You're viewing a single thread.
Silly strawman caricature of reasonable argumentation.
"Well I think its OK for me to beat my wife, so you shouldn't mind me doing so."
Quite different in this case, yet it follows a similar logic. Things can unaffect you diferectly, yet still be wrong.
Using the obscene ice cream example is a unsophisticated attempt to discredit this line of reasoning.
“Well I think its OK for me to beat my wife, so you shouldn’t mind me doing so.”
-
Husband: I consent
-
Jesus: I consent
-
Wife: I don't
Isn't there someone you forgot to ask?
Things can unaffect you diferectly, yet still be wrong.
What would you consider a hospital staffer refusing to provide medical aid to a woman in the middle of a deadly miscarriage, because the hospital administrator is afraid of being sued or arrested for performing an abortion?
What would you consider a hospital > > staffer refusing to provide medical aid to a woman in the middle of a deadly miscarriage, because the hospital administrator is afraid of being sued or arrested for performing an abortion?
In that situation it is clearly wrong not to help, because in the case of a miscarriage the fetus would die also presumably. And many Christians would agree.
But for cases of no risk to the mother the morality of facilitating an abortion can be more dubious. The conservatives certainly have a strong position, even if I disagree with it.
In that situation it is clearly wrong not to help, because in the case of a miscarriage the fetus would die also presumably. And many Christians would agree.
Many wouldn't. The ones that wouldn't tend to be more well-financed and politically well-connected in my home town of Houston. And therein lays the rub.
But for cases of no risk to the mother
There is no such thing as a "no risk" pregnancy. The question every expectant mother has to ask is how much risk they're willing to take. And that's a question some folks would argue is best answered by the woman and her doctor, rather than a state appellate court or a legislature's pray circle or a police officer with an itchy trigger finger.
There is no strong position. Should the government be able to force donations of blood, kidney, or liver if it saves a life? How would you feel if you had to be a living donor for your rapist's child?
-
Ok so let's use a real example. Many Christians are anti-LGBT based on their interpretations of the Bible and their moral beliefs.
So should we ban homosexuality?
Also your argument is just as flawed. The average person has a moral objection to domestic violence. This comic is referring to when there's a difference between the average person's moral beliefs and the religious ones, especially the radical zealot's belief
So should we ban homosexuality?
No because its not morally wrong.
In the case of abortion the conservatives have some strong arguments even though I am in favour of it.
Do they though?
Numbers 5: 11-21
The Bible should trump those "strong
argumentsfeelings"I personally I've never viewed abortion as a religious view because babys on their own are pretty useless they are as functional as the dogs and cats we kill on a regular basis we only value babies because they develop into humans that are sentient and capable of speaking so why can't we apply the same logic to fetuses that develop into babies that develop into humans for that reason I personally believe we should view abortion as a how long does it reasonably take to decide a really important decision personally I think maybe 1 or 2 weeks of finding your pregnant because as a parent id imagine your going to need to make important decisions that can't wait but hey what do I know im a 19 year old man that has never even had sex or been around anyone pregnant I just feel that if you're cronicly unsure of weather to keep the kid or not you probably shouldn't have the kid and the more time that passes the closer you get to the argument of is this child murderer
No because its not morally wrong
Morals are subjective. In someone else's mind homosexuality could be immoral, and this has been the case historically.
In civilized world laws are not (or should not) be based on "morality", but to ensure level and fair playing ground for all people. This includes not restricting persons way of expressing their sexuality as long as it doesn't negatively affect others (ie. Rape, pedophilia, zoophilia, etc)
Of course we don't live in that kind of utopia but I hope we're getting better slowly
The point of the cartoon is to extend the argument to the most extreme example. You're missing the entire message. It's not that belief is unacceptable and no one can have shared beliefs. It's, taken to the extreme, religious belief extends beyond what most would consider reasonable.
Its an extreme over generalization. Also all of you keep saying religion, but this applies to all beliefs.
That's the point. Religion has a lot of extreme beliefs which are only based on, "God said so."
Where are these non-religious beliefs that are being inflicted on others? By far the most common case in the US are religious beliefs, specifically from the Christian right. Everything else is "well akually" that's little more than background noise.
There are many such laws that are argued for from a non religious point of view.
Recreational drug use: Laws against possession and use of drugs like marijuana, despite debates around whether adult personal use should be criminalized if it doesn't harm others. Prostitution/sex work: The exchange of sexual services for money between consenting adults is still broadly criminalized in most states. Gambling: Many forms of gambling, even when just involving individuals risking their own money, remain illegal in some jurisdictions. Obscenity/indecency laws: Restrictions on distribution of pornographic material or public nudity, even if just involving consenting adults. Physician-assisted suicide: While permitted in some states, actively assisting terminally ill people to end their lives remains illegal in most places.
So you just named several things that are predominantly argued for by religious people for religious reasons, even if they don't come right out and say it.
Flat earthers, anti-vaxxers just to name two american. These are not only based on religion.
Both far left and far right political beliefs are also problematic in the same way. See the pronoun debacle in Canada for instance.
Flat Earthers and Anti-vaxxers have huge overlap with religion.
See the pronoun debacle in Canada for instance.
So asking people to use the right pronouns is equivalent to making rape victims carry their baby to term? I think you have some fucked up bothsideisim here.
That's not at all what I said. I just listed few examples of where beleifs have gone too far as to infringe the rights of others who don't share that belief. I haven't even taken a stand on any of those issues. I haven't even compared them.
If we must compare them: Yes, I agree that the violations made by religious fanatics are way more worrying than these others.
It doesn't make them not fit the list of things that are problematic though. You asked for more examples of beliefs. You got them.