Labor confirm moral cowardice, pander to bigots

[Alkaloid]

In addition, your argument is partially straw man

Given that you are essentially arguing that it is impossible to be a Catholic without taking everything written in the Bible as literal truth, and everything the Pope says a fact, I wouldn't be throwing around words like straw man.

In the real world, I AM NOT A CATHOLIC. Back when I WAS a Christian, I was not willing to do evil in order to achieve good- but that was on religious grounds. Since I am not a Christian, I am willing to do so.

I really think you need to look at how you define evil, dude. You seem to be declaring that hypocrisy is some great and terrible evil, but you don't seem to have an concept of context or scale. There is a hell of a lot more to morality than 'good' 'neutral' and 'evil' and when you go screaming into 'evil' territory over any and all acts of hypocrisy, you just look like an idiot.

A cop claiming to hate black people, even though he doesn't, in order to infiltrate a white supremacist group that is killing black people, is not committing an evil act. Pragmatic and calculated, yes, but not evil. Except by your crazy logic.

[mr friendly guy]

\

No I don't- I simply consider being hypocritical a sufficently great evil that this sort of thing pales in comparison.

Being hypocritical is worse than mass killings? Keep digging that hole.

Yes, my viewpoint does come down to my emotional sentiments, as do all.

Actually, ethicists can actually justify their points beyond I feel this in my heart of hearts, thus its right. But I know such concepts like logic and reason over emotion are a bit hard for you to handle.

However, if we are to have morality at all (if you want to argue for dismissing morality alltogether I'll hear you out) the question comes up of how we can condemn anybody. The answer- if by their own moral logic they condemn themselves.

Or they can be condemn by some other moral code. Duh.

Inherently good? Humans want happiness- THAT is what can be demonstrated by observation. But in what way, unless you are to arbitarily define 'good' can you get from it that human happiness is 'inherently' good?

See, Carinthium says being happy is NOT good. BTW, I didn't use the word inherent in the comment you replied to. Oops, I guess you confused me with Stark. Try again.

So the logic of your posistion is to forcibly put everybody into an illusion world (once the technology exists) and pump them with drugs?

Oh my God. Can the strawman come any bigger. Especially when I stated such a reason is irrelevant. Remember folks, when you can't win, change the argument. It works for Creationists, Holocaust Deniers, Climate Change sceptics, it can work for you too.

Even if human lives are shortened, happiness will be maximised. Sadly, I suspect you don't embrace that.

You would be right, because you are using a giant strawman. I said the reason why we feel happiness, whether its biological or technological is not relevant to the moral code, because the moral code will seek to maximise happiness under the circumstances. And the technological example was just to emphasise the point that continuing to ask "why do we feel happiness" in this case is irrelevant, by showing an example so contrasted from reality that I thought even you could understand that its to be used in this manner.

BTW forcibly doing something against their will runs counter to helping happiness, so this strawman is not even very subtle.

It's not that hard for me to attack Hitler based on the logic of his own posistion- at least in minor things. He was too lazy. He squandered Germany's interests by misinterpreting the world situation (there is nothing in his posistion which calls for self-delusion). He spent too much time building model cities and not enough on actual planning.

Even ignoring that, however, I do not embrace your argument ad Hitlerum. To the extent Hitler was truely not a hypocrite, I respect him for it.

But you respect his killing "undesirables" because he wasn't hypocritical in that regard. Thanks for playing.

BTW argument ad Hitlerum is an ad hominem. I have not relied on comparisons to you to Hitler to carry the argument, but rather your stated premise that not being hypocritical in one's belief, is automatically good no matter what the consequences are. But I realise such apparently subtle things make it complicated for you.

He didn't necessarily have the same set of beliefs THEN. I PARTIALLY concede in that Tony Abbott is clearly hypocritical- however, I still do not embrace the claim that we should encourage him to be MORE hypocritical.

Thanks for the concession.

In the real world, I AM NOT A CATHOLIC. Back when I WAS a Christian, I was not willing to do evil in order to achieve good- but that was on religious grounds. Since I am not a Christian, I am willing to do so.

Ah, so your ethically bankrupt stance is not derived from worshipping a sky fairy, its just intrinsic to your nature. That makes it sooooo much better. Not.

[Carinthium]

Being hypocritical is worse than mass killings? Keep digging that hole.

You haven't demonstrated the existence of any metaphorical hole.

Actually, ethicists can actually justify their points beyond I feel this in my heart of hearts, thus its right. But I know such concepts like logic and reason over emotion are a bit hard for you to handle.

I'm pretty much demonstrating here that you can't. Your premise is flawed.

Or they can be condemn by some other moral code. Duh.

Yes you can, but that's just arbitrary stupidity. At least if you condemn somebody by their own moral code you're showing that they should in theory agree with you.

See, Carinthium says being happy is NOT good. BTW, I didn't use the word inherent in the comment you replied to. Oops, I guess you confused me with Stark. Try again.

Unlike you, I don't simply accept arguments without evidence. You have claimed happiness is good- now you need to demonstrate it. I used the word 'inherently' because I don't see in what other way a concept of 'objective' good could exist- perhaps you could clarify your claim?

You would be right, because you are using a giant strawman. I said the reason why we feel happiness, whether its biological or technological is not relevant to the moral code, because the moral code will seek to maximise happiness under the circumstances. And the technological example was just to emphasise the point that continuing to ask "why do we feel happiness" in this case is irrelevant, by showing an example so contrasted from reality that I thought even you could understand that its to be used in this manner.

BTW forcibly doing something against their will runs counter to helping happiness, so this strawman is not even very subtle.

Your logic falls apart- assuming you are willing to do evil in order to achieve good, the temporary unhappiness of somebody's memories being erased and them being put into an illusion world calibrated to their needs would be outweighed by the sheer happiness the illusion world could entail.

But you respect his killing "undesirables" because he wasn't hypocritical in that regard. Thanks for playing.

I do in fact respect Hitler's killing undesirables. You have not demonstrated that this is a bad thing.

BTW argument ad Hitlerum is an ad hominem. I have not relied on comparisons to you to Hitler to carry the argument, but rather your stated premise that not being hypocritical in one's belief, is automatically good no matter what the consequences are. But I realise such apparently subtle things make it complicated for you.

You are employing a logical fallacy- if one used since Plato. An argument of the basis:
1- A, therefore B
2- B is false
3- A is false

can work, but only if you demonstrate B. You have not demonstrated your premise, intuitive though it might seem, that genocide is inherently evil. So far, all it seems based on is your arbitary feelings.

[Bakustra]

You're seriously fucking embarrassing yourself with all this horseshit. You're like a teenager, who, instead of doing what normal teenagers do and finding a group of other people to identify with to compensate for feelings of alienation, dives into pseudo-philosophy and individualist horseshit.

In essence, you are technically correct in that there is no demonstrable source of morality outside the human self, and thus nothing is good or bad but what we make of it, but then you immediately descend into psychotic calm entirely isolated from every other human being alive with "genocide is not inherently evil", which is the opinion of a braying jackass. If you really want to take this all the way, PM me with your address and I will provide you with means to send me enough money for me to fly over there and brick you up into a wall so you don't have to deal with this "society" thing any more. If you don't, then you are being hypocritical- advocating isolation from the rest of humanity without actually being willing to isolate yourself any more than in feeble, meaningless (though annoying) ways.

It's no surprise to me that you're ex-religious; your ilk is disturbingly common; uneducated in the precepts of your religion, you mouthed it uncomprehending. When you left your religion, you were unable to articulate any sort of religious, spiritual or moral thought and so drifted into this semi-solipsistic fantasy world. Your view of Catholic theology and behavior demonstrates your ignorance- your posts on morality demonstrates your solipsism- now all that remains is for some way to be found to shut you up until you pass into adulthood, rather than a regressive infancy or prolonged toddlerhood. Until that joyous day, you will continue to preach glossolalia into the void.

[Carinthium]

Given that you are essentially arguing that it is impossible to be a Catholic without taking everything written in the Bible as literal truth, and everything the Pope says a fact, I wouldn't be throwing around words like straw man.

Assuming you know some actual Catholic theology, why not give a proper argument based on it?

I really think you need to look at how you define evil, dude. You seem to be declaring that hypocrisy is some great and terrible evil, but you don't seem to have an concept of context or scale. There is a hell of a lot more to morality than 'good' 'neutral' and 'evil' and when you go screaming into 'evil' territory over any and all acts of hypocrisy, you just look like an idiot.

A cop claiming to hate black people, even though he doesn't, in order to infiltrate a white supremacist group that is killing black people, is not committing an evil act. Pragmatic and calculated, yes, but not evil. Except by your crazy logic.

I admit that my argument against hypocrisy is mostly based on sentiments (like all moral arguments). However, it does have one major point going for it- condemning a person through their own moral system gets around the problem of "Who are we to judge?".

Also, I wouldn't consider the cop a hypocrite- I consider somebody a hypocrite based on contradicting THEIR OWN morals, not based on claiming false ones. Perhaps I used my words too imprecisely, but I didn't that would come up.

You're seriously fucking embarrassing yourself with all this horseshit. You're like a teenager, who, instead of doing what normal teenagers do and finding a group of other people to identify with to compensate for feelings of alienation, dives into pseudo-philosophy and individualist horseshit.

In essence, you are technically correct in that there is no demonstrable source of morality outside the human self, and thus nothing is good or bad but what we make of it, but then you immediately descend into psychotic calm entirely isolated from every other human being alive with "genocide is not inherently evil", which is the opinion of a braying jackass. If you really want to take this all the way, PM me with your address and I will provide you with means to send me enough money for me to fly over there and brick you up into a wall so you don't have to deal with this "society" thing any more. If you don't, then you are being hypocritical- advocating isolation from the rest of humanity without actually being willing to isolate yourself any more than in feeble, meaningless (though annoying) ways.

The idea that genocide is some sort of unique evil originated with World War II- before then, it was considered nowhere near as bad as we consider it. Given how much of modern morality you know is culturally based, how can you dismiss anybody who dismisses it as a 'braying jackass?'

In addition, I have NOT at any point advocated actual isolation from humanity- yes I would prefer significantly more freedom, but not actual isolation.

EDIT: Also, if you claim to know more Catholic theology than I do why not cite some actual sources?
EDIT TWO: Come to think of it, can you actually find any FACTUAL point on which I am incorrect? If not, how are you to accuse me of living in a fantasy world?

[Bakustra]

The idea that genocide is some sort of unique evil originated with World War II- before then, it was considered nowhere near as bad as we consider it. Given how much of modern morality you know is culturally based, how can you dismiss anybody who dismisses it as a 'braying jackass?'

All of morality is culturally based, and that's why your opinion is that of a braying jackass- it's contrarian claptrap designed to shut down any discussion with the equivalent of "but how can you ever really know anything?" And taking the position that "moral" judgments should be solely based on whether an action is hypocritical or not is isolationist in its approach, because it denies morality as anything other than an individual phenomenon period, instead evaluating judgments based on whether a person is self-consistent or not. Your results lead to grotesquery.

As for Catholic theology, you have claimed that the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are such that if Catholics do not enforce their will upon society, the non-Catholic members of society will go to hell and be punished for eternity. This is simply, false. First, I will provide an article from Father Robert Barron, pointing out the essential nature of Catholic damnation- it is actively chosen by the individual and the living cannot know whether someone is damned or saved.

The Catechism confirms this; only those who die with unforgiven mortal sins will receive condemnation.

For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."

People must actively commit mortal sins and must do so in the full knowledge that they are condemning themselves to Hell and of their own will. And human abilities cannot determine whether someone has really been acting in full knowledge or not when they sin. So your position is actually in opposition to the articles of faith of the RCC itself, and is at best an evangelical Protestant position! The goal of the church is to provide the path to salvation, but people must come to it of their own free will- you cannot force someone to be saved in the Catholic view. And that is what such exercises of temporal power are.

You also claim that anyone who disagrees with the Church on any matter is no longer a Catholic- the 307 priests and theologians who signed Church 2011, which calls for the ordination of women and married individuals, recognition of gay civil unions and divorces, as well as a number of other positions in opposition to those of the Church. If you wish to claim that they are not Catholic, and indeed to continue to espouse that "How are you meant to be a Catholic when you ignore the Pope? These things are CATHOLIC DOCTRINE. I'm not denying such people exist- they fall into the 'hypocrites' category. Before you try Argument Ad Populorum on me, I should point out that the issue here is one of Catholic theology and you should check it up before we continue this argument.", consider that these people are all considered to be Catholic by the Church, which in any case would seem to have a better argument than an idiot teenager.

Also, I can accuse you of living in a fantasy world because I'm not some pompous teenager suffering from morbid obesity of the skull and of the body. I can say what I say because I am not so contemptible and annoying of a human being that I could incite Jainists into a psychotic frenzy in under three minutes. You cannot claim the same, because the sheer pomposity exudes from your posts as much as the lard does. Shut up either until you're an adult or until you've taken up smack, since I could do with some actual entertainment as you try to post shit about how "it's all subjective, how can you prove anything??? ban catholics!!!" while enough heroin to kill dogs flows in your veins and acts on your neuroreceptors.

[Carinthium]

All of morality is culturally based, and that's why your opinion is that of a braying jackass- it's contrarian claptrap designed to shut down any discussion with the equivalent of "but how can you ever really know anything?" And taking the position that "moral" judgments should be solely based on whether an action is hypocritical or not is isolationist in its approach, because it denies morality as anything other than an individual phenomenon period, instead evaluating judgments based on whether a person is self-consistent or not. Your results lead to grotesquery.

1- My viewpoint is not contrarian, as can be demonstrated by how I originally came to it- accepting (at first on faith) the doctrine of "No God, no Morality" at about 11 years of age. Yes this is an argument for me being somewhat biased, but it refutes the idea that my primary motive was contrarianism.
2- How can you demonstrate something is wrong with isolationism?

As for Catholic theology, you have claimed that the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are such that if Catholics do not enforce their will upon society, the non-Catholic members of society will go to hell and be punished for eternity. This is simply, false. First, I will provide an article from Father Robert Barron, pointing out the essential nature of Catholic damnation- it is actively chosen by the individual and the living cannot know whether someone is damned or saved.

The Catechism confirms this; only those who die with unforgiven mortal sins will receive condemnation.
Here wrote:
For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."

People must actively commit mortal sins and must do so in the full knowledge that they are condemning themselves to Hell and of their own will. And human abilities cannot determine whether someone has really been acting in full knowledge or not when they sin. So your position is actually in opposition to the articles of faith of the RCC itself, and is at best an evangelical Protestant position! The goal of the church is to provide the path to salvation, but people must come to it of their own free will- you cannot force someone to be saved in the Catholic view. And that is what such exercises of temporal power are.

You also claim that anyone who disagrees with the Church on any matter is no longer a Catholic- the 307 priests and theologians who signed Church 2011, which calls for the ordination of women and married individuals, recognition of gay civil unions and divorces, as well as a number of other positions in opposition to those of the Church. If you wish to claim that they are not Catholic, and indeed to continue to espouse that "How are you meant to be a Catholic when you ignore the Pope? These things are CATHOLIC DOCTRINE. I'm not denying such people exist- they fall into the 'hypocrites' category. Before you try Argument Ad Populorum on me, I should point out that the issue here is one of Catholic theology and you should check it up before we continue this argument.",

Catholic theology also says that it is an act of fundemental harm to oneself to commit a sin, venial or mortal, because of it's corrupting nature- the Church preaches to the extent it does against them because of this. I was referring to REDUCING the number of people going to Hell based on Augustinian arguments, NOT actually persecuting non-Catholics but enforcing Catholic morality.

To refute your ad hominem, I'm going to take some time to read through the document myself- I am by no means an idiot (an IQ of 92 isn't anything special, but it's better then you seem to be implying), and I'll debate the issue once I've examined it.

Also, I can accuse you of living in a fantasy world because I'm not some pompous teenager suffering from morbid obesity of the skull and of the body. I can say what I say because I am not so contemptible and annoying of a human being that I could incite Jainists into a psychotic frenzy in under three minutes. You cannot claim the same, because the sheer pomposity exudes from your posts as much as the lard does. Shut up either until you're an adult or until you've taken up smack, since I could do with some actual entertainment as you try to post shit about how "it's all subjective, how can you prove anything??? ban catholics!!!" while enough heroin to kill dogs flows in your veins and acts on your neuroreceptors.

You jump to conclusions without evidence- based on my last checkup I am slightly under-weight, and I espouse contrarian posistions (in the sense that they are very different from what most people believe) because of the reasons I have given for them (rather than from being 'affectedly and irritatingly grand, solemn, or self-important).

I have NO factual delusions that you have in fact demonstrated- if you're going to argue that I am delusional, why don't you actually find an area in which I have self-delusion?

Finally, you are using another straw man- if I had views similiar to the typical SDN poster on most things I would want to ban Catholics from participating in politics (amongsto thers) as an extenstion of such, but I do not ACTUALLY want to ban Catholics.

[Carinthium]

I ran out of time to edit the document, so I'm reposting. The document was briefer than I expected, and much sloppier. Putting my counter-argument here.

It is over a year since cases of sexual abuse of children and youth by priests and religious at the Canisius School in Berlin were made public. A year has followed that has plunged the Catholic Church in Germany into an unprecedented crisis. The picture emerging today is very mixed. Much has been undertaken to do justice to the victims, to respond to all the wrong that has been done, and to search out the causes of abuse, cover-up, and double standards within the Church’s own ranks.

Not going to bother disputing this as even the Catholic Church doesn't dispute most of it. There is an exception though- the crisis is NOT unprecedented. There have been similiar scandals before.

After their initial horror, many responsible Christians, women and men, in ministry and outside of ministry, have come to realize that deep-reaching reforms are necessary.

Argument ad populorum.

The appeal for an open dialogue on structures of power and communication, on the form of ecclesial office, and on the participation of the faithful in taking responsibility, on morality and sexuality have awakened expectations, but also fears. Could it happen that what might be the last chance for a departure from paralysis and resignation be missed by sitting out or minimizing the crisis? For some, the disquiet of an open dialogue without taboos is not a comfortable prospect – especially since the papal visit [to Germany] will soon take place. Yet the alternative would even be worse: a “peace of the cemetery” because the last hopes have been extinguished.

A reasonable argument for the Church being open- but no evidence for why the Church should cede any of it's power. It isn't even theological- Peter is the rock on which the Church is built, not the faithful as a whole!

The deep crisis of our Church demands that we address also those problems which, at first glance, are not immediately linked to the abuse scandal and its cover-up that lasted for decades. We recognize our responsibility to contribute to a truly new beginning: 2011 must be the year of a new departure for the Church.

The document does not demonstrate any link whatsoever- this is rhethoric, not theology. 'New departure' is a cliche, not a reasoned argument.

In the past year, more Christians than ever before have left the Catholic Church. They have officially terminated their public membership, or they have privatized their spiritual life in order to protect it from the institution. The Church must understand these signs and must itself depart from ossified structures in order to recover new vitality and credibility.

This is a strong argument that something must be done- it is NOT an argument for theological reform.

The renewal of church structures will succeed, not with an anxious separation from society, but only with the courage for self-criticism and the acceptance of critical impulses – including those from the outside.

Although this comes close to the holes in Catholicism, I should note that Catholics would believe that they, especially senior members of the Church, have grace from God making them likely to be better than others. They have God's true theology as a bedrock for their deliberations- outsiders do not. Especially without any reasoned argument, nothing here applies.

This is one of the lessons of the last year: the abuse crisis would not have been dealt with so decisively without the critical accompaniment of the larger public. Only through open communication can the Church win back trust. The Church will become credible only when the image it has of itself does not completely diverge from the image others have of it. We address all those who have not yet given up hope for a new beginning within the Church and are committing themselves to this. We build upon the signals of a new departure and dialogue which some bishops have given in recent months in speeches, homilies, and interviews.

Again- a well-made argument for reforms of institutions. It is NOT a well-made argument for theological change.

The Church does not exist for its own sake. The church has the mission to announce the liberating and loving God of Jesus Christ to all people. The Church can do this only when it is itself a locus and a credible witness for the liberative good news of the Gospel. The Church’s speaking and acting, its rules and structures – its entire engagement with people within and outside the Church – is under the claim of recognizing and promoting the freedom of human beings as creatures of God. Unconditional respect for each person, respect for freedom of conscience, commitment to the law and justice, solidarity with the poor and oppressed: these are the theological foundational standards which arise from the Church’s obligation to the Gospel. Through these, love of God and neighbour are made concrete.

1- Freedom has never been part of the Church's message- not in the modern sense. The Christian God wants total submission.
2- Respect for 'human dignity', sure. But unconditional respect? Where does that come from?
3- Commitment to the law and justice perhaps, but what evidence do they have for this being a core view?
4- Yes the Church should do this. Why should it be a core thing?

Off the top of my head, I would suggest that spreading the Gospel in order to save souls and helping Catholics live good lives at the least should be there.

Finding our orientation in the biblical message of freedom implies a differentiated relationship to modern society. In many respects, it surpasses the Church when the recognition of each person’s freedom, maturity, and responsibility is concerned.

I've already covered freedom. As for maturity and responsibility, the Church respects the traditional idea of such- that Christian adults should be mature and responsible, but that to be responsible requires being a good Catholic.

The Church can learn from this, as already the Second Vatican Council emphasized. In other respects, critique of contemporary society from the spirit of the Gospel is indispensable, as when people are judged only by their productivity, when mutual solidarity is crushed, or when the dignity of the human person is violated.

The Church is not a vehicle for traditional leftism- if this were all the Church advocated, what makes it any different from a secular socialist group? The Anglican Church is a good example of where this route could lead.

It remains the case in every instance, however, that the Gospel’s message of freedom is the standard for a credible Church, for its action and its social shape. The concrete challenges which the Church must face are by no means new. And yet, it is hard to make out any traces of future-oriented reforms. Open dialogue on these questions must take place in the following spheres of action.

'Future-oriented' is a mere cliche. The Gospel's message is not fundementally one of freedom in the modern sense. This is all rubbish.

1. Structures of Participation: In all areas of church life, participation of the faithful is a touchstone for the credibility of the Gospel’s message of freedom. According to the ancient legal principle “What applies to all should be decided by all,” more synodal structures are needed at all levels of the Church. The faithful should be involved in the process of appointing important office-holders (bishop, parish priest). Whatever can be decided locally should be decided there. Decisions must be transparent.

1- Once somebody becomes a priest, they CANNOT stop being a priest. They can retire and stop practising, but they are still a priest. Even if you merely choose amongst ordiained priests, this means a lot go to waste.
2- If ordinary take control of the Church's structure, they may begin to distort it's theology and its essential message. If the people were more conservative, this proposal might have a point.
3- If people choose their priests, priests will be tempted to pander to their audience- overlooking their sins in order to stay popular with them. The same is true of bishops.

2. Parish Community: Christian communities should be places where people share spiritual and material goods with one another. But the life of the parish community life is eroding at present. Under the pressure of the shortage of priests, ever larger administrative entities (“XXL Size” Parishes) are constructed in which neighbourliness and sense of belonging can hardly be experienced any longer. Historical identities and social networks achieved over time are given up. Priests are overburdened and burn out. The faithful stay away when they are not trusted to share responsibility and to participate in more democratic structures in the leadership of their parish communities. Ministry within the Church must serve the life of the communities – not the other way around. The Church also needs married priests and women in ordained ministry.

Up until the last sentence, this is somewhat reasonable- the Church DOES need to encourage more community. However, no reason is established why this means it should break centuries of tradition and clear statements from the Gospel of Paul and the Church Fathers to allow women priests. Married priests perhaps (as that doesn't break the Church's divine constitution), but that should be a desperate measure- a priest by his nature must be devoted to his mission without distractions (backed up by Paul's gospel).

3. Legal culture: The recognition of the dignity and freedom of every human person becomes evident especially when conflicts are worked out fairly and with mutual respect. Canon law deserves its name only when the faithful can truly make use of their rights. It is urgent that the protection of rights and the legal culture within the church be improved. A first step is the creation of institutional structures of an administrative justice system in the Church.

Human rights are a modern concept alien to Church traditions. A better administrative system might be useful- other than punishing abusers, however, there is no reason for a rights culture.

4. Freedom of Conscience: Respect for individual conscience means placing trust in people’s ability to make decisions and carry responsibility. It is also the task of the Church to support this capability; this task must not revert to paternalism.

Have these Pelagians even read Augustine? Going from Augustinian theology, humanity is permanently reduced and dependent upon God and will always need Him. The Church is paternalistic for the same reason the government of modern times is paternalistic- in it's view, the paternalism is needed.

It is especially important to take this seriously in the realm of personal life decisions and individual life styles. The Church’s esteem for marriage and for the unmarried form of life goes without saying. But this does not require the exclusion of people who responsibly live out love, faithfulness, and mutual care in same-sex partnerships or in a remarriage after divorce

So you're refuting thousands of years of tradition, explicit quotes from the Bible, the statements of the Church Fathers, and more with what? The claim that it's 'paternalistic'? Pathetic.

5. Reconciliation: Solidarity with “sinners” presupposes that we take seriously the sin within our own ranks. Self-righteous moral rigourism ill befits the Church. The Church cannot preach reconciliation with God if it does not create by its own actions the conditions for reconciliation with those whom the Church has wronged: by violence, by withholding law, by turning the biblical message of freedom into a rigorous morality without mercy.

A rigourous morality is what the Church NEEDS- the path to Christ is a 'narrow road'. Other than that, reasonable but no argument for theological change.

6. Worship: The liturgy lives from the active participation of all the faithful. Contemporary experiences and forms of expression must have their place in it. The Eucharist and other celebrations of the sacraments must not become frozen in traditionalism. Cultural diversity enriches liturgical life; this is not compatible with a tendency toward centralized uniformity. Only when the celebration of faith takes account of concrete life situations will the Church’s message reach people.

There is a limited degree within Church theology to which rituals can be changed- but outside its natural limits, the sacrament becomes INVALID and useless. Uniformity helps to emphasise the unity of the Church- cultural diversity may look interesting, but comparing and contrasting not only distracts from the message but from the unity of the Church.

The dialogue process that has already begun in the Church can lead to liberation and a new departure only when all participants are ready to take up the pressing questions. Through a free and fair exchange of arguments solutions have to be sought that lead the Church out of its crippling preoccupation with itself. The tempest of the last year must not be followed by a period of rest! In the present situation, this could only be the “quiet of the grave.” Anxiety has never been a good counsellor in times of crisis. Christian women and men are compelled by the Gospel to look to the future with courage, and walk on water as Peter did, spurred by the word of Jesus: “Why do you have fear? Is your faith so weak?”

Jesus has been taken out of context here- he was trying to get Peter to have the faith to do miracles, not trying to get him to change theology. No real argument here.

[Bakustra]

You're delusional. I said that you would have to show that the people who signed it were not Catholic, not to critique the entire document because you, an atheist and a crazy man, have the bailiwick of deciding the whole of theology. But let's play this your way. I will "prove" there is something wrong with isolationism if you can prove that I am not the archangel Sammael, the angel of death within Talmudic lore. I look forward to this elegant disproof you undoubtedly will make.

[Zablorg]

That's not really a fair challenge, Bakustra. It implies that you can't prove that you are Samael. I have uncovered evidence that this may be the case.

There is only one google result for "bakustra samael" on google:



It directs you to this link, which is clearly a demonic e-library, its foul contents I dare not translate.

I've caught you.

[Alkaloid]

Assuming you know some actual catholic theology, why not give a proper argument based on it?

Based on what? The belief that it is possible to be a catholic without being a complete fanatic who takes literally every utterance of any pope and the bible? Because people who don't believe either of those things are still accepted into churches as Catholics all the time, so I don't see how you, an avowed atheist with no standing in the church is better placed to identify whether or not someone is catholic than a priest with several years education in theology and an actual position in the hierarchy of the church.

I admit that my argument against hypocrisy is mostly based on sentiments (like all moral arguments). However, it does have one major point going for it- condemning a person through their own moral system gets around the problem of "Who are we to judge?".

Ok, but what actual use is that position? Do we not judge a serial killer because according to their moral system murdering people is not only fine, but a good and pleasant thing to do? Or a rapist because according to his moral system women are not people with any rights or deserving of respect? The point of ethics is to allow society to function in a form everyone finds acceptable, and holding everyone to a different set of criteria according to however they feel is absurd. No one likes a hypocrite, but the way you continue to use the word is so broad as to render it meaningless.

[Korto]

If Hitler's honest beliefs were that Jews and Gays were destroying Germany, and had to be destroyed to save the Fatherland, then he was following his own conscience in killing them. Well, bully for him. Hooray for following your conscience. My conscience states he was a dangerous psychopath and the world is well rid of him.

The problem is he holds that following your conscience is intrinsically good no matter what the outcome is. This is logically indefensible because when you have two people "following their conscience" but with opposite agendas, the whole "good" part comes apart due to violation of the law of non contradiction.

No I don't- I simply consider being hypocritical a sufficently great evil that this sort of thing pales in comparison.

Shit, really? Or are you just trolling? Look, I agreed with you that people's morality is individual, and there is no "real" measurement for what is "Right" and "Wrong". For the same committed act (good or bad) I would prefer someone did it because they felt it was right, than otherwise; but to consider following your conscience and killing someone better than going against it and not, indicates that your position is somewhere, far, far, out there.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to withdraw my support. I realise what a dagger in your heart this must be.

I understand that your moral code doesn't allow you to pass judgement on others, except through their own moral codes (best of luck running a civilisation, or even a goddamn family, like that), but fortunately we have a solution, as mine does. Since we've already established all moralities are equal, mine is therefore just as right as yours.

Look, read some of Purple's stuff. His position is roughly similar, but much more practical.

As for the catholic stuff, I wont comment as my eyes started glazing over.

[mr friendly guy]

Being hypocritical is worse than mass killings? Keep digging that hole.

You haven't demonstrated the existence of any metaphorical hole.

Aside from the fact hypocrisy in itself does less harm than mass killings.... but thats kind of obvious.

I'm pretty much demonstrating here that you can't. Your premise is flawed.

If by demonstrating you shout at the top of your lungs wah wah wah its not true, then yes. Of course you totally ignore how I defeated your retarded "keep asking why" game to show that yes, even under your own criteria of why a moral code is arbitrary (and hence fails to demonstrate why its superior) you still lose.

Yes you can, but that's just arbitrary stupidity. At least if you condemn somebody by their own moral code you're showing that they should in theory agree with you.

And in reality, you don't need to agree with me to be wrong. Obviously that concept is a bit hard for you to grasp.

Unlike you, I don't simply accept arguments without evidence. You have claimed happiness is good- now you need to demonstrate it. I used the word 'inherently' because I don't see in what other way a concept of 'objective' good could exist- perhaps you could clarify your claim?

Good, as in beneficial. Happiness is more beneficial than not happy. You obviously think I mean good as in morally correct.

Your logic falls apart- assuming you are willing to do evil in order to achieve good, the temporary unhappiness of somebody's memories being erased and them being put into an illusion world calibrated to their needs would be outweighed by the sheer happiness the illusion world could entail.

Except the they wouldn't be experiencing the concept of free will, which a lot of people will be unhappy about not having. Moron.

I do in fact respect Hitler's killing undesirables. You have not demonstrated that this is a bad thing.

Seriously. I think we have a winner for the new sociopath. Obviously the maximising human happiness part flew over your head.

You are employing a logical fallacy- if one used since Plato. An argument of the basis:
1- A, therefore B
2- B is false
3- A is false

can work, but only if you demonstrate B. You have not demonstrated your premise, intuitive though it might seem, that genocide is inherently evil. So far, all it seems based on is your arbitary feelings.

I could dismantle this apart, but then why bother because ITS NOT RELEVANT TO THE POST YOU REPLIED TO. You accused me of using a variation of the ad hominem, an argument ad Hitlerum. I pointed out why thats a bullshit claim. You then change the topic and accuse me of using a logical fallacy in a different argument. More dishonest shit.

[Rogue 9]

2- The Australian Labor Party has a policy that any candidate who crosses the floor is kicked out.

Might I just say that this is fucking ridiculous?

No, you may not. Party solidarity doesn't mean that there is literally no opportunity for dissent within the ranks of the party, just that the dissent happens in private. At least theoretically, every policy and position presented by a given political party in Australia will be the result of intense debate behind closed doors, and individual members will be able to voice their concerns to the frontbenchers. But once a position has been decided upon within the party room, that position will be outwardly supported by all members, as it is consider important to show the Australian people the unified, purposeful nature of the party.

This is not to say that there are no issues with this system, but they are more deeply structural than 'it's bad that you can't cross the floor'.

Yes I may, because that's still fucking ridiculous. Matters of public policy shouldn't be decided on in the back room and then ramrodded through the legislature by the majority party with no comment. The rationale of doing it to show the Australian people that they have purpose and unity is bunk; who the hell is the party if not that segment of the Australian people that make it up? Representatives should represent their constituents, not their party. Making them accountable to the party bosses so directly removes their ability to do so.

[Coop D'etat]

Yes I may, because that's still fucking ridiculous. Matters of public policy shouldn't be decided on in the back room and then ramrodded through the legislature by the majority party with no comment. The rationale of doing it to show the Australian people that they have purpose and unity is bunk; who the hell is the party if not that segment of the Australian people that make it up? Representatives should represent their constituents, not their party. Making them accountable to the party bosses so directly removes their ability to do so.

Except that this people are voted in as party members with the expectation from the electorate that they will support the party in voting. They aren't voted to be independent political personalities, they're voted in to be the representative from that constituency within the party the constituency has elected to support.

Which is especially important in a Westminster system where a lost vote often means that a completely fresh election has to be called. That a representative will vote how ever they choose may be how it works in America but its not how it has to work elsewhere. An MP might be similar to but isn't exactly the same thing as a congressman.

[Carinthium]

Based on what? The belief that it is possible to be a catholic without being a complete fanatic who takes literally every utterance of any pope and the bible? Because people who don't believe either of those things are still accepted into churches as Catholics all the time, so I don't see how you, an avowed atheist with no standing in the church is better placed to identify whether or not someone is catholic than a priest with several years education in theology and an actual position in the hierarchy of the church.

If such people are to be accepted as Catholics, how is a coherent dividing line meant to be drawn between Catholicism and Protestantism? I have given an argument well-grounded in Catholic theology for my point- to dismiss it because I am an athiest is ad hominem.

Ok, but what actual use is that position? Do we not judge a serial killer because according to their moral system murdering people is not only fine, but a good and pleasant thing to do? Or a rapist because according to his moral system women are not people with any rights or deserving of respect? The point of ethics is to allow society to function in a form everyone finds acceptable, and holding everyone to a different set of criteria according to however they feel is absurd. No one likes a hypocrite, but the way you continue to use the word is so broad as to render it meaningless.

The first part of the paragraph is a pure appeal to emotion without rational argument. The second half is faulty because it has the implicit premise that to have society 'function a form everyone finds acceptable' is a good in and of itself. What makes it worse is that not everybody does, of course.

Shit, really? Or are you just trolling? Look, I agreed with you that people's morality is individual, and there is no "real" measurement for what is "Right" and "Wrong". For the same committed act (good or bad) I would prefer someone did it because they felt it was right, than otherwise; but to consider following your conscience and killing someone better than going against it and not, indicates that your position is somewhere, far, far, out there.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to withdraw my support. I realise what a dagger in your heart this must be.

I understand that your moral code doesn't allow you to pass judgement on others, except through their own moral codes (best of luck running a civilisation, or even a goddamn family, like that), but fortunately we have a solution, as mine does. Since we've already established all moralities are equal, mine is therefore just as right as yours.

Look, read some of Purple's stuff. His position is roughly similar, but much more practical.

As mentioned already, all moralities run into the question of why adopt them? Since none can really answer this, I take the rational way out of the problem.

Aside from the fact hypocrisy in itself does less harm than mass killings.... but thats kind of obvious.

Implicit claimed premise- harm is an inherently bad thing. This may SEEM obvious, but you have not demonstrated it.

If by demonstrating you shout at the top of your lungs wah wah wah its not true, then yes. Of course you totally ignore how I defeated your retarded "keep asking why" game to show that yes, even under your own criteria of why a moral code is arbitrary (and hence fails to demonstrate why its superior) you still lose.

You did not 'defeat' my argument- you claimed an implicit premise in maximising human happiness. The answer to that is- "why"? You could claim it as your first principle, but that would be to admit you have no reason.

And in reality, you don't need to agree with me to be wrong. Obviously that concept is a bit hard for you to grasp.

On factual questions, I agree with your first sentence. I grasp the sort of morality you have perfectly- in fact, I used to have it. There just isn't a decent argument for why a person should be moral.

Good, as in beneficial. Happiness is more beneficial than not happy. You obviously think I mean good as in morally correct.

ben·e·fi·cial/ˌbenəˈfiSHəl/Adjective: 1.Favorable or advantageous; resulting in good.

'Beneficial' boils down to what somebody wants- something is 'beneficial' if it helps them, and isn't if it doesn't. The massive sucess of Hitler's initial campaign against the Soviets was beneficial for him- but very harmful to the Soviets. Whilst in practice most people want to be happy, something can only be called beneficial to them because it brings happiness if they want to be happy- to appeal to the majority is argument ad populorum.

Except the they wouldn't be experiencing the concept of free will, which a lot of people will be unhappy about not having. Moron.

They would only be aware that they were being taken against their will very briefly- after that, if the illusion worked right, they would think that everything was simply going just how they wanted it. What they would want if they knew is irrelevant, because your entire argument boils down to human happiness alone. Moron.

Seriously. I think we have a winner for the new sociopath. Obviously the maximising human happiness part flew over your head.

As I said, I used to think the way you do. But unlike you, I'm not an idiot or a wishful thinker because I don't simply accept undemonstrated premises.

I could dismantle this apart, but then why bother because ITS NOT RELEVANT TO THE POST YOU REPLIED TO. You accused me of using a variation of the ad hominem, an argument ad Hitlerum. I pointed out why thats a bullshit claim. You then change the topic and accuse me of using a logical fallacy in a different argument. More dishonest shit.

I did make a small mistake- you refuted my original claim, so I looked through your argument and realised the fallacy was not what I thought it was. Your claim is that because my argument leads to a conclusion that does not condemn genocide, it is wrong- that is fallacious.

[mr friendly guy]

Aside from the fact hypocrisy in itself does less harm than mass killings.... but thats kind of obvious.

Implicit claimed premise- harm is an inherently bad thing. This may SEEM obvious, but you have not demonstrated it.

Stolen concept fallacy dipshit.

You did not 'defeat' my argument- you claimed an implicit premise in maximising human happiness. The answer to that is- "why"? You could claim it as your first principle, but that would be to admit you have no reason.

I explained that its backed by observation. Your counter argument is a stolen concept fallacy.

On factual questions, I agree with your first sentence. I grasp the sort of morality you have perfectly- in fact, I used to have it. There just isn't a decent argument for why a person should be moral.

Except moral systems can be judged on their effects, for example vs how many people live vs how many people die. If we use an extreme hypothetical example, a society without anything approaching moral behaviour * will do worse than one who has laws at least approximating that. I measure outcome in objective measures, like measures for standard of living. I trust I don't need to give examples of real life societies like that vs society where laws at least in some cases approximate what we consider moral. That factual enough for you?

*either because people truely have no ethics (snigger, hypothetical only except for retards like yourself), or they do but laws which protect those who do are non existent or not enforced (eg anarchies or places where the rule of law is weak).

ben·e·fi·cial/ˌbenəˈfiSHəl/Adjective: 1.Favorable or advantageous; resulting in good.

'Beneficial' boils down to what somebody wants- something is 'beneficial' if it helps them, and isn't if it doesn't. The massive sucess of Hitler's initial campaign against the Soviets was beneficial for him- but very harmful to the Soviets. Whilst in practice most people want to be happy, something can only be called beneficial to them because it brings happiness if they want to be happy- to appeal to the majority is argument ad populorum.

You idiot. Appeal to popularity is fallacious because it relies on popular belief to make something true, rather than reality / observation. Your interpretation of the fallacy is like saying Harry Potter is more popular than Firefly is an appeal to popularity. Now if someone claimed Harry Potter is better written than Firefly because its more popular its an appeal to popularity. It would still be fallacious even if HP is better written. Think on that one for a bit.

They would only be aware that they were being taken against their will very briefly- after that, if the illusion worked right, they would think that everything was simply going just how they wanted it. What they would want if they knew is irrelevant, because your entire argument boils down to human happiness alone. Moron.

Of which I already stated free will is important to what makes them happy, dumbass.

Seriously. I think we have a winner for the new sociopath. Obviously the maximising human happiness part flew over your head.

As I said, I used to think the way you do. But unlike you, I'm not an idiot or a wishful thinker because I don't simply accept undemonstrated premises.

Then why do you use fallacious reasoning?

I did make a small mistake- you refuted my original claim, so I looked through your argument and realised the fallacy was not what I thought it was.

Thanks for playing loser.

Your claim is that because my argument leads to a conclusion that does not condemn genocide, it is wrong- that is fallacious.

It would only be fallacious if the genocide itself is morally correct dumbass. Killing people prevents happiness maximisation. Now explain your ethical system and why genocide is morally correct. Oh wait. You already stated that such claims cannot be justified either way. In which case your reason breaks apart the moment two people with opposing views conflict, since neither side is correct nor incorrect, and you just broke the rule of non contradiction. What is this rule called. Schrodinger's moral dilemna?

[Alkaloid]

If such people are to be accepted as Catholics, how is a coherent dividing line meant to be drawn between Catholicism and Protestantism? I have given an argument well-grounded in Catholic theology for my point- to dismiss it because I am an athiest is ad hominem.

By that logic, anyone not literally believing everything the bible says is not a Christian, otherwise how can we draw a clear dividing line between Christian and not Christian?

Look, the fact is that as a religion, the Catholic church does not have detailed registers of who is and is not Catholic. They have a hierarchy that includes the Pope, the Cardinals, Bishops, Priests and Monks. Most of those officials belong to one faction or another who believe different things and have different understandings about how best to worship. Everyone else, lets call them parishioners for convenience, is Catholic by dint of identifying themselves as Catholic, and by being baptised into the church, and unless they are excommunicated or declared a heretic, are accepted by the church as being catholic. Confession is a sacrament built into the church in order to cleanse the sins of people who do commit transgressions, like say, being unable to take as read everything the pope says. This means that the church, the only group with the authority to decide whether a person is catholic or not, will accept as catholic anyone who claims to be catholic and has been baptised into the church unless they say otherwise by declaring them a heretic. As an atheist outside the authority of the church, you have no authority to declare anyone identifying as catholic a heretic, and thus it is not ad hom, it's a statement of fact.

The first part of the paragraph is a pure appeal to emotion without rational argument.

No, it's a question. Is that your position?

The second half is faulty because it has the implicit premise that to have society 'function a form everyone finds acceptable' is a good in and of itself.

How is a society going to function if not everyone finds it acceptable? That will inevitably lead to reform or revolution until it does. Unless you think literal anarchy and the results are a good thing, in which case you are just incredibly naive.

[Ford Prefect]

Yes I may, because that's still fucking ridiculous. Matters of public policy shouldn't be decided on in the back room and then ramrodded through the legislature by the majority party with no comment. The rationale of doing it to show the Australian people that they have purpose and unity is bunk; who the hell is the party if not that segment of the Australian people that make it up? Representatives should represent their constituents, not their party. Making them accountable to the party bosses so directly removes their ability to do so.

Please stop assuming that our political system works like the system in your country, or that it should. Australian politics is predicated on Governments and Oppositions with coherent platforms, objectives and organisation. Ideologically, the Commonwealth does not operate with the good of the individual electorates in mind. Rather, it acts for the good of Australia. What benefits the whole country benefits the voter; getting the balance right is what makes or breaks an election.