Pastadome - A place for friends who are being too friendly in other threads.

[The Pink Panther]

This is exactly how I view sir lexlunatic

@Senior Lexmechanic's not bad enough to ignore though.

He may be a pedophile, but he's someone you can have a discussion with without actively trying to ignore them. He takes shit too seriously, but you can get the goods without him calling you a cultist and you might even see some of his viewpoints in an objective light if you break down his arguments and see where he comes from.

And yes, I pinged him on purpose.

 

[Getting tard comed]

@Senior Lexmechanic's not bad enough to ignore though.

He may be a pedophile, but he's someone you can have a discussion with without actively trying to ignore them. He takes shit too seriously, but you can get the goods without him calling you a cultist and you might even see some of his viewpoints in an objective light if you break down his arguments and see where he comes from.

And yes, I pinged him on purpose.

For the record, I would never block anyone on kiwifarms.

But his close mindedness and complete adherence to his interpretation of theology and morality I have seen him express at other people not me let's me know a productive conversation is not in the horizon.

 

[The Pink Panther]

But his close mindedness and complete adherence to his interpretation of theology and morality I have seen him express at other people not me let's me know a productive conversation is not in the horizon.

Any particular examples tho?

 

[Getting tard comed]

Any particular examples tho?

Yeah, in the pedohile in England thread. https://kiwifarms.net/threads/paedo...n-child-porn-images.73996/page-3#post-7015536

Specifically :

Added line breaks because this was a real slog to get through without them.

Okay so, this is one of those 'broadly true but lacking context' statements. Deuteronomy 32:35 reads 'It is mine [God's] to avenge; I will repay. In due time their foot will slip; their day of disaster is near and their doom rushes upon them.' This is referenced again in Paul's writings in Romans 12, 17-21, which includes the wording 'leave room for God's wrath'. [New International Version, aka the first non-awful translation google begrudgingly spat out at me.]

Basically, God's followers were disallowed from committing acts of grievous violence, but not exclusively because doing so was morally wrong. Instead, God was the one who ultimately punished wrongdoers, and it was up to him to decide how that punishment would occur. Many times in the Hebrew scriptures, he directed the Jews to destroy and eradicate tribes who worshiped wicked gods like Baal, who demanded that infant children be burned alive on his altars to ensure good rainfall. Other times, he chose to destroy cities that were unusually wicked by his own hands, such as Sodom and Gomorrah. Yet other times, he maneuvered political entities such as the Babylonians to wage war against nations that had persecuted his people, such as the Assyrians.

As for the Jews who rejected Jesus and deliberately impaled the savior their own prophets had spent centuries preaching to them about, they were punished by the Romans in 70 CE, when Jerusalem was utterly destroyed and the hypocritical Jewish priesthood completely annihilated. The context is also important; Jesus was not asking forgiveness on behalf of the priesthood who condemned him. He was asking forgiveness for the Roman soldiers who were executing him. These men had no familiarity with Jewish traditions, prophecies or laws. They really didn't have any idea what they were doing, and even Pilate himself tried quite hard to get Jesus freed, only caving to the demands of the Jewish mob when they threatened to declare an open insurrection if he let Jesus go. Meanwhile, these was absolutely no forgiveness for the Priesthood class.

So, in conclusion, while God forbids killing directly, he does not withhold consequences for deliberate evildoing and does not expect wicked people to be let free with a slap on the wrist. Forgiveness can only be obtained after punishment is administered. Absolutely nowhere in the bible does it say that an 'I'm sorry' absolves a person from the legal repercussions of his actions.

Uhm... yes. That's what I said. Thank you for restating it, I guess?



This is, ironically, a conflation with your next point, which was also mine. If secular authorities want to sentence a man to death, that's their problem. What Caesar does is what Caesar wills; he will render an account to God like everyone else. If you'd actually read what I wrote instead of invented by reply in your own head, you'd have gotten my actual message, which was that nothing in the biblical canon allows a man to escape the legal punishment for any criminal actions he may have committed, so you can't just say 'oh, we should love thy neighbor' as a get-out-of-jail-free card.



Except this is, again, said absolutely nowhere in the bible. Hellfire and eternal damnation is a complete fiction created out of a desire by the Church to scare people into conversion. The wages sin pay is death; nothing more, nothing less. Death is the eternal sleep of the grave. Everyone is born sinful, because they are all children of the first man, Adam, who sinned. I really don't care what some corrupt Church official decided to write down as an easy justification for tithes; I am only interested in what the scriptures say, and what they don't say is anything about hellfire or eternal damnation. When you die, you sleep until the Revelation, and then, unless you knowingly committed blasphemy in your time on earth, you are resurrected and given a chance to make amends. If you fail that chance, you die the second death and are forever gone. You don't get poked by forks for all eternity by a bunch of bored demonic sub-interns.

Ignoring the exchange I had with him(I know what I said was needlessly provacative), his rating what Forever Sunrise said as dumb because he disagreed with him led me to my conclusion about him. Of course Sir lunatic is free to believe w/e he wants, I just dont like anyone who is dogmatic in their beliefs to not listen or consider another interpretation.

 

[The Pink Panther]

Yeah, in the pedohile in England thread. https://kiwifarms.net/threads/paedo...n-child-porn-images.73996/page-3#post-7015536

Specifically :



Ignoring the exchange I had with him(I know what I said was needlessly provacative), his rating what Forever Sunrise said as dumb because he disagreed with him led me to my conclusion about him. Of course Sir lunatic is free to believe w/e he wants, I just dont like anyone who is dogmatic in their beliefs to not listen or consider another interpretation.

Oh well, in that case, that's just being an asshole.

And this is consistent, him defending the child touchers is nothing new.

 

[The Last Stand]

@Senior Lexmechanic better thank his lucky stars @Shield Breaker isn't one of those Black women with incipient anger from the slightest confrontation.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

Oh well, in that case, that's just being an asshole.

And this is consistent, him defending the child touchers is nothing new.

I'm sorry I won't compromise my moral principles: killing is always evil, under all circumstances save direct divine command. If that pedophile died, however, I would be satisfied that he could never harm a child.

If I compromise on my faith, I don't have a faith; I have a fashion statement. This isn't a reasonable position, I will fully yield, but faith transcends reason.
Endlessly calling me a pedophile for highly spurious reasons is highly irritating, and I'd rather have as little to do with someone who does that as possible.

 

[The Pink Panther]

I'm sorry I won't compromise my moral principles: killing is always evil, under all circumstances save direct divine command. If that pedophile died, however, I would be satisfied that he could never harm a child.

If I compromise on my faith, I don't have a faith; I have a fashion statement. This isn't a reasonable position, I will fully yield, but faith transcends reason.
Endlessly calling me a pedophile for highly spurious reasons is highly irritating, and I'd rather have as little to do with someone who does that as possible.

Basing ideas and opinions off of morality (which is subjective) instead of looking at it from a systematic perspective, is fucking stupid.

 

[AprilRains]

I'm sorry I won't compromise my moral principles: killing is always evil, under all circumstances save direct divine command.

So you deny the validity of killing in self-defense, as well as killing for food?

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

So you deny the validity of killing in self-defense, as well as killing for food?

1. Yes, in fact; to kill, even in preservation of your own life, is a sin. I have faith in the salvation promised by Jesus to those who follow him, and have been promised eternal life; what shall be seen as death is merely sleep. Once again; this is not a reasonable position, I will confess fully, but one born of faith. Speaking from reason, I think the law should distinguish between self-defense and murder. Speaking from faith, killing in self-defense is sin and requires contrition. Likewise, from reason, I think abortion should be legal in cases of rape and when the mother's life is in serious peril: from faith, it is a sin equal to killing that requires contrition.
2. Killing an animal is not a sin, as they lack souls; therefore, killing for food is permissible. When I talk about the morality of killing, I speak about the act of ending human life.

 

[Jah Hates Kaffirs]

I'm sorry I won't compromise my moral principles: killing is always evil, under all circumstances save direct divine command.

God told me to slaughter 5 and injure 7 more children in a Subway in New York with a pistol. It was direct divine command.

 

[1Tonka_Truck]

Yes, in fact; to kill, even in preservation of your own life, is a sin.

What about the preservation of another life?


The trolley problem must be a real doozy for you.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

God told me to slaughter 5 and injure 7 more children in a Subway in New York with a pistol. It was direct divine command.

There is a difference between a madman and a prophet (there are signs that accompany divine intervention, as illustrated in the New Testament), and my faith dictates that God would never tell a man to kill children randomly. From reason, I will yield that there is little difference between one who lives in faith and a madman.

What about the preservation of another life?


The trolley problem must be a real doozy for you.

Still requires contrition.
The morally-correct solution to the trolley problem from my perspective is to give your own life as a martyr to prevent anyone else from dying; martyrdom and self-sacrifice is morally permissible and one of the highest callings.
Eliminating that, I would throw the switch and attempt to save the one person on the other track: God may intervene and let me save him, and my intention is not to kill one man, but to save five.
I am sorry for you, but am unsurprised, that you find faith stupid.

 

[Nobunaga]

If killing an animal is not a sin because they dont have souls then killing pedos isnt a sin
Just admit you are scared of the day of the rope and stop with the moralfagging

 

[Jah Hates Kaffirs]

There is a difference between a madman and a prophet (there are signs that accompany divine intervention, as illustrated in the New Testament), and my faith dictates that God would never tell a man to kill children randomly. From reason, I will yield that there is little difference between one who lives in faith and a madman.


Still requires contrition.
The morally-correct solution to the trolley problem from my perspective is to give your own life as a martyr to prevent anyone else from dying; martyrdom and self-sacrifice is morally permissible and one of the highest callings.

> God would never tell man to kill a child randomnly.
> "Hey Abraham you mind sacrificing Isaac?"

 

[The Pink Panther]

At this point, I think this nigga is doing this weird form of shitposting because his posts don't really read me as being serious in any way.

But he's so autistic, he can't shitpost properly.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

> God would never tell man to kill a child randomnly.
> "Hey Abraham you mind sacrificing Isaac?"

You miss the point of the narrative: God told Abraham to kill Isaac as a test of his faith- and then, when He saw that Abraham was willing, sent a goat instead. This was God's covenant, that unlike the false gods, He would not demand a human offering. In the final covenant formed by the Crucifixion with all men, not merely the Jews, He then says that there shall be no more offerings: for what can be offered to God that is greater than God himself?

 

[AprilRains]

1. Yes, in fact; to kill, even in preservation of your own life, is a sin. I have faith in the salvation promised by Jesus to those who follow him, and have been promised eternal life; what shall be seen as death is merely sleep. Once again; this is not a reasonable position, I will confess fully, but one born of faith. Speaking from reason, I think the law should distinguish between self-defense and murder. Speaking from faith, killing in self-defense is sin and requires contrition. Likewise, from reason, I think abortion should be legal in cases of rape and when the mother's life is in serious peril: from faith, it is a sin equal to killing that requires contrition.
2. Killing an animal is not a sin, as they lack souls; therefore, killing for food is permissible. When I talk about the morality of killing, I speak about the act of ending human life.

You understand your poncy tone comes across as several miles past fedora-tipping and well into the land of mass shooters, right?

There are two kinds of people who make no moral distinction between justifiable and unjustifiable homicide: Pacifists and murderers. And it is surprisingly easy for a pacifist to become a murderer. A fair number of American terrorists in the 1960's managed that transition effortlessly.

For that matter, what was your plan in the parking lot of the gas station? Were you going to put those people in the morgue gently, without killing them, perhaps as visitors?

 

[1Tonka_Truck]

The morally-correct solution to the trolley problem from my perspective is to give your own life as a martyr to prevent anyone else from dying; martyrdom and self-sacrifice is morally permissible and one of the highest callings.

Ignoring that isn't an option, Plan A is throw yourself in front of the trolley and hope it stops? Other than the pure hopium-based planning, I agree with the sentiment.

Eliminating that, I would throw the switch and attempt to save the one person on the other track: God may intervene and let me save him, and my intention is not to kill one man, but to save five.

Plan B is much more reasonable than I was expecting.

I am sorry for you, but am unsurprised, that you find faith stupid.

I don't find faith stupid. If you actually have an unshakable belief system, you probably have a more fulfilling life than me. I'd like to have faith in something beyond people's ability to be stupid and shitty to one another, but that ship sailed a long time ago.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

You understand your poncy tone comes across as several miles past fedora-tipping and well into the land of mass shooters, right?

There are two kinds of people who make no moral distinction between justifiable and unjustifiable homicide: Pacifists and murderers. And it is surprisingly easy for a pacifist to become a murderer. A fair number of American terrorists in the 1960's managed that transition effortlessly.

For that matter, what was your plan in the parking lot of the gas station? Were you going to put those people in the morgue gently, without killing them, perhaps as visitors?

1. It's how I sound when I talk about these sorts of things. I'll fully acknowledge that I sound like an inbred twit, but it ends up coming out like that.
2. If it wasn't for my faith, I would be a very violent person: I have a short temper and take things people say offhandedly more seriously than I should. It is because of that rage, in part, that I am such an ardent pacifist: if I wasn't, I would probably be one of the worst Internet Tough Guys in history.
3. I was delirious and speaking from a place of ego and rage. I sincerely regret saying that, and this is why I don't mind people using it as a copypasta- it helps me remain humble.

Ignoring that isn't an option, Plan A is throw yourself in front of the trolley and hope it stops? Other than the pure hopium-based planning, I agree with the sentiment.


Plan B is much more reasonable than I was expecting.


I don't find faith stupid. If you actually have an unshakable belief system, you probably have a more fulfilling life than me. I'd like to have faith in something beyond people's ability to be stupid and shitty to one another, but that ship sailed a long time ago.

1. The trolley problem is meant to draw out moral intuitions, and isn't a problem with a "right" or "wrong" answer, and some variants offer self-sacrifice as a third option. If you're treating it as reflective of a real-life situation, you don't understand what it's supposed to be. Otherwise, I could nit-pick the scenario into oblivion.
2. You could start by not telling people explaining their moral and religious principles to you to kill themselves.