Pro-blasphemy law protesters deserve death penalty!

[FlashDangerpants]

That's not a smart argument at all - you are justifying the people in that photo because they have their subjective opinion and they have decided that the death penalty is fitting for blasphemy. You can't have strong opinions about other people being wrong AND believe it is all relative at the same time, they contradictory positions. You are terrible at philosophy.

Objectively speaking, none of us, you, me or the persons on the photo - have any "divinity" or "supremacy". We're all made of atoms, and we're nothing more than the sum of our parts.

Oh, that routine huh? What is the relevance to this theory of us being made of atoms?

Objectively speaking, this means that whoever is strongest is the one who has the moral right. It is a sad fact, but true.

That's a blatantly false inference. If there is no right or wrong, then basic logic dictates that might cannot make right any more than anything else does.

There exists no realm of objective morality. We have to make it for ourselves and make alliances with people who are like us and share the same opinions.

Your moral policy is to find a herd to sit in an echo chamber with and haved them repeat your own opinions back to you. Facebook is a solid choice for that sort of thing, a philosophy forum is not.

I personally prefer the death penalty for those people on that photo.

You have a genuine desire to murder lots of people in pursuit of a savage agenda that is not even morally correct according to your own analysis. And you had a fantasy about how to make it as painful as possible for some reason... which I not you edited out of your original post a few minutes ago ... That's psychopathic, in the interest of public safety perhaps you should be killed.

The fact that you and I disagree does not mean I lack philosophy.

No, but the fact that you cannot string together a coherent argument does.

[philosopher]

That's a blatantly false inference. If there is no right or wrong, then basic logic dictates that might cannot make right any more than anything else does.

I should clarify:

Might = right in regards to who defines the rights. If you're a dictator with a lot of supporting military might, you define rights.

Your moral policy is to find a herd to sit in an echo chamber with and haved them repeat your own opinions back to you. Facebook is a solid choice for that sort of thing, a philosophy forum is not.

Yes, but I won't do because I am prepared to alter my opinions based on logical reasoning.
I alter my opinions all the time.

As a matter of fact, I do shift back and forth between pro and anti-death penalty.

It is a contradiction, but it lives perfectly well.

Not much I can do about it.

You have a genuine desire to murder lots of people in pursuit of a savage agenda that is not even morally correct according to your own analysis. And you had a fantasy about how to make it as painful as possible for some reason... which I not you edited out of your original post a few minutes ago ... That's psychopathic, in the interest of public safety perhaps you should be killed.

You're wrong. I have NO INTENTION of MURDER. I have an opinion in regards to LEGAL/JUDICIAL law applying a LEGAL punishment applied by the law makers. If the law makers won't let it happen, it won't happen. I'm not going to murder anyone!

Btw. I have contradictory opinions on the matter of death penalty, see above.

[philosopher]

I am kindly asking this thread to be deleted.
We're going nowhere.

[FlashDangerpants]

That's a blatantly false inference. If there is no right or wrong, then basic logic dictates that might cannot make right any more than anything else does.

I should clarify:

Might = right in regards to who defines the rights. If you're a dictator with a lot of supporting military might, you define rights.

That doesn't work. You wrote "moral right", pretending you really meant human rights or civil rights because that didn't work out for you is lazy and dishonest.

Your moral policy is to find a herd to sit in an echo chamber with and haved them repeat your own opinions back to you. Facebook is a solid choice for that sort of thing, a philosophy forum is not.

Yes, but I won't do because I am prepared to alter my opinions based on logical reasoning.
I alter my opinions all the time.

As a matter of fact, not only do I shift back and forth between pro and anti-death penalty.
I also occassionally share the same pro/anti in duality.

Is that supposed to be a boast? You base your opinions on logical reasoning, but you often don't agree with them, and then you sometimes hold mutually exclusive beliefs which you think sounds deep if you describe the contradiction "duality".

For example, if you ask me whether I am pro or anti-Death Penalty, my answer could be both, on the same subject, regarding the same cases.
It is a contradiction, but it lives perfectly well.

So... you are too good at philosophy for the law of noncontradiction to apply to your thoughts?

Not much I can do about it.

Of course there is you lazy bastard. Quit being a fucking bullshit artist and do some actual reasoning until you resolve the contradiction. That's what an actual philosopher would do. What you are doing is posing.

You have a genuine desire to murder lots of people in pursuit of a savage agenda that is not even morally correct according to your own analysis. And you had a fantasy about how to make it as painful as possible for some reason... which I not you edited out of your original post a few minutes ago ... That's psychopathic, in the interest of public safety perhaps you should be killed.

You're wrong. I have NO INTENTION of MURDER. I have an opinion in regards to LEGAL/JUDICIAL law applying a LEGAL punishment applied by the law makers. If the law makers won't let it happen, it won't happen. I'm not going to murder anyone!

So... you do... or don't.... or do AND don't ... believe that it is logical and reasonable ... or else that there is no such thing as logic OR reason in matters of morality ... for the people who have wrong opinions about who should die to be put to death for the crime of having the wrong opinion about who should die ... although their opinions on the matter are as good as anyone else's, including the opinions you may or may not hold.... or that you do AND do not hold .... but if somebody powerful says they are right and you are wrong ... then you should be put to death to blashpemy because might makes rights which is right or wrong or right AND wrong all at once....

And of course, you also believe that you are a totally competent philosopher.

[FlashDangerpants]

I am kindly asking this thread to be deleted.
We're going nowhere.

Whby bother? You don't learn anything, you're just going to screw the pooch again.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Death penalty is too extreme.
I believe these people should be condemned and send to a psychiatric ward.

I commented on the above here;

The latest news is Asia Bibi is acquitted of the charge and saved from the death penalty but note the response from the Islamists.

What is very sick is all these terrible evil acts of sentencing someone to death is based on the critique of a God which is an illusion and an impossibility.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

The fact that these people are so sick [mentally] is not because there is a real God but that theism is based on terrible existential-psychological impulses.

In addition the authority that enabled these evil prone people to commit such terrible evil is driven from an immutable holy text from an illusory God. Humanity must do something to suppress such evil texts.

There are two fundamental and critical root causes to the above, i.e.

• 1. The mental state of evilness in these people.
  2. The evil ideology that compel these evil people to commit such evil acts [death for blasphemy].

At present it is not easy to change the mental state of evilness in these people.
Whilst it is difficult, relatively it would be easier to wean off the evil ideology of Islam that drive those evil acts.

Thus attention should be directed to the ideology of Islam which is the primary source of all Islamic-based evil and violent acts.

[philosopher]

I am kindly asking this thread to be deleted.
We're going nowhere.

Whby bother? You don't learn anything, you're just going to screw the pooch again.

I think you are right, FlashDangerpants. I have to make more philosophical posts with logical reasoning, in order to be part of this forum.

I will try my best in the future. For now, all I can say is I'm sorry for yesterdays posts/comments/thread.

Problem is, I'm getting angry at the angry mob, wherever it may be. I hate the angry mob and I don't know how to get rid of the mob, without wiping them out alltogether. I'm open for other ideas.

Whilst it is difficult, relatively it would be easier to wean off the evil ideology of Islam that drive those evil acts.

I don't think islam is the root. This sort of angry-mob behavior has existed through all times and places.

The Christians used to burn people on the stake for blasphemy. If they admitted their blasphemy, they were given a quicker death by strangulation (still slow and painful), if they didn't they were burnt alive (even slower and more painful).

It doesn't matter which religion people adhere to. Even non-believers (atheists) have blood on their hands. Stalin massacred hundreds of millions of innocents, just for the pure sake of fun of it.

The root problem is humanity, humans are naturally evil. I think there is more evil to mankind than good.

[henry quirk]

Actually, Philosopher, if you can just avoid postin' hyperbolic nonsense like this...

Nobody should be allowed to say "There should be blasphemy laws". It should be a capital crime to say any such things!

...you'd go far here.

[philosopher]

Actually, Philosopher, if you can just avoid postin' hyperbolic nonsense like this...

Nobody should be allowed to say "There should be blasphemy laws". It should be a capital crime to say any such things!

...you'd go far here.

I will do my best to avoid such nonsense from now on.

[Age]

I am kindly asking this thread to be deleted.
We're going nowhere.

Whby bother? You don't learn anything, you're just going to screw the pooch again.

I think you are right, FlashDangerpants. I have to make more philosophical posts with logical reasoning, in order to be part of this forum.

I will try my best in the future. For now, all I can say is I'm sorry for yesterdays posts/comments/thread.

Problem is, I'm getting angry at the angry mob, wherever it may be. I hate the angry mob and I don't know how to get rid of the mob, without wiping them out alltogether. I'm open for other ideas.

Whilst it is difficult, relatively it would be easier to wean off the evil ideology of Islam that drive those evil acts.

I don't think islam is the root. This sort of angry-mob behavior has existed through all times and places.

The Christians used to burn people on the stake for blasphemy. If they admitted their blasphemy, they were given a quicker death by strangulation (still slow and painful), if they didn't they were burnt alive (even slower and more painful).

It doesn't matter which religion people adhere to. Even non-believers (atheists) have blood on their hands. Stalin massacred hundreds of millions of innocents, just for the pure sake of fun of it.

The root problem is humanity, humans are naturally evil. I think there is more evil to mankind than good.

Are you TRYING TO back up and support this statement that "humans are naturally evil" by using 'evidence' such as coming across as being "naturally" evil yourself, especially with statements like this:

"Problem is, I'm getting angry at the angry mob, wherever it may be. I hate the angry mob and I don't know how to get rid of the mob, without wiping them out alltogether."

Are you aware that THOSE VERY WORDS are the words that, what you call, an "angry mob" uses, themselves?

You just saying, "I HATE the angry mob", and, "I don't know how to get RID OF THEM, without WIPING THEM OUT ALTOGETHER" is just you being part of (trying to form) an(other) ANGRY MOB.

You even said, "I'm getting ANGRY ..."

So, now you are ANGRY and you appear to be trying to getting others/followers also to be ANGRY at the so called "ANGRY MOB". You appear to trying to form just another ANGRY MOB together that WILL really HATE the ANGRY MOB.

From the contradiction of terms that you use here and the irony I saw in what you said I was amused and thought that you were just making fun and taking the piss out of others, but now I am really starting to wonder;

WERE YOU ACTUALLY BEING SERIOUS HERE?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Whilst it is difficult, relatively it would be easier to wean off the evil ideology of Islam that drive those evil acts.

I don't think islam is the root. This sort of angry-mob behavior has existed through all times and places.

The Christians used to burn people on the stake for blasphemy. If they admitted their blasphemy, they were given a quicker death by strangulation (still slow and painful), if they didn't they were burnt alive (even slower and more painful).

It doesn't matter which religion people adhere to. Even non-believers (atheists) have blood on their hands. Stalin massacred hundreds of millions of innocents, just for the pure sake of fun of it.

The root problem is humanity, humans are naturally evil. I think there is more evil to mankind than good.

In this particular case, Islam and its loads of evil element is the more significant and effective root, arising from the main proximate roots, i.e.

• 1. DNA/RNA wise ALL humans has the potential to commit evil/violent acts and SOME [appx. 20%] are born with an active tendencies to commit evil acts. These are the evil prone people.
  
  2. Those evil prone people [20%] are easily triggered to commit evil acts when triggered by evil laden elements.
  
  3. A very small % [psychopaths,] commit evil acts without any external triggers/stimuli.

The point is, it is difficult to change the inherent DNA/RNA, thus the most effective solution at present is to control the stimuli that trigger the vulnerables to commit evil and violent acts.

This is why there is censorship of evil and violent laden materials in the media, news, movies, computer games, etc. to avoid influencing vulnerable children and adults.

The problem in this OP case is the authorities do not censor holy texts of Islam that has loads of evil laden element.
An approximate 20% of evil prone Muslims is a pool of 300 million who are vulnerable to be triggered to commit evil/violent acts. The reality of this consequence is so evident and the case in the OP is merely one of them.

Christianity has an overriding pacifist maxim, i.e. love your enemies, love your neighbors, give the other cheek, etc. No true Christians would dare to go against the above maxims, else they will end up in hell.
Thus Christians who commit evil and violent acts are those who did it by the very own inherent evil nature and definitely not by the commands of the Christian God.
It is more obvious with the Buddhism and Jainism which do not has any leading evil laden elements in their texts.

In general the potential within the human psyche is 51% good and 49% evil.
DNA wise, ALL humans also has an inherent moral function in the brain which is evolving albeit slowly [thus need to be expedited] to inhibit the inherent evil potential inherent from our 'animal' days.

[FlashDangerpants]

I am kindly asking this thread to be deleted.
We're going nowhere.

Whby bother? You don't learn anything, you're just going to screw the pooch again.

I think you are right, FlashDangerpants. I have to make more philosophical posts with logical reasoning, in order to be part of this forum.

I dunno if I'd go that far, this forum is mostly a knife fight between roaming gangs of savages. Logic gets a mention every now and then, but it seldom gets a workout.

Problem is, I'm getting angry at the angry mob, wherever it may be. I hate the angry mob and I don't know how to get rid of the mob, without wiping them out alltogether. I'm open for other ideas.

Most of the time you end up arguing for something called moral nihilism after a little while. It is variable, but it generally argues that as there is no universal grounds for morality, all moral statements of fact are mistaken. There's more to it, but that's the gist. I'm not opposed, I might decide to be a moral nihilist myself if I ever get round to it. But it is a position with limitations, it sort of rules out making grand moral statements of your own.

So before you can really begin arguing the sorts of things you go for, there's a few things you need to put in place. Starting with Henry's advice is probably a good idea...

Then after toning stuff down a little, you need to think what is your fallback poistion really? If you are fundamentally a moral nihilist, you will need to adjust your expectations to match their backing. After that, you can get to what you don't like about the mob in question. Whether you need to provide the solution to the mob is less obvoius right now.

The root problem is humanity, humans are naturally evil. I think there is more evil to mankind than good.

That seems a bit pessimistic. Most people are generally ok most of the time, genuine total arseholes are an exception not the rule. Plus, you might not really believe in good and evil as such, which is nice.

[TimeSeeker]

Yes. Nobody should be allowed to wish for any blasphemy laws.

I have an idea. Lets punish "wishing death penalty for blasphemy" with death!

Oh... wait...

Each and EVERYONE on that picture are motherfucking assholes, and they deserve no compassion, they deserve a DEATH SENTENCE! They deserve to have a COURT sentence each and everyone of them to DIE!

I guess you can go protest and demand death for them also? Just like they are doing?

It doesn't mean we actually have to listen to you or follow through with it, right?

Or maybe we should punish "wishing for death penalty for those who wish for death penalty" with death. Last survivor wins?

[philosopher]

Are you TRYING TO back up and support this statement that "humans are naturally evil" by using 'evidence' such as coming across as being "naturally" evil yourself, especially with statements like this:

"Problem is, I'm getting angry at the angry mob, wherever it may be. I hate the angry mob and I don't know how to get rid of the mob, without wiping them out alltogether."

Are you aware that THOSE VERY WORDS are the words that, what you call, an "angry mob" uses, themselves?

You just saying, "I HATE the angry mob", and, "I don't know how to get RID OF THEM, without WIPING THEM OUT ALTOGETHER" is just you being part of (trying to form) an(other) ANGRY MOB.

You even said, "I'm getting ANGRY ..."

So, now you are ANGRY and you appear to be trying to getting others/followers also to be ANGRY at the so called "ANGRY MOB". You appear to trying to form just another ANGRY MOB together that WILL really HATE the ANGRY MOB.

From the contradiction of terms that you use here and the irony I saw in what you said I was amused and thought that you were just making fun and taking the piss out of others, but now I am really starting to wonder;

WERE YOU ACTUALLY BEING SERIOUS HERE?

I was actually being serious when I wrote the nonsense, but after thinking more about it, it appeared to be more than just utter nonsense, I was morally, ethically and logically/philosophically entirely wrong about everything I wrote.

Sorry.

Then after toning stuff down a little, you need to think what is your fallback poistion really?

I have none. I concede defeat.
I surrender unconditionally and take back every word I've written so far in this thread (except my concede defeat comment here).

[henry quirk]

"I was morally, ethically and logically/philosophically entirely wrong about everything I wrote."

Now you're tiltin' way over to the other side.

Just stop a moment and 'think'.

Stop reacting.

You oppose legislation forbidding 'blasphemy', yeah?

Tell me why (calmly: no hyperbole, no exclamation points).