toldailytopic: What opinion do you hold that would surprise others?

[Traditio]

This may be the only logical argument I could make against it. I'm guessing your approval or interest or demand does have an effect. :idunno:

Yes, this is why I made sure to clarify that I'm not, in this case, paying for it. There is, at least practically, no demand being created by me, since I'm not offering or (let's say) even willing to pay for it. But I'll sure watch it for free!

Is anyone being harmed?

And let's suppose that the criminals doing it were spurred, so to speak, by the knowledge that I'm watching.

Even then, should I be imprisoned? I'm not intending for anyone to be harmed. Their intentions are completely unrelated to me. I'm sitting alone in my bedroom in front of a computer screen. lain:

I think your general idea is right though. Lewis talks about this in one of his essays: the fact that people should be punished based on desert and actions committed rather than psychological factors or current beliefs about how a person 'should be.'

It was a big idea of John Stewart Mill's. He writes about this kind of thing in "On Liberty." I hate Mill. I agree with him in saying that people shouldn't be legally punished for things like speaking their views (however unpopular they may be), though.

 

[zippy2006]

This is the problem with that: for you to say that the government should "protect us from ourselves" for that reason is to say that people have a legal right to the labor, service, etc. of others. That's slavery. Whereas I may indeed have moral obligations to serve others, nobody has a legal right to my service.

Your children do, to name one example.

 

[Traditio]

Your children do, to name one example.

This is hard, given that we live in a country where child support is considered a legal right on the part of the children. In short: I'm really not sure. Does it constitute an infringment of a right for a parent not to take care of his children? If so, to what age? I'm not sure.

That said, I think that's where you'd have to draw the line. Children and the heavily disabled are the only people who could, even possibly, have a right to our labor.

I'm highly hesitant to say that they do, though. I'm very willing to admit that we have a moral obligation. To say that they have a legal right, though...this threatens to contradict our notion of individual autonomy. That makes me uncomfortable.

 

[Nang]

I like riding lawn mowers. If I were well, I would mow other people's lawns. I also like riding the carts in Wall-mart ( we are getting further away form Wall-mart) I like all riding carts, golf carts the best. Most of all, I like tractors.

:chuckle:

I enjoyed reading this very much . . . for it took my husband over 25 years to get me to run our yard tractor . . . and now I tool around on it all over the place. Great fun!

As to the OP, all my opinions are well known around here, but it might be a surprise to others to find out I am quite shy and reserved in person.

I rarely make a peep . . . :cloud9:

Nang

 

[Selaphiel]

Why do you believe Panentheism is a better representation?

I agree with a lot of what you said. DR has some interesting views on this and we had a small conversation on it the other day.

That is a rather big question that takes a good while to answer properly, and it will probably completely derail the thread. So I will have to save that answer for a separate topic or something like that

I will say that panentheism is no less biblical than theism though. A theistic conception, along with Deism, of God is more of a philosophical concept than a Biblical concept.

 

[InHope]

Another way of saying this: I think that it shouldn't be illegal to watch videos of women getting raped.

This is absolutely absurd. What about the woman's rights in this situation? Do you think she gave permission for her body to be used in such a disgusting and dehumanizing way?

 

[zippy2006]

This is hard, given that we live in a country where child support is considered a legal right on the part of the children. In short: I'm really not sure. Does it constitute an infringment of a right for a parent not to take care of his children? If so, to what age? I'm not sure.

That said, I think that's where you'd have to draw the line. Children and the heavily disabled are the only people who could, even possibly, have a right to our labor.

I'm highly hesitant to say that they do, though. I'm very willing to admit that we have a moral obligation. To say that they have a legal right, though...this threatens to contradict our notion of individual autonomy. That makes me uncomfortable.

Hard questions, to be sure :juggle:

It is interesting in these areas where legality and morality get inevitably intertwined. I think there should be a legal right though. The age is tough, but 18 seems fine for me. To abolish it is nonsensical, considering newborns or young children who are clearly not able on their own (in fact it can even get into certain forms of abortion). The fact that, at least by social contract, we agree that it is illegal to abandon a dependant child makes the other questions of paternal government a bit more tricky.

 

[Traditio]

This is absolutely absurd. What about the woman's rights in this situation? Do you think she gave permission for her body to be used in such a disgusting and dehumanizing way?

What about the woman's rights in this situation? They aren't being infringed. I'm sitting alone in my room in front of a computer screen. lain:

The men who raped her, the guy who filmed it, and perhaps the people who disseminated it, though: they should be put in jail asap!

But me? I'm sitting alone in my room in front of a computer screen. I've never met the woman. :idunno:

 

[zippy2006]

That is a rather big question that takes a good while to answer properly, and it will probably completely derail the thread. So I will have to save that answer for a separate topic or something like that

I will say that panentheism is no less biblical than theism though. A theistic conception, along with Deism, of God is more of a philosophical concept than a Biblical concept.

I disagree in the way that I believe the creation stories in Genesis seem to point to theistic rather than panentheistic creation. I can see how it could be largely supported though.

in any case, I'd be interested if you started a thread on it sometime

 

[Nang]

But me? I'm sitting alone in my room in front of a computer screen. I've never met the woman. :idunno:

Might do you good to get out more . . .



Nang

 

[Traditio]

Might do you good to get out more . . .



Nang

:rotfl:

 

[Selaphiel]

I disagree in the way that I believe the creation stories in Genesis seem to point to theistic rather than panentheistic creation. I can see how it could be largely supported though.

in any case, I'd be interested if you started a thread on it sometime

I'll see if I can make a topic on it soon. Just need to figure out a way to properly argue the position without writing an unreasonably long opening post that kills everyone's interest before the discussion even starts

 

[zippy2006]

I'll see if I can make a topic on it soon. Just need to figure out a way to properly argue the position without writing an unreasonably long opening post that kills everyone's interest before the discussion even starts

true dat (American slang for "that is true" )

 

[kmoney]

true dat (American slang for "that is true" )

Now, what would that be in viking. :think:

 

[Son of Jack]

I will say that panentheism is no less biblical than theism though. A theistic conception, along with Deism, of God is more of a philosophical concept than a Biblical concept.

I'd only go part with you on this and say that the monotheism we commonly think of today is an Enlightenment construct and not a biblical one. Biblical monotheism focuses on the unique transcendent divine identity of YHWH and the Lord Jesus Christ. Present-day monotheism is more a product of philosophical categories that aren't necessarily wrong, just not based on revealed theology.

 

[mighty_duck]

I believe that theists have a more appealing and hopeful view on death. Those that can reconcile the cognitive dissonance that belief in the supernatural brings, will be happier than the atheist who fears death.

I also believe that for most people, many forms of theism will provide more hope (and benefit) in a time of crisis than non-theism. That, along with the intuitiveness of it, makes for a practical reason to believe in a higher power.

I am sometimes so in awe of nature that I think "the heck with it, god musta did it".

I don't teach my kids that there is no God, and answer all questions they have about God in a neutral manner (usually in the form of "most people believe that God is such and such, while others think so and so"). They are free to make their own conclusions.

 

[Quincy]

Yeah. Unlike Christian Evangelicals, I make a distinction between morally wrong and legally criminal. However, and don't start dancing yet, Quincy, unlike liberals, I also make a distinction between legal permission and legal endorsement. Whereas I think that the government should stay out of the bedrooms of homosexuals, fornicators, etc., I also think that the government cannot endorse these acts legitimately. That is, no "gay marriage

Well, I don't dance much, :chuckle: . I also agree with you about gay marriage but for different reasons. I don't think homosexuality is intrinsically wrong. However, I don't think the government needs to recognize the union of two people who couldn't naturally reproduce, all things being equal. It's not a benefit to the government. I'm also a neoliberal (anti big government, pro minarchy, pro universal entreprenuership for all citizens), not a classic liberal. Big difference, but a topic for another thread.

That said, I'm not sure that you all fully understand what I'm saying. I am saying that all pornography viewing should be legally permissible. For example, it is a crime in this country to rape, and I'm pretty sure it's illegal to watch videos of women getting raped.

Are you talking fantasy rape or actual video evidence for a real rape? Either way, I can't see why anyone would want to watch either.

Consequently: If you have someone who's watching "illegal" videos of women getting raped, I don't think that he should be arrested, since he himself is not guilty of infringing upon anyone's rights. He's not raping anyone. He's alone in his room. There's noone else around.

He who watches fantasy rape makes a demand, and someone will supply if there is a demand. But I don't suppose it should be criminalized since it's just acting. That's how I see that anyways, now if it's some uploaded video of an actual rape, I think the moral thing to do would be to report it to authorities since it is a criminal act, don't you?

IAnother way of saying this: I think that it shouldn't be illegal to watch videos of women getting raped. That said, I think that the government has no right to disseminate said videos. :idunno:

What's your take on child pornography?

I'm a supporter or theological naturalism and I believe panentheism is a better model for understanding God than traditional theism. Meaning, among other things, that I believe that any systematic theology must reflect on the scientific understanding of the world as it is described by current scientific models of reality if it wishes to be relevant today.

I can see pantheism being something that's actual. Whenever you make that thread, drop me a visitor message if you don't mind so I don't miss it. I wouldn't mind following that thread.

 

[Traditio]

Are you talking fantasy rape or actual video evidence for a real rape? Either way, I can't see why anyone would want to watch either.

Actual video evidence for a real rape.

He who watches fantasy makes a demand, and someone will supply if there is a demand.

If he pays for it. I think that the act of paying for such a thing should be illegal (contribution/conspiracy to violate a right). The action merely of watching the stuff should not be, though. There's no infringement of rights on the part of the viewer.

That's how I see that anyways, now if it's some uploaded video of an actual rape, I think the moral thing to do would be to report it to authorities since it is a criminal act, don't you?

I agree, not so much on the grounds that it's a criminal act, but on the ground that it's a violation of rights. If someone uploads a video of himself raping a woman, he should be arrested for the rape, the creation of the video, etc. The video should stand as evidence against him in a court of law.

However, if someone were to upload the video and another person were to watch it, I don't think that the viewer should go to jail or face any kind of legal sanction. He was alone in his room in front of a computer screen. He's never had any contact with the raped person.

What's your take on child pornography?

People who rape children should go to jail. People who record the act of raping a child should go to jail. Perhaps it's the case that people who disseminate such a recording should go to jail. People who pay for the recordings to be disseminated to them should go to jail. People who watch (and only watch) the recordings? Why should they go to jail? There's no infringement of rights.

 

[Selaphiel]

Now, what would that be in viking. :think:

"Sannr sem" in Old Norse, "Sant det" in modern Norwegian

I'd only go part with you on this and say that the monotheism we commonly think of today is an Enlightenment construct and not a biblical one. Biblical monotheism focuses on the unique transcendent divine identity of YHWH and the Lord Jesus Christ. Present-day monotheism is more a product of philosophical categories that aren't necessarily wrong, just not based on revealed theology.

I would argue that support can be found for both panentheism and theism in the Bible. My reasons for choosing panentheism are mostly extra-biblical and philosophical.
I would not say YHWH needs to be read as wholly transcendent, especially not if one reads Genesis as an allusion to temple inauguration, a text about YHWH stepping into power in his temple which is the whole of the universe. This way of reading understands the creation as an assigning of function to creation by separating parts from each other and it sees the resting part as an allusion to when new kings rested in their new power after being made king. This is of course the very very short version of that argument

 

[Son of Jack]

I would argue that support can be found for both panentheism and theism in the Bible. My reasons for choosing panentheism are mostly extra-biblical and philosophical.

Okay, now I'm curious.

I would not say YHWH needs to be read as wholly transcendent...

I didn't say that. He isn't wholly transcendent nor is he wholly immanent. I'd argue that YHWH is uniquely transcendent (think Deuteronomy 6:4 and a number of places in Isaiah 40-55 as well as other places).

especially not if one reads Genesis as an allusion to temple inauguration, a text about YHWH stepping into power in his temple which is the whole of the universe. This way of reading understands the creation as an assigning of function to creation by separating parts from each other and it sees the resting part as an allusion to when new kings rested in their new power after being made king. This is of course the very very short version of that argument

:think: Who advocates this view in print?