This is my closing argument:
First of all, my definition of Fundie was, from the beginning, that found in the dictionary: someone who believes in the literal interpretation of the Bible (or Koran, or whatever). It is inherently obvious that there are a LOT of such people in the world, and that their influence is very powerful. It is also inherently obvious that they compose a very small percentage of the human population. My use of relative terms was due to the fact that I do not have actual quantitative figures on the number of fundies in the world. The fact that I also noted loss of charites as a possible side effect of destroying the fundies was due to the fact that if you kill some of the strongest leaders in a cause, you will temporarily kill the cause as well. I did not say that mainstrem religion and atheists would not soon reestablish the same charities. I apoligise if my attempt to provide some non-morality-related cons to this action has caused you confusion.
Second, I have never supported the use of this virus with the idea that it is justified punishment for their stupidity. As far as I am concerned, there is
no such thing as justified punishment, as you are deliberately inflicting harm on someone for no real benefit other than your own self-gratification. Punishing does not reverse the harm of the action for which one is being punished. My sole argument has been that fundies have caused objective harm in the past, they will continue to do so in the future, and woe is the world if they should ever come to power again, therefore they constitute a continuing menace to humanity and should be removed. This virus allows one to actually accomplish that, the only question is, is the obvious benefit to current and future generations of surviving humans worth commiting an obviously immoral act? I argue the answer is yes.
As for David's analogy with "what would you do if your children were taught creation in schools?" I would personally make sure, my means of public debate, that every single one of the children understood that that teacher is an idiot. One fundie is not a threat. Get a million of them together, and they are not only a threat, they are a major problem, because they actively attack anything that does not obey the One True God (never mind that this was also said of every
other god in history). In societies that allow it, this attack is with bullets. In societies that don't allow it, they shift to attacking with dollars and politicians and lawyers and missionaries, and the all-too-common incidents of harassment (real harrassment, defined as the sort of stuff you can get a restraining order for, not just telemarketing) that fall below the reach of the law (because most people don't have the time and patience to actually get a restraining order). But they
do attack innocent people, just the same, and they
are a threat.
As for Africa, unlike fundies (which, as I have said,
are a threat), Africa doesn't threaten anyone else, and the economic drain on other countries supporting Africa is entirely their choice. You don't kill people who are only harmful to you because you personally let them be, the analogy does not apply. BTW, yes fundies are harmful even if we're not letting them be, where
we is defined as people who are intelligent enough to recognise the fundie threat, obviously if
we is defined as all non-fundies, including the ones stupid enough to listen to them, then that group has no business with this virus. However, niether definiton of
we supports eliminating Africa.
So would the world be a better place if every fundie died? I don't know because I can't see the future, but I contend that neither I, nor data_link, nor anyone else has the right to decided if a person gets to live or die due to their beliefs.
Of course none of us has the right to run the world. That does not prevent us from speculating on what we should do if we are nontheless tasked with that decision.
The only time we have the right to act agianst another for their beliefs is when they decide to harm another. At that point, they have made the personal choice to harm another, and they should be punished individually for that crime.
Actually, I disagree with this, if someone who has killed poses no threat to anyone else, harming them serves no purpose other than to create more harm. Of course if your legal system is based on the threat of punishment, which most legal systems are, then harming them becomes a nessecary evil, but it does not become right.
The fact is that it is most certainly not a theory, because every day people die from it. Take your theory to millions of dead fundies in China and Russia and ask them if the world is a better place.
I did, but they never answered. The theory of communism is completely different from the fact that fundies cause objective harm. The theory of communism also forbade mainstream religion, which causes little or no harm and does have some good effects. This was just one of communism's many shortcomings - but I am not advocating communism, and your idiotic proof by association does nothing to enhance your status as a debater.
As for the point Darth Wong made about it being unfair to punish them as a group, perhaps. But even as individuals, it is still unfair to punish them, for they are not aware of what they do wrong. This does not change the fact that they still do wrong, and every fundie does wrong by helping spread fundamentalism. Even though indirect, by creating more people who will support movements to rid the world of people and practices that do no harm, they are doing harm.
Of course. I have never agreed with the notion of killing them. You can't kill someone for being an asshole or an idiot; you have to wait for them to do something wrong. I think data_link is just playing devil's advocate.
My point is that even through just spreading fundamentalism (which all fundies do), fundies are helping the twin forces of stupididty and ignorance, which have been responsible for almost all harm in human history. As for Wong's assumption that I'm just playing devil's advocate, he is wrong. I actually would release the virus. All of David's strawmen about me being sick and evil and having no sense of morality and believing it is wrong to kill people just because I disagree with them are correct. I would kill Darth Wong because he isn't supporting my argument. Yes, I am being sarcastic.
This has been a very interesting debate. I look forward to future such discourse at SD.net. And David, try not to lock my thread next time.
