open and continue to discuss it or close it. But this thread should be hoisted to the top of the internet as an example of civility. 
    SprinkleOtter
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,338
    I don't know if I have ever seen a "civil" argument that involved religion. 
    SprinkleOtterSumoLego
  • oldtodd33oldtodd33 Denver 4800 miles to BillundMember Posts: 2,391
    I don't see it as an argument though. So far it has just been members basically discussing philosophy. 
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 11,601
    Pitfall69 said:
    I don't know if I have ever seen a "civil" argument that involved religion. 
    I see what you did there.  Very clever, except in a theocracy.
    oldtodd33 said:
    I don't see it as an argument though. So far it has just been members basically discussing philosophy. 
    I just had a flashback to college... of sleeping during members basically discussing philosophy.
  • bendybadgerbendybadger 127.0.0.1 ::1Member Posts: 1,141
    I am only here for the meme's, oh and the droopy hole gags.
    bandit778MattDawsonSumoLegoPitfall69
  • adol7adol7 Member Posts: 150
    Like most people, I dread door-to-door people and stuff being pushed. I don't think this card has any relevance, but I have to constantly remind myself, these people truly believe you're going to die soon or not have an afterlife and they're trying to save you. Whether or not it will happen, in their mind, they're doing you a favor. It's not intended to be a marketing gag or commission-based sale.
    "How dare you tell me we hit an iceberg and offer me a life preserver!" The difference to me is the iceberg damage is visible.

    So you (in general) don't believe in God. Worst case in your eyes, you're just dead. Sadly, your best case is you're also just dead. Through Christian eyes, you're going to heaven or hell. At least that scenario has any shred of hope.

    Sorry, back to droopy holes.
    SprinkleOtterpharmjodPitfall69
  • GallardoLUGallardoLU USAMember Posts: 644
    adol7 said:
    Through Christian eyes, you're going to heaven or hell. At least that scenario has any shred of hope.
    Just want to point out that some forms of Christian religions do not resign unbelievers to hell but rather they are just dead, no immortal life after death for them, while believers are promised eternal life in heaven or just eternal life. the spectrum is quite wide on who would be tormented for eternity or not. also most Christian religions believe that so long as you are in fact a believer then heaven awaits, while some also require repentance for sins before or at death.

    so really worst case as a believer is you were wrong and you are just dead, while best case is eternal life. and worse case non-believers would expect just death but find eternal torment. while best case would be just death.

    so on a logical front (ignoring for a moment the other aspects of religion) it seems that ones best choice in death is to be a believer. weather you are capable of honestly doing that is entirely another issue.

    all that said.... I too would have been annoyed by the insert, but only so much as to throw it away after I cleaned up after checking over my order.

    (I wont delve into non-Christian religions as A. that's not where this started and B. I don't know them well enough to confidently speak for or about them)
    adol7MattDawson
Sign In or Register to comment.
Recent discussions Categories Privacy Policy