The award for best death of 2007

roymond · Post by **roymond** » Thu May 17, 2007 1:59 pm

Church attendance is to religion what election day is to democracy. Neither is a substitute for direct engagement. Rone speaks truth that beliefs are what we need to follow in our lives, not dogma. Just as someone you voted for can't read your mind...you have to write to them and meet them and advocate your cause.

And that's what Jerry Falwell understood very well, and used as a tool to motivate his flock to advocate their cause. Squeaky wheels what they are...

Hoblit · Post by **Hoblit** » Thu May 17, 2007 2:23 pm

Rone Rivendale wrote:Personally I belive we are all equals whether you have faith or not.

No, we're not.

Rone Rivendale wrote:Mortals aren't meant to judge, although most do anyway.

Yes, I believe you're right.

obscurity · Post by **obscurity** » Thu May 17, 2007 2:26 pm

Rone Rivendale wrote:Thank you Mostess for seeing my real point, instead of picking apart a few words out of a paragraph and ranting about it like some did :roll:

"Ranting"? I've tried very hard to express myself in a clear, logical and polite manner. I don't see where you get ranting from.

I understood the point you were making, thank you very much. But I noticed that the words you chose implied somethng else as well, something that I was surprised to hear someone say, and something that I was offended by. So I tried to clarify if you meant to say what I thought you had said. I wanted to be sure I unerstood you properly before taking offense.

Am I really that difficult to understand here? Can anyone understand me?

Leaf · Post by **Leaf** » Thu May 17, 2007 3:15 pm

Drinking and using drugs only equals drinking and using drugs.

Obscurity, I understand you, but I wonder if you understand that is is not relevant what Rone thinks, only what you think. Likewise, this is true for Rone.

The problem is you are arguing over the word "bad". Who defines this term?

You can not reach an agreement if your semantics are out of line!

If you believe in God, and you believe God is an absolute, it is clear: God defines good and bad, and the human really has no say in it whatsoever.

Of course, then you have to believe the sources that claim they speak to God, etc etc.

If you are Godless, however, you obviously would draw upon either your society or peer group, yourself, or both to determine your morals and ethics... or more clearly, yourself or others.

Still, this means a human definition. Again, the semantics are important for any healthy debate, argument, etc. Without semantically correct definitions, you will NEVER truly reach an understanding.

So... here you are, getting offended by someone who defines their morality by an absolute power source that defines human logic or reason.

You can't win that one.

If Rone was saying "I believe it's bad", then you got a case to argue. But he's saying "as dictated to me by my religious code". So...uh... it's going no where!! (and there is no disrespect or negativity directed to those of you that choose to have faith in a hierarchal system of worship... if it works for you, go for it).

Oh...semantics. To me:

ethics- your principles or code of accepted morals that a person follows

morals- your perception of what is defined as "right" and "wrong". Either defined by your life experiences and societal experiences, or by a concept of an absolute authority that dictates these.

Sorry...not very articulate.

rone rivendale · Post by **rone rivendale** » Thu May 17, 2007 5:50 pm

I agree that we won't get anywhere.

I stated a whole paragraph about how I felt about something, and the 2 words "drinking" and "drugs" were taken out of the whole thing and mangified into a flame war.

The point was lost and it's not gonna get through to anybody. So just forget it.

WeaselSlayer · Post by **WeaselSlayer** » Thu May 17, 2007 5:55 pm

Too late, my party was already spoiled.

Märk · Post by **Märk** » Thu May 17, 2007 7:23 pm

WeaselSlayer wrote:Too late, my party was already spoiled.

It's still savable; get drunk and stoned and smile broadly in the knowledge that no sky pixie is going to deduct heaven points for you doing so.

Leaf · Post by **Leaf** » Thu May 17, 2007 8:04 pm

Sven wrote:
WeaselSlayer wrote:Too late, my party was already spoiled.
It's still savable; get drunk and stoned and smile broadly in the knowledge that no sky pixie is going to deduct heaven points for you doing so.

....and then?

C'mon!! MORE DIRECTION REQUIRED!!!

WeaselSlayer · Post by **WeaselSlayer** » Thu May 17, 2007 8:07 pm

I can take it from there.

Niveous · Post by **Niveous** » Thu May 17, 2007 8:49 pm

I think I know how to settle this... With a good old fashioned Bible Fight.

Caravan Ray · Post by **Caravan Ray** » Fri May 18, 2007 12:29 am

obscurity wrote:
Rone Rivendale wrote:Thank you Mostess for seeing my real point, instead of picking apart a few words out of a paragraph and ranting about it like some did
"Ranting"? I've tried very hard to express myself in a clear, logical and polite manner. I don't see where you get ranting from.

I understood the point you were making, thank you very much. But I noticed that the words you chose implied somethng else as well, something that I was surprised to hear someone say, and something that I was offended by. So I tried to clarify if you meant to say what I thought you had said. I wanted to be sure I unerstood you properly before taking offense.

Am I really that difficult to understand here? Can anyone understand me?

Yes, I understood your point, and the context in which you raised it. And, yes - I agree with you completely

bz£ · Post by **bz£** » Fri May 18, 2007 1:49 am

I think the fundamental problem here is that I was incorrect in saying:

bzl wrote:Because we are all lousy drunks.

All those of you who are not lousy drunks should endeavour to become so at your earliest convenience. Concord ensues! By way of clarification, I mean "universal agreement and happiness" and not the nearby (to me) town of Concord, Massachusetts. Also, by way of further clarification, the lice are optional, but the drunkenness is, of course, mandatory.

Mostess · Post by **Mostess** » Fri May 18, 2007 4:43 am

obscurity wrote:I've tried very hard to express myself in a clear, logical and polite manner. I don't see where you get ranting from.

I was ranting.

But I don't quite get obscurity's question. Are you asking why or whether people believe that alcohol causes badness or that people who choose to drink are bad?

The former seems to be obviously untrue. A good person force-fed whiskey will not become bad. Although it's an empirical question. I doubt we'd get the Human Subjects Committee to approve it, but we could try it on mice. You get working on the mouse-goodness detector, I'll start the 'stll.

The latter is defensible, and I'm guessing that's what you're asking. Drinking a lot causes long term health problems that families and society have to deal with. It takes up a lot of money and time, which could be used more productively. Drinking is inherently selfish since the greatest benefit is in the subjective perception of the drinker. And so on. It's an opportunity cost that turns into a health problem.

I suppose one could distill the wild grapes in his own backyard, and manage to drink only so much as to allow him to work, pay bills, enjoy family and friends (and they him), make some original contribution to society, and die peacefully before any chronic care is needed. I wouldn't say that was a bad person, though I would wonder what such a man would have been able to do with his life without so much drinking.

I'm a drinker. But as the kids (2yo and 3yo: not drinkers) get older and my mom (also a drinker) gets older, perspectives change. Drinking is fun, but it's also a burden. The drinker has all the fun, and everyone eventually bears the burden.

Hoblit · Post by **Hoblit** » Fri May 18, 2007 10:40 am

Mostess wrote:
obscurity wrote:I've tried very hard to express myself in a clear, logical and polite manner. I don't see where you get ranting from.
Drinking is inherently selfish since the greatest benefit is in the subjective perception of the drinker.

ha ha ha, while mostly true, not completely. A person who is drinking heavily and completely smashed may be a greater benifit to ME!

*nudge nudge wink wink

obscurity · Post by **obscurity** » Fri May 18, 2007 11:54 am

Mostess wrote: But I don't quite get obscurity's question. Are you asking why or whether people believe that alcohol causes badness or that people who choose to drink are bad?

Well, I had 2 questions really. My main question was, addressed to Rone: "Have I understood you correctly?". Rone's post seemed to imply that he considered drinking and taking drugs to be morally equivalent to adultery and child abuse. That seemed, to me, to be an unusual view to have, so I wanted to make sure that I hadn't misunderstood him. Following on from that, I had a supplemental question: "If I have understood you correctly, why do you think that?"

Incidentally, I've still no idea what the answers to those two questions are, except that I gather it's only heavy drinking that Rone considers incompatible with being a good person (whether he also only considers heavy drug use to be an issue, I have no idea).

Mostess wrote: The latter is defensible, and I'm guessing that's what you're asking. Drinking a lot causes long term health problems that families and society have to deal with. It takes up a lot of money and time, which could be used more productively. Drinking is inherently selfish since the greatest benefit is in the subjective perception of the drinker. And so on. It's an opportunity cost that turns into a health problem.

Perhaps I need to make clear at this point that I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a heavy drinker. I find I can't function well at work the day after, so I only drink on Fridays and Saturdays, and even then I don't like hangovers so it's an infrequent thing. My recreational pursuits involve other chemicals.

Having said that, it seems to me that all of the issues you list above with respect to drinking apply equally well to sitting on your arse watching television, except perhaps for the cost, and, really, alcohol isn't that expensive anyway. There are certainly many more expensive hobbies. Hell, I've spent way more supporting my songwriting hobby over the years than I have on drink or drugs. Does that make me a bad person? (Only if you have to listen to the result.... :) ).

Mostess wrote: I'm a drinker. But as the kids (2yo and 3yo: not drinkers) get older and my mom (also a drinker) gets older, perspectives change. Drinking is fun, but it's also a burden. The drinker has all the fun, and everyone eventually bears the burden.

Well, yeah, things are different for you. You have responsibilities that I do not. If I had children, I'd stay sober too. But as I have no family, I have a steady job that I do to the best of my abilities (sober, always), I pay my taxes and national insurance, I help my friends out whenever I can, and lead a live-and-let-live kind of life, I don't see what responsibilities I could be shirking.

obscurity · Post by **obscurity** » Fri May 18, 2007 11:58 am

Hoblit wrote: ha ha ha, while mostly true, not completely. A person who is drinking heavily and completely smashed may be a greater benifit to ME!

*nudge nudge wink wink

Yeah, but Hoblit, if you're completely smashed, are you any use to them?

Hoblit · Post by **Hoblit** » Fri May 18, 2007 1:07 pm

obscurity wrote:
Hoblit wrote: ha ha ha, while mostly true, not completely. A person who is drinking heavily and completely smashed may be a greater benifit to ME!

*nudge nudge wink wink
Yeah, but Hoblit, if you're completely smashed, are you any use to them?

1. That wasn't necessarily the senerio

2. WHO CARES!!!!!??!!!

</pig>