Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #20 on: September 09, 2021, 06:08:56 PM »
Here try this: you can save only one of your two children.  Who are 5 year old twins.
Does making a choice mean you valued one over the other?  Fuck no!  Means you had to choose.  Period.  Done.  End of fucking definition.
So all you’ve done there is created a completely different scenario where yeah, it’s a coin flip. Your decision is nothing to do with how much you value their lives.

Quote
And in the case of animals or humans, well, if you gotta pick one, you pick based on whatever pre-engrained preferences are in your head.
Well, yeah.
And basically everyone picks the human.
You can debate whether that’s ingrained or learned - the article above suggests the latter - but when a fire crew arrives they are looking to save human life first. Any pets are an afterthought. And possessions don’t get a look in. The fire crew aren’t emotionally attached to either, but pretty much no one really regards human and animal life as equivalent.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13527
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #21 on: September 09, 2021, 06:20:46 PM »
We're running in circles.

We're saying: "Yes, most people will pick X over Y, but that doesn't mean they consider X more valuable than Y."
You're replying: "Nuh, uh, they'll pick X over Y."

This is pointless. If you're not going to start responding to the argument, we should just drop it.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #22 on: September 09, 2021, 06:30:45 PM »
Fine, and I think the sticking point here is the word “value”. That was identified quite early in this exchange, but I don’t know what other word to use.
Is it fair to say that most people don’t regard animal and human life as equivalent? So during a marriage course I wowed the crowd by saying that I didn’t regard men and women as equal. I did go on to elaborate that equal means “the same”. So sure, men and women are of equal value but they’re not equal in all ways.
So if we agree that most people will choose X over Y (where X is a human and Y is not) but you don’t think it’s because they value X over Y then why would you say it is?
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13527
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #23 on: September 09, 2021, 06:54:36 PM »
Is it fair to say that most people don’t regard animal and human life as equivalent?
I dunno, even that is a tough sell. How about: In most situations, people will prioritise the well-being of a human over that of an animal? I feel like that covers the sentiment you're looking for, and it avoids the complicated subject of "value" entirely.

So during a marriage course I wowed the crowd by saying that I didn’t regard men and women as equal. I did go on to elaborate that equal means “the same”. So sure, men and women are of equal value but they’re not equal in all ways.
I'm sure that went down a treat.

So if we agree that most people will choose X over Y (where X is a human and Y is not) but you don’t think it’s because they value X over Y then why would you say it is?
Because the hypothetical question is vague (and I completely understand why it is, don't worry), I can only offer a vague answer: factors other than value. For some people it might be that they find it more intuitive to protect beings which are most similar to them. Maybe some people would choose to save a person of one gender over the other, maybe some people will prefer animals over people, etc. Others might imagine a particularly attractive X and a particularly unattractive Y. However, it is possible to make that decision without believing that one is strictly less valuable than the other, or that one is inherently inferior to the other. They're separate categories. You can actively choose a less valuable thing, and you can make a choice between two things of the same value.

In short: when a vegan tells you that they believe all life is equally valuable, they probably mean it. They want society to see killing cows for food to be as reprehensible as killing humans for food would be. There is some merit to it. The obvious difference, and the main "excuse" for killing cows for food is that they're nowhere near as advanced or intelligent as we are, but somehow I doubt the idea of killing mentally stunted people for food would be popular. But just like I'd choose to save my mum over saving you (despite genuinely thinking both of your lives are equally valuable and knowing that my priorities are selfishly motivated), one may choose to save a human over a cow - both lives are equally "sacred", but in a pinch we can make a call based on other factors (more meaningful gratitude, emotional attachment, contractual obligation in case of firefighters, etc.).
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 6501
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #24 on: September 09, 2021, 09:17:15 PM »
Emotional attachment!
Value is a poor word, use emotional attachment.  Humans are emotionally attached more to other humans.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7811
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #25 on: September 11, 2021, 01:50:24 PM »
Thanks to thousands of years of progress away from Judeo-Christian values, yes.
I don't think blaming Judeo-Christian values for this is at all justified, for several reasons. One, Christianisation in Europe generally supplanted pagan customs with even less regard for human life. Indeed, the Old Testament, in which murder is only bad if you murder someone in the in-group, is a prime example of the sort of thing Christianity tried to fix. Early Christians made sure to maintain a record of that. Even if we accept that Judeo-Christian values are inherently bad (which I don't), it's more accurate to say that they were a step in moving away from primitive customs, not that they were the primitive customs.

Two, the values exemplified by mediaeval Christianity were those of the Roman Empire (and later the Latin Church), which adopted Christianity as a tool to pursue its political agenda. Any religion can be misused in this way, especially if the population is too illiterate to study the religious texts for themselves. If the practices under discussion were truly based on Christian values, every modern church would still be advocating for them.

Three, there is an argument to be made that without the technology and social structures to properly support people with serious illnesses, putting them out of their misery was the best available option. In that case, it is not changing values that ended such practices, but an improved understanding of biology, psychology and sociology. It was notably Christian society that produced the conditions that allowed modern science to flourish.

Finally, I don't agree that we are moving away from Judeo-Christian values. It is true that there are fewer and fewer practising Christians today, but the values of Western secular society are based on the same core values as those of early Christians 2000 years ago. If you confuse those values with political agendas or social customs that were pursued by specific churches in the intervening period, I can certainly see how it might appear otherwise.
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13527
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #26 on: September 12, 2021, 09:07:22 AM »
I don't think blaming Judeo-Christian values for this is at all justified, for several reasons.
I'm not blaming Judeo-Christian values for it, I'm praising our ongoing process of abandoning Judeo-Christian values for fixing it, even if indirectly. You could say that the move towards Judeo-Christian values was an earlier step in the same process, fair enough, but to me the fact that previous systems were more contemptible doesn't absolve Judeo-Christian values of my distaste.

Two, the values exemplified by mediaeval Christianity were those of the Roman Empire (and later the Latin Church), which adopted Christianity as a tool to pursue its political agenda. Any religion can be misused in this way, especially if the population is too illiterate to study the religious texts for themselves.
Sure, and "real communism" has never been tried. Personally, I'm more interested in the real outcomes than whether something better was written down on a piece of paper nobody followed.

Religions and worldviews get warped and perverted all the time. Unfortunately, there is no undoing of thousands of years of Christianity, and it will always stand for its history. Some splinter movements may have some legitimacy in claiming to be separate, but that doesn't apply to any church with prominence in the UK.

If you confuse those values with political agendas or social customs that were pursued by specific churches in the intervening period, I can certainly see how it might appear otherwise.
You claim I'm "confusing" them. In turn, I argue that your separation is very artificial. The theory of what Judeo-Christian values could be if everyone followed a document to the letter has little bearing on what is/was in people's actual minds. This is especially true for the time period in which, as you rightly pointed out, most people who held Judeo-Christian values couldn't even read that document. At its core, it seems that we disagree on what "Judeo-Christian values" are. You seem to imply something adjacent to strict adherence to the Bible, whereas I'm aiming for [my perception of] the values that people lived by.

[edit: I realise that I basically made the same argument three times in this post. I should have made it more compact in retrospect, but hopefully my position is at least clear enough to follow.]

It was notably Christian society that produced the conditions that allowed modern science to flourish.
This is a controversial claim at the best of times. The contributions of the Islamic world which "we" shamelessly stole when [re-]claiming Iberia are much closer to the actual source of modern science. Before the Reconquista, "we" had an ugly Judeo-Christian habit of burning the scientifically inclined for the crimes of heresy, magick, and witchcraft. If anything, the fact that this eventually stopped is yet another welcome move away from Judeo-Christian values, even if you take the biblical literalist view on what those are.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2021, 09:20:45 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #27 on: September 12, 2021, 08:46:13 PM »
Full disclosure - I eat meat and consume lots of dairy. Definitely not a sucky vegan

What do you guys think about farming dogs and eating those? Cool? Maybe our culture finds that abhorrent. Other cultures finds eating cows or pigs to be bastardry

Pigs have demonstrated to have intelligence on par with a human toddler, empathy, facial recognition etc not unlike a dog. Why is it OK to eat them but not a dog?

When I visited Korea I did try dog stew by the way  8) I was told it was not someones pet  :)

I think humanity does need to change how it operates in this field though. Leaving ethics aside, the way we utilize animals for food is not sustainable, has a lot of wastage and is not healthy in the amounts many of us consume.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 2749
    • View Profile
Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #28 on: September 12, 2021, 10:08:51 PM »
Full disclosure - I eat meat and consume lots of dairy. Definitely not a sucky vegan

What do you guys think about farming dogs and eating those? Cool? Maybe our culture finds that abhorrent. Other cultures finds eating cows or pigs to be bastardry

Pigs have demonstrated to have intelligence on par with a human toddler, empathy, facial recognition etc not unlike a dog. Why is it OK to eat them but not a dog?

When I visited Korea I did try dog stew by the way  8) I was told it was not someones pet  :)

I think humanity does need to change how it operates in this field though. Leaving ethics aside, the way we utilize animals for food is not sustainable, has a lot of wastage and is not healthy in the amounts many of us consume.

Apart maybe for the fact that (in our culture anyway) one is bred for companionship and one for food, I don't really see any ethical difference between eating dog and eating pig, it is a matter of personal preference. I will die before willingly giving up my bacon and pork chops; enjoy your dog stew if you'd like, we live in a free society.
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7811
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #29 on: September 13, 2021, 07:07:41 AM »
Personally, I'm more interested in the real outcomes than whether something better was written down on a piece of paper nobody followed.
How have you isolated the "real outcomes" of Judeo-Christian values as compared with the other influences on Western society?

Religions and worldviews get warped and perverted all the time. Unfortunately, there is no undoing of thousands of years of Christianity, and it will always stand for its history. Some splinter movements may have some legitimacy in claiming to be separate, but that doesn't apply to any church with prominence in the UK.
I simply don't agree that the history of Christianity is as damning as you seem to think it is. It is very easy to find examples of atrocities committed in the name of any ideology that has stood for 2000 years, but there are also many positive aspects to Christianity's history that are often overlooked.

For example, it gave the continent of Europe (and later, many other parts of the world) a common moral guide for the first time in history. Despite its perversions for political reasons, this laid the foundation for the common European values we still hold today and is what makes it possible for an Italian to visit Norway without having to worry about having her hand cut off or being imprisoned for life because she was unaware of the local customs.

This strength is perhaps even more visible in the colonial world. In South Africa, one of the few things the many native tribes have in common is the Christian faith. Without it, they may well have been too busy fighting one another to be able to stand up against their European oppressors and win their country back.

So, if the history of Christianity is mixed with examples of good and evil, it cannot stand by itself as an example of how very very bad Judeo-Christian values are.

At its core, it seems that we disagree on what "Judeo-Christian values" are. You seem to imply something adjacent to strict adherence to the Bible, whereas I'm aiming for [my perception of] the values that people lived by.
That approach is only valid if you can demonstrate that the values people lived by were influenced by Christianity and absolutely nothing else. I assert that this is patently false, but it is difficult to study the influence of Christianity in isolation from the fourth century AD onwards due to its increasing politicisation by Roman emperors and bishops.

That is why I brought up early Christians, who — prior to the conversion of Constantine — were persecuted for their faith wherever they went. They aimed to imitate the life of Jesus, which included being generous to the poor, healing the sick and forgiving the sins of others. All of these values are foundational to modern Western civilisation and its welfare state, as is the belief that our way is the right way and must be spread to the less enlightened parts of the world (see also: Afghanistan). We simply don't call it a religion anymore.

What is significant to me is not what things were done in the name of Christianity, but whether those things were done because of Christianity. I don't think the absence of Christianity would have made Rome any less willing to give up its position of power in mediæval Europe, though it may well have made it more difficult not to.

This is a controversial claim at the best of times. The contributions of the Islamic world which "we" shamelessly stole when [re-]claiming Iberia are much closer to the actual source of modern science. Before the Reconquista, "we" had an ugly Judeo-Christian habit of burning the scientifically inclined for the crimes of heresy, magick, and witchcraft.
The Reconquista happened half a millennium before some of the most important advances in modern science, especially those relevant to helping the sick and disabled to lead fulfilling lives. Vaccination was unknown until the late 18th century, modern psychology was born in the 19th century, and many ideas in political science fundamental to the welfare state were only realised in the 20th century.

At best, you are saying that Christians didn't put a stop to the scientific practices of the Islamic world, which is incongruent with the idea that Christian values stand in opposition to social progress.

If anything, the fact that this eventually stopped is yet another welcome move away from Judeo-Christian values, even if you take the biblical literalist view on what those are.
You just got done telling me that you prefer to look at the values people actually lived by, and now you're telling me that the values some Christians before the Reconquista lived by are more reliable than those other, later Christians lived by. Is this a no true Scotsman fallacy I see?
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13527
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #30 on: September 13, 2021, 03:39:42 PM »
How have you isolated the "real outcomes" of Judeo-Christian values as compared with the other influences on Western society?
Extremely subjectively and unreliably.

So, if the history of Christianity is mixed with examples of good and evil, it cannot stand by itself as an example of how very very bad Judeo-Christian values are.
I disagree. Taking this logic to the extreme, we cannot call Nazi values bad, because the NSDAP had some poilicies which were very beneficial to Germany and Europe, and which still benefit it to this day. The fact that Christianity had some good aspects does not overturn its overall terrible track record.

That approach is only valid if you can demonstrate that the values people lived by were influenced by Christianity and absolutely nothing else.
Nonsense. Your objection would only work if you were to demonstrate that it's possible that those people's values were entirely unaffected by Christianity. Otherwise, you tacitly acknowledge that it was a factor, and you're left with the option of arguing that it's a lesser one than I'm claiming (but still a net negative one).

The Reconquista happened half a millennium before some of the most important advances in modern science, especially those relevant to helping the sick and disabled to lead fulfilling lives.
Irrelevant. You claim that Christianity created the conditions for this progress to flourish. It did not. That was the Islamic world, whose ideas were assimilated by Christians after the Reconquista. Those conditions then remained in place for centuries, allowing us to make the progress we have. This is despite the strong opposition of the Judeo-Christian value enjoyers - yet another excellent example of how moving away from those has benefitted us.

At best, you are saying that Christians didn't put a stop to the scientific practices of the Islamic world
Failed to put a stop*, in spite of earnest attempts. Those were unsuccessful because, even then, our great march away from Judeo-Christian values was ongoing. Therein lies the point.

You just got done telling me that you prefer to look at the values people actually lived by, and now you're telling me that the values some Christians before the Reconquista lived by are more reliable than those other, later Christians lived by. Is this a no true Scotsman fallacy I see?
I have no idea what you're implying, but I'm pretty confident that I can just say "lol, no." The only biblical literalist I've referred to in this conversation is yourself, and I'm reliably informed you did not live before the Reconquista. So, yes, you are no true pre-Reconquista Christian, and there isn't much of a fallacy behind stating that fact.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2021, 03:43:23 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline Toddler Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 4523
  • https://onlyfans.com/thork
    • View Profile
Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #31 on: September 13, 2021, 03:52:33 PM »
Which isn't to say that farming techniques don't cause animals to suffer unnecessarily because they do. And I don't think they should.
But...sausages and burgers are bloody lovely. Which makes me a bit of a hypocrite but at least I own up to it.

I am someone who eats meat and I do it because I love animals.

Last night I went to a restaurant and ordered a lamb shank roast dinner. It was delicious. Now sure ... a lamb died in order I could eat it. But that lamb at least existed and had likely a reasonably nice life plodding around fields eating with its friends until its demise. Vegans are trying to push extinction.

Imagine everyone bought into 'meat is murder'. Then who farms sheep? You can't make money from the wool (you get 65p per fleece in the UK and it costs £1.65 per sheep to get them shawn. In other words it costs a farmer £1 every time a sheep is shawn and they do it for the animal's welfare, not profit). So if farming sheep becomes unviable because no one is eating meat ... sheep become extinct. No one can afford to keep them. They can't survive in the wild ... they are domesticated animals.

Vegans have a wicked agenda. They are trying to remove all kinds of species of animal from the planet. Cows, pigs, chickens, etc. I am keeping those animals alive with my purchasing choices. I ensure those animals are preserved for the next generation by putting a viable business model underneath them. Vegans will cry about a decline in a penguin population and then push the extinction of farm animals because they are too dumb to see the bigger picture.

If you love animals ... tuck into one for dinner tonight. Its for their own good.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #32 on: September 13, 2021, 03:57:35 PM »
Which isn't to say that farming techniques don't cause animals to suffer unnecessarily because they do. And I don't think they should.
But...sausages and burgers are bloody lovely. Which makes me a bit of a hypocrite but at least I own up to it.

I am someone who eats meat and I do it because I love animals.

Last night I went to a restaurant and ordered a lamb shank roast dinner. It was delicious. Now sure ... a lamb died in order I could eat it. But that lamb at least existed and had likely a reasonably nice life plodding around fields eating with its friends until its demise. Vegans are trying to push extinction.

Imagine everyone bought into 'meat is murder'. Then who farms sheep? You can't make money from the wool (you get 65p per fleece in the UK and it costs £1.65 per sheep to get them shawn. In other words it costs a farmer £1 every time a sheep is shawn and they do it for the animal's welfare, not profit). So if farming sheep becomes unviable because no one is eating meat ... sheep become extinct. No one can afford to keep them. They can't survive in the wild ... they are domesticated animals.

Vegans have a wicked agenda. They are trying to remove all kinds of species of animal from the planet. Cows, pigs, chickens, etc. I am keeping those animals alive with my purchasing choices. I ensure those animals are preserved for the next generation by putting a viable business model underneath them. Vegans will cry about a decline in a penguin population and then push the extinction of farm animals because they are too dumb to see the bigger picture.

If you love animals ... tuck into one for dinner tonight. Its for their own good.

Spot on. Hell, some of us are probably only alive today because our ancestors needed a farm hand to help around the farm or increase their chance of survival by breeding cannon fodder

If the world turned vegan, a lot of animals would never see the gift of life and the awesomeness and wonders of the universe. To hell with vegans. They are anti life

*

Offline xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7811
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #33 on: September 13, 2021, 04:21:32 PM »
I disagree. Taking this logic to the extreme, we cannot call Nazi values bad, because the NSDAP had some poilicies which were very beneficial to Germany and Europe, and which still benefit it to this day. The fact that Christianity had some good aspects does not overturn its overall terrible track record.
I simply disagree that its track record is overall terrible. The issue is far too multifaceted for any such simplification to be valid, but if I had to make one, I'd say it has been overall neutral.

Nonsense. Your objection would only work if you were to demonstrate that it's possible that those people's values were entirely unaffected by Christianity. Otherwise, you tacitly acknowledge that it was a factor, and you're left with the option of arguing that it's a lesser one than I'm claiming (but still a net negative one).
No, there is the option that things would have been even worse without Christianity, in which case it was a positive influence that was, for some periods in history, outweighed by larger negative influences.

Irrelevant. You claim that Christianity created the conditions for this progress to flourish. It did not. That was the Islamic world, whose ideas were assimilated by Christians after the Reconquista.
You are picking on a specific choice of words, interpreting them in the way you want (and one that doesn't make a whole lot of sense), and then asserting that must have been what I meant. This is a very common tactic of yours, and it isn't going to advance the discussion.

The fact remains that science flourished in the Christian world, and far outside the boundaries under former Islamic control. To say that the Christian world didn't produce the conditions — however much they might have been inspired by prior art — in which Kepler, Newton, Euler and Freud worked strains credibility.

Those conditions then remained in place for centuries, allowing us to make the progress we have. This is despite the strong opposition of the Judeo-Christian value enjoyers - yet another excellent example of how moving away from those has benefitted us.
You are once again characterising people you disagree with as "Judeo-Christian" and just asserting that anyone you do agree with must not be following Judeo-Christian values. Have you considered that using "Judeo-Christian" as a synonym for "bad" might constitute circular reasoning in this discussion?

Failed to put a stop*, in spite of earnest attempts. Those were unsuccessful because, even then, our great march away from Judeo-Christian values was ongoing. Therein lies the point.
You might have a point, if you could demonstrate that Galileo Galilei was any less sincere in his faith than Urban VIII. Instead you keep asserting that only the bad guys followed Judeo-Christian values, and then concluding that Judeo-Christian values must be bad. Do you see the flaw yet?

I have no idea what you're implying, but I'm pretty confident that I can just say "lol, no."
What I'm saying is that, in claiming that all progress in a time long before Christianity in Europe began its decline is based on departure from Judeo-Christian values, you are implicitly defining Judeo-Christian values as those of people you don't agree with. That is neither accurate nor productive.

The only biblical literalist I've referred to in this conversation is yourself, and I'm reliably informed you did not live before the Reconquista. So, yes, you are no true pre-Reconquista Christian, and there isn't much of a fallacy behind stating that fact.
I'm not a Biblical literalist, incidentally. The Bible is a product of its time and must be read in that context. So, for example, when the New Testament talks about slavery, the values it is expressing have nothing to do with slavery. That was simply common practice at the time which the authors of the Bible couldn't change, so they did the next best thing and tried to minimise the damage, much like socialist activists of today who campaign for better working conditions under capitalism.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2021, 03:30:47 AM by xasop »
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13527
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #34 on: September 13, 2021, 04:45:52 PM »
No, there is the option that things would have been even worse without Christianity, in which case it was a positive influence that was, for some periods in history, outweighed by larger negative influences.
Hypothetically, yes, but I have yet to be made aware of any tangible reason to entertain this possibility.

You are picking on a specific choice of words, interpreting them in the way you want (and one that doesn't make a whole lot of sense), and then asserting that must have been what I meant. This is a very common tactic of yours, and it isn't going to advance the discussion.
Your accusation is needlessly generous. There is no tactical approach behind my argument, nor is there any strong intent. I respond to your words as I understood them, and I do not see room for alternative interpretations. This could be because you made yourself clear and are now trying to weasel out of what you said, or I could have misunderstood you. If you want to be interpreted differently, clarify or alter your claims. Attacking my character is extremely unlikely to convince me of whatever point you're trying to make, and only serves to weaken your credibility.

You are once again characterising people you disagree with as "Judeo-Christian" and just asserting that anyone you do agree with must not be following Judeo-Christian values.
Well, naturally. In order to decide whether or not people are moving away from Judeo-Christian values, we have to assume a consistent definition of what those are. If every time we move away from Judeo-Christian values we describe that as those values changing, then there is no possible way to move away from them. A set of values that's constantly redefined every time it's convenient for your argument is no set of values at all - it's a meaningless label.

In my description, Judeo-Christian values are vehemently anti-science, but eventually cease to be influential enough to continue suppressing people's minds. We therefore moves away from Judeo-Christian values, and I am happy about it.

In your description [as best as I understand it, before you once again accuse me of playing 4D chess by simply reading what you had written], Judeo-Christian values were vehemently anti-science, except then they started being pro-science, and therefore they're to be credited with their contributions to science. I find that to be a desperate attempt at shifting the goalposts.

You might have a point, if you could demonstrate that Galileo Galilei was any less sincere in his faith than Urban VIII. Instead you keep asserting that only the bad guys followed Judeo-Christian values, and then concluding that Judeo-Christian values must be bad. Do you see the flaw yet?
Of course. The flaw is that you conflate faith with the values it created, represented, and entrenched. I reject this conflation, and, consequently, the argument that stems from within.

When we stick to the subject of this conversation - values - it is evident that Galileo did not share Judeo-Christian values. He frequently found himself questioning these values, and speaking out in opposition of them in spite of his faith.

Galileo suffered through the humiliation of having to deny his theories in order to save his life. He was Catholic, believed in God, but, on the other hand, he was a great believer in the role of science and the fascinating beauty of God’s creation.

After Galileo heard the sentence of condemnation, he had a final conversation with his supporter and friend, Malvasi:

Malvasi: God helps and blesses you, Maestro.
Galileo: What are you saying, God blesses me, a scientist?
Malvasi: God is nearer to you than to many others, you have encountered God today.
Galileo: In the humiliation, in the annihilation?
Malvasi: In the emptiness... Look for him and forget yourself. You will find him in the deep of your heart.

In fact, I'd be quicker to say that Galileo's faith was likely more sincere than that of Urban VIII. After all, as you rightly pointed out, the clergy is first and foremost a political entity, with religion playing a fairly minor role in their lives. Christian organisations are even worse than Christian values.

Also, there is something quite insidious going on with your choice of words - you declare that people who follow Judeo-Christian values are bad people, and you want for me to tacitly accept this. I wholeheartedly reject this suggestion. They hold values which are dramatically opposed to my idea of progress, but I do not believe they're bad people. Again, I am very glad that the world is progressing in a different direction, but Christians by and large meant no harm. They are simply sticking to what they consider to be the right way of doing things, which just happens to include things that are nowadays unpalatable.

you are implicitly defining Judeo-Christian values as those of people you don't agree with
I'm not the one who proposed this definition - AATW was. Nonetheless, that is a very accurate definition - I named many examples of Judeo-Christian values I disagree with, and expressed my delight at us abandoning them. This is indeed not productive, insofar that saying "I am happy that <XYZ>" does not produce anything utilitarian.

So, for example, when the New Testament talks about slavery, the values it is expressing have nothing to do with slavery. That was simply common practice at the time which the authors of the Bible couldn't change, so they did the next best thing and tried to minimise the damage
That is indeed a common argument amongst Christian apologetics, but it falls flat when contrasted with how much worse Christians made slavery in the name of Christianity. Remember, I don't care about what was described in the Bible as a work of fiction (deplorable as it may be), merely in how it affected the real world. No, there was no "minimisation" of the damage. On the contrary, the self-declared superiority of Christians and their "values" was a convenient excuse for centuries of oppression and injustice from which we're still recovering. Because, luckily, Judeo-Christian values are in decline, slow as it may be.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2021, 05:12:11 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #35 on: September 13, 2021, 04:56:52 PM »
We're still talking about how much vegans suck right? What's all this religious nonsense?

Was Jesus a vegan?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13527
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #36 on: September 13, 2021, 05:13:07 PM »
We're still talking about how much vegans suck right? What's all this religious nonsense?
I'm sure you'll be able to keep up with the conversation if you try.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7811
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #37 on: September 14, 2021, 04:06:39 AM »
Hypothetically, yes, but I have yet to be made aware of any tangible reason to entertain this possibility.
That is because you claim that all positive consequences of Judeo-Christian values are actually examples of moving away from those values. If your definition of Judeo-Christian values is "opposition to progress", then yes, your warped view of those values will be opposed to progress.

I respond to your words as I understood them
No, this is obviously false, since you claim I used the word "created" when I did no such thing. I used the word "produced". You invented something I did not say, so you can't have been responding to my words.

If you want to be interpreted differently, clarify or alter your claims.
I provided such clarification in the part of my previous post that you cut out of your quote.

In my description, Judeo-Christian values are vehemently anti-science, but eventually cease to be influential enough to continue suppressing people's minds. We therefore moves away from Judeo-Christian values, and I am happy about it.
I understand that that's your description. What I can't understand is where you are getting that idea from, given that you claimed you base your ideas on the values people lived by, and that science flourished in the Christian world for centuries. Those two things are inconsistent.

What source do you have for what Judeo-Christian values are that isn't the values observed by Christian society?

In your description [as best as I understand it, before you once again accuse me of playing 4D chess by simply reading what you had written], Judeo-Christian values were vehemently anti-science, except then they started being pro-science, and therefore they're to be credited with their contributions to science. I find that to be a desperate attempt at shifting the goalposts.
That's not at all what I'm saying. Indeed, I don't think Judeo-Christian values are either for or against science. That position is left up to individual rulers and their political whims. I'm simply using the spread of science in the Christian world as an example that Judeo-Christian values are not opposed to science.

Of course. The flaw is that you conflate faith with the values it created, represented, and entrenched. I reject this conflation, and, consequently, the argument that stems from within.
I'm not conflating those two, no. I am following the logical implications of your argument that the "real outcomes" are what matter. If you are picking and choosing which outcomes of Christian society matter to you, then you are basing that choice on some other source, and that is the real source for what you believe Judeo-Christian values are.

When we stick to the subject of this conversation - values - it is evident that Galileo did not share Judeo-Christian values. He frequently found himself questioning these values, and speaking out in opposition of them in spite of his faith.

Galileo suffered through the humiliation of having to deny his theories in order to save his life. He was Catholic, believed in God, but, on the other hand, he was a great believer in the role of science and the fascinating beauty of God’s creation.

After Galileo heard the sentence of condemnation, he had a final conversation with his supporter and friend, Malvasi:

Malvasi: God helps and blesses you, Maestro.
Galileo: What are you saying, God blesses me, a scientist?
Malvasi: God is nearer to you than to many others, you have encountered God today.
Galileo: In the humiliation, in the annihilation?
Malvasi: In the emptiness... Look for him and forget yourself. You will find him in the deep of your heart.
Can you explain what you think you are proving with this quote?

I'm not the one who proposed this definition - AATW was. Nonetheless, that is a very accurate definition - I named many examples of Judeo-Christian values I disagree with, and expressed my delight at us abandoning them.
I can agree that you asserted many things are Judeo-Christian values with no evidence, other than the fact that people who happened to be Christians instituted them. Yet for some reason, you stop following that line of reasoning when Christians do good things.

That is indeed a common argument amongst Christian apologetics, but it falls flat when contrasted with how much worse Christians made slavery in the name of Christianity. Remember, I don't care about what was described in the Bible as a work of fiction (deplorable as it may be), merely in how it affected the real world.
I will not be able to believe that until you address why the bad real-world impact of Christianity matters, but the good impact is just an example of not following Judeo-Christian values.

No, there was no "minimisation" of the damage. On the contrary, the self-declared superiority of Christians and their "values" was a convenient excuse for centuries of oppression and injustice from which we're still recovering. Because, luckily, Judeo-Christian values are in decline, slow as it may be.
I would turn this precisely the other way around and say that Judeo-Christian values are in recovery, following centuries of lies and abuse by the Latin Church and others. I suspect that we agree on which values are good and which are bad, and this is merely a question of nomenclature.
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13527
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #38 on: September 14, 2021, 06:08:32 PM »
That is because you claim that all positive consequences of Judeo-Christian values are actually examples of moving away from those values.
I'm doing no such thing - I have yet to see any positive consequences of Judeo-Christian values, alleged or actual.

If your definition of Judeo-Christian values is "opposition to progress", then yes
That is indeed one of many Judeo-Christian values, as expressly reinforced by the Bible, most churches in history, and those who adhered to the faith.

No, this is obviously false
Right. It is obviously false that I understood your words the way I did. If this is what your argumentation has devolved to, then I think it's time for me to walk away. I'll give your next few sentences a pop just in case you're about to tone down the ridiculous accusations, but I'm not holding my breath.

since you claim I used the word "created" when I did no such thing.
Do I? Would you mind showing me where I did that? I had a quick look through all the instances of the word "create" in this thread and found nothing of the sort.

I provided such clarification in the part of my previous post that you cut out of your quote.
Okay. Please feel free to point it out. I quote you on the parts I consider pertinent, and the specific parts I'm responding to. In other words, I don't "cut out" quotes - I add them to my posts. Once again, you resort to loud accusations instead of defending your position.

What I can't understand is where you are getting that idea from, given that you claimed you base your ideas on the values people lived by
Well, I'm not sure how to respond to that. You're asking me to defend a tautology.

and that science flourished in the Christian world for centuries. Those two things are inconsistent.
They're only inconsistent if you presuppose that science flourished (Did it? What are we comparing it to?), and that it did so because of Judeo-Christian values, rather than in spite of them (the latter being evidenced by how scientists were treated by Christians, and the correlation between Christianity's decline and scientific progress).

What source do you have for what Judeo-Christian values are that isn't the values observed by Christian society?
This is where you've crossed the line, and my willingness to reply ends. That is not at all what I'm claiming, and I'm taking you positing questions like that as a tacit admission that you've run out of arguments. You are welcome to demonstrate otherwise, but until then, my patience has run out. If you think you can get through a conversation by just gaslighting your opponents ("your points are a tactic!", "you obviously believe the opposite of what you just said!", "you said something stupid except you didn't!", "you omitted a crucial part of my post, but I won't tell you which one!"), then you're sorely mistaken.

The remainder of your post is going unread. Sorry if you've put some zingers in there, but you're obviously arguing in poor faith here. If you write a post that skips out on all the personal attacks and accusations, I'll be happy to read it.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2021, 06:24:08 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7811
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: Holy shit, vegans suck
« Reply #39 on: September 14, 2021, 06:13:27 PM »
What source do you have for what Judeo-Christian values are that isn't the values observed by Christian society?
This is where you've crossed the line, and my willingness to reply ends. That is not at all what I'm claiming
Not word for word, no, but it is a logical implication of the things you've said. I don't feel the need to demonstrate anything otherwise because I don't consider that question unreasonable, given the things you have said.

If you want to walk away, fine by me, but don't pretend it's because I've "crossed a line".
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol