5 ms·

This bigotted comment is not welcome here.

KDJohnBrown 6y ago
Is it untrue? This is history of the power structures of abrahamic religions. All 3 abrahamic religions are a history of inflicting unimaginable cruelty on others. This article itself is about the holiest of holies poisoning others to protect himself.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  Your comment wasn't a substantial discussion on this point it was just a bigoted quip.
  - KDJohnBrown 6y ago
    It was still honest. Abrahamist history is a road of graves paved in blood and abuse. Of course it was an abrahamic religious leader who did this. I mean, who else has the ability to be so cruel and sociopathic with zero repercussions?
  - KDJohnBrown 6y ago
    Forgive me for invoking Godwin’s law, but it is relevant. El Popa here behaved exactly in the same monstrous actions as Nazi Doctor Josef Mengel. Had this article been about Josef Mengel, and I said this about Nazis instead of Abrahamic cultists, would I still be a bigot in your eyes?
1996 6y ago
I find that comment insightful, as religion may have a part of "blame" for people who disagree with the practice. However, other non religious system (communist USSR, post-revolution France) did or still do the same: they did run experiments on convicts or war prisoners. We all benefit from the science gained. The big question is whether the greater good as defined by a religion or non religious belief-system can offset the perceived negatives - but there are clearly positive too: the prisoners mentioned in the article were condemned to death already. By volunteering, one survived: > As a reward for his services, the prisoner had his death sentence commuted to life as a galley slave Down the thread, people mention China. Personally, I trust China CCP and I believe it is trying to inflict as little hurt as possible while maximizing the greater good for the whole society. It is sad the idea of a greater good now looks quaint.
- wizzwizz4 6y ago
  When people start justifying genocides with “the greater good”, they've ventured into children's book evil territory. In what real-world situation is genocide ever a good thing? They might even be doing good on net – but there's a whole lot of evil they could just cut out. It doesn't count as “for the greater good” if the evil doesn't cause or allow the good, which it blatantly doesn't; if anything, it prevents it.
  - WanderPanda 6y ago
    When people start justifying anything with “the greater good”, they've ventured into children's book evil territory
    - wizzwizz4 6y ago
      True. If your utilitarian calculus actually works out, you don't have to constantly tell people that.
  - cbozeman 6y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2LTdslZSMw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2LTdslZSMw
- cbozeman 6y ago
  > It is sad the idea of a greater good now looks quaint. It doesn't look quaint now and it didn't look quaint 2,000 years ago when Romans believed that going to war with anyone and everyone around them in order to unify everyone under Rome's banner was for "the greater good". Justifying the stripping away of rights of individuals for society never results in a "greater good", and the reason that it won't, and not only that - can't, is because as soon as you justify stripping away an individual's rights, then you start looking at the stripping away of a group's rights, and before long you end up with an increasingly larger Venn diagram with an overlap of "groups that hinder society" and "extermination for the greater good". No thank you. Keep your goddamned "greater good". We've tried it enough. "But that wasn't real <Communism / Socialism / Marxism / Right-wing Authoritarianism / Benevolent Dictatorship / etc.>!" has been and always will be the mantra, because there's always someone dumb enough to think they're smart enough to build the "perfect" society. And they're all wrong.
swayvil 6y ago
I dunno man. Slinging an accusation of "bigot" and then censoring his reply (away from all possibility of understanding or argument) ain't too great either.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  I don't think saying "I'm not surprised people of <certain religion> support murder." is making a substantive comment, even if you DID agree with it. It was just a dumb comment. We should encourage substantive comments - even if we disagree with them. I don't want this place to turn into Reddit with knee-jerk SLAM journalism and low quality comments.
  - swayvil 6y ago
    So what do you want, right speech or free speech? Is there a method that serves both ends?
    - koheripbal 6y ago
      I want adult substantive speech. I'd prefer a censorship mechanism that still allows access to the original comment, but given the system we have, I'm ok with removing that particular comment. Remember that neither extreme is a good place. Allowing link spam, doxxing comments, CP, etc... that isn't correct either. I don't think we've figured out a good solution for this societal problem, but you offering a false choice of "pick and extreme" is not constructive.
      - swayvil 6y ago
        It sounds to me like you want right speech. As for the accusation. Just don't.

Is it untrue? This is history of the power structures of abrahamic religions. All 3 abrahamic religions are a history of inflicting unimaginable cruelty on others. This article itself is about the holiest of holies poisoning others to protect himself.

michaelmrose 6y ago
Your comment wasn't a substantial discussion on this point it was just a bigoted quip.
- KDJohnBrown 6y ago
  It was still honest. Abrahamist history is a road of graves paved in blood and abuse. Of course it was an abrahamic religious leader who did this. I mean, who else has the ability to be so cruel and sociopathic with zero repercussions?
- KDJohnBrown 6y ago
  Forgive me for invoking Godwin’s law, but it is relevant. El Popa here behaved exactly in the same monstrous actions as Nazi Doctor Josef Mengel. Had this article been about Josef Mengel, and I said this about Nazis instead of Abrahamic cultists, would I still be a bigot in your eyes?

1996 6y ago

I find that comment insightful, as religion may have a part of "blame" for people who disagree with the practice. However, other non religious system (communist USSR, post-revolution France) did or still do the same: they did run experiments on convicts or war prisoners. We all benefit from the science gained. The big question is whether the greater good as defined by a religion or non religious belief-system can offset the perceived negatives - but there are clearly positive too: the prisoners mentioned in the article were condemned to death already. By volunteering, one survived: > As a reward for his services, the prisoner had his death sentence commuted to life as a galley slave Down the thread, people mention China. Personally, I trust China CCP and I believe it is trying to inflict as little hurt as possible while maximizing the greater good for the whole society. It is sad the idea of a greater good now looks quaint.

wizzwizz4 6y ago
When people start justifying genocides with “the greater good”, they've ventured into children's book evil territory. In what real-world situation is genocide ever a good thing? They might even be doing good on net – but there's a whole lot of evil they could just cut out. It doesn't count as “for the greater good” if the evil doesn't cause or allow the good, which it blatantly doesn't; if anything, it prevents it.
- WanderPanda 6y ago
  When people start justifying anything with “the greater good”, they've ventured into children's book evil territory
  - wizzwizz4 6y ago
    True. If your utilitarian calculus actually works out, you don't have to constantly tell people that.
- cbozeman 6y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2LTdslZSMw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2LTdslZSMw
cbozeman 6y ago
> It is sad the idea of a greater good now looks quaint. It doesn't look quaint now and it didn't look quaint 2,000 years ago when Romans believed that going to war with anyone and everyone around them in order to unify everyone under Rome's banner was for "the greater good". Justifying the stripping away of rights of individuals for society never results in a "greater good", and the reason that it won't, and not only that - can't, is because as soon as you justify stripping away an individual's rights, then you start looking at the stripping away of a group's rights, and before long you end up with an increasingly larger Venn diagram with an overlap of "groups that hinder society" and "extermination for the greater good". No thank you. Keep your goddamned "greater good". We've tried it enough. "But that wasn't real <Communism / Socialism / Marxism / Right-wing Authoritarianism / Benevolent Dictatorship / etc.>!" has been and always will be the mantra, because there's always someone dumb enough to think they're smart enough to build the "perfect" society. And they're all wrong.

swayvil 6y ago

I dunno man. Slinging an accusation of "bigot" and then censoring his reply (away from all possibility of understanding or argument) ain't too great either.

koheripbal 6y ago
I don't think saying "I'm not surprised people of <certain religion> support murder." is making a substantive comment, even if you DID agree with it. It was just a dumb comment. We should encourage substantive comments - even if we disagree with them. I don't want this place to turn into Reddit with knee-jerk SLAM journalism and low quality comments.
- swayvil 6y ago
  So what do you want, right speech or free speech? Is there a method that serves both ends?
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    I want adult substantive speech. I'd prefer a censorship mechanism that still allows access to the original comment, but given the system we have, I'm ok with removing that particular comment. Remember that neither extreme is a good place. Allowing link spam, doxxing comments, CP, etc... that isn't correct either. I don't think we've figured out a good solution for this societal problem, but you offering a false choice of "pick and extreme" is not constructive.
    - swayvil 6y ago
      It sounds to me like you want right speech. As for the accusation. Just don't.