The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Okay, I really don't have time to respond to your entire post now, but I just want to tell you that I don't believe that there is no personal responsibility or choice involved- merely that it is not the deciding factor. Here is the thing: multiple factors, such as intelligence, pre-born traits, education, societal influence as a child (notably parental influence, or lack thereof), other direct societal influences (poverty) ultimately shape an individual's behavior and ultimately causes him to come to a certain choice. Now, he can either take that choice or not take that; he should be directly responsible for making the choice. However, this does not mean we completely remove societal influence and motives, which inherently made him come to that certain choice- it is a direct mixture of both. However, society is the alter-able (and the stronger) factor, and thus should be the one we focus our attention upon. Thus, rehabilitation and the introduction of different societal influence can work, and condemning a person for his actions without inspecting his external influence simply cannot work. This is NOT shunning responsibility: this is reality.

This is NOT reality. Personal responsibility IS the deciding factor. I know external factors can play SOME role and I agree it should play a role in a plea agreement while asking for leniency, but is absolutely absurd to use external factors AS a justification for murder, or other lesser crimes.
And it's NOT a mixture of both. There is no 50-50. Personal responsibility makes up the majority of the crime, if not all. If we go by your logic, then EVERYONE who commits a crime isn't fully responsible for his actions; society is. But again. your logic fails when you take into account the # of poor people who do NOT commit crimes, versus the number of ones that do. Reality is accepting responsibility, and accepting the punishment.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
My principles happen to follow the Torah, which happens to go hand in hand with our constitution and our laws.

Your principles =/= the law.

So again, where is the evidence that it's the external factors that play the pivotal role, rather than placing responsibility on the person who made the wrong choice. It CAN shape the individual, but it doesn't destroy somebody's ability to use free choice. If the enviroment shaped the individual to the extent you're discussing, then everybody in impoverished neighborhoods would be committing crimes. This is not the case so it seems that people in the same situation as a criminal are exercising their free choice and following proper principles and laws.

You are an incredible exception to the rule. In most cases, individuals who commit serious crimes grow up in environments far less nurturing than the one you live[d] in. They simply become what they are influenced to be by their family and peers [the "environment" doesn't end at your front door; I literally mean everything that factors into your upbringing]. The ones with psychological issues are just worse.

Using external factors is shunning responsibility.

Completely ignoring the reason why things are the way they are is ignorant, foolish, and completely retarded.

Originally posted by Eminence
The law says nothing about not shaving. The law is not based on Judaism.

Your principles =/= the law.

Completely ignoring the reason why things are the way they are is ignorant, foolish, and completely retarded.

Someone who kills because they randomly decide to is mentally unhealthy. Human beings, and virtually no animal in nature, kills without purpose- there is always a motivation behind it. Someone who finds gratification in killing another human being is not sane, and should not be held entirely responsible for his actions: the possibility of rehabilitation always exists. In addition, there is a possibility that he simply grew up in an extremely violent society or home... I'm not a psychologist, but a regular human being who was not exposed to extremely violent societal factors and is not a sociopath does not kill simply because he chose to.

You have described psychopathy at its worst, and, according to many psychologist, there is no rehabilitation for this mental illness.

If psychologists are right. Do you think these people should be aloud to be free on the streets?

Now a sociopath may have a chance of rehabilitation, because usually these type of people were raised very poorly and had no real love in their life. A sociopath is not the same as a psychopath. A psychopath is born that way no matter how good they were raised.

Hmm, so I just finished watching all the episodes of Death Note. Excellent anime, although the main character is ****ing insane. Ironicly enough it pertains to this capital punishment argument. The main character wanted to kill every criminal in the world. Of course he also wanted to make himself God so...

Light is a douchebag and ruins the entire series for me.

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
Light is a douchebag and ruins the entire series for me.

I loved the masterful game between Light and L. It was absolutely devious. The constant moving of pieces back and forth, reminded me of Code Geass. Although IMO, Lelouch is way cooler than Light.

The character I really hated was Misa. I did a tap dance when she died.

Originally posted by Eminence
Ten days older than Blax, not MC. He's silly.

Seventeen. My half birthday's 4/20. 😛

Light and L are bloth uber-cool and I don't mind Misa, but Near's kinda annoying, being a carbon-copy of L and all. Personally though I think that Light makes some good points in his defence.

Death Note is the finest, most intelligent anime I've ever had the pleasure of watching. Particularly because there is actually one definitive plot over the entire series; I tried to watch some more mainstream animes like Bleach, Naruto, and One Piece, but I couldn't get beyond 100 episodes of constantly changing plots. I find it boring.

You are supposed to engage in a love-hate relationship with Light. He's clearly an insane, borderline psychopathic and self-absorbed vigilante, but there is also a degree of sympathy to him... I don't know why, but it exists. The finale, when he is reduced to a helpless, bloody shell of his former self, is a truly emotionally devastating moment.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
But all premeditated murders are evil, and should be punished firmly.

Within our society? While I don't believe in the blanket statement that all premeditated murders are 'evil' (it would be more correct to assume that they are all harmful, which is different from evil), I definitely think they should all be punished firmly. However, my definition of 'punished firmly' is different from your's, I'm afraid.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
The type that kill without purpose, because they want to, are the types that usually get the needle. They say there's no rehabilitation for that. And again, HE made the choice of killing. If he's legally insane, so be it. And there are HUNDREDS of murders caused by people that grow up in normal household. Societal factors play a small role for the criminally insane.

People who are criminally insane are:

1. Either born with certain insanities which they are ultimately unable to repress, and this thus eliminates the possibility of personal responsibility. Therefore, it is pointless to kill them and deem them as 'evil', but rather to seclude them away from the rest of society and constantly attempt to rehabilitate them. If it works for 1 in 100, this is a success, in my opinion.
2. Made sociopaths through exposure to violence and dysfunctional education, most notably child abuse, which again eliminates complete personal responsibility.

Someone who is criminally insane is, by definition, not fully responsible for his actions.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Outside forces yet again. For all of these excuses, you've yet to understand that the person is 100% RESPONSIBLE. Blaming it on his education and other factors is absolutely retarded. Stop with this bullshit blame games. Humans are NOT inherently good and are therefore NOT subject to 100 excuses per crime. White collar criminals are greedy, they made their choices, the end.

Greed is not a naturally born trait. Rather, it is something someone gains through the way external factors interact with his natural personality. Too bad. You are not born with a personality- your personality is shaped through external factors. The individual chooses to act upon that personality, however, which gives him a degree of personal responsibility- but it is always important to factor in the inherent failure of societal factors when somebody becomes a criminal. This is REALITY. Too bad. Screaming your head off about "Personal choice!!! Liberals hate personal choice, free will, and think everyone is fundamentally good!!!!" will not change that.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
More excuses. For every person you just described that kills, you have 10 that don't. So no, once again this isn't a viable excuse.

Except somebody's motivation extends well beyond the direct external factor; there are several unique ones which combine in, such as genetics, education, exposure to violence as a child, etc. When all of these factors interact, an individual is given motivation- through societal factors. The individual chooses to act upon that motivation. Thus, you can see that the responsibility can be dually aimed at an individual and the society; nobody is fully, individually responsible for their actions. As bad as it sounds (and I know it does), this is the psychological reality of the world.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
No, it wasn't. It was THEIR choice. How many times do I have to tell you that the majority of people do NOT kill. They do NOT commit crimes. This includes the impoverished areas. They make a choice NOT to commit a crime despite these so called societal influences. I Think you should concede the blame game argument because it contradicts reality.

Again... the direct external factor, poverty, is not the ONLY one. Not all people living in impoverished areas have had the same societal influence. Some have had better (from our society's point of view) education, some had inferior- but each one's combination of factors which develop an individual's personality is largely unique. And there is the existent factor of freedom of choice, too: an individual chooses to act upon the motivation society supplied him with. The responsibility is inherently dual in nature, and thus, while an individual who commits a crime should definitely be punished due to his, of course, personal responsibility, danger to society, and for the purposes of enforcing our legal system, but the society he grew up in should also be examined for the purpose of understanding the societal factors that gave him the motivation.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
No, they shouldn't. A murder is a murder. The only thing that should be taken account is his crime, his effect on the victim, and the potential danger on society. Putting him under different circumstances is irrelevant. There are millions like him that DONT commit crimes.

I don't believe in utalitarianism. An individual's action, and therefore his measured evil (which is necessary for the purposes of inspecting his deserved punishment), exists beyond the simple effect of his actions. His motivation, and thus the societal factors, must also be examined in order to understand his moral makeup.

Here's another example: an individual grows up in a dysfunctional, impovershed home in one alternative reality. The same individual grows up in a functional, middle class+ home. He is not going to be the same person. Rather, he is far more likely to become a criminal in the first one and more likely to become a functioning member of society in the second one. This is because the societal factors are considerably different (in our view, more positive) and thus build his psyche (around interaction with his genetics, of course) in a different manner.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
So quick to blame everyone else. How about that poor guy became a drug addict and murderer because he MADE the choice, while the 10 other poor guys work their asses off and fly straight. See? No argument.

Yes, your arguments are irrefutable and logical. See, not every 'poor guy' is exposed to the same societal influences. And some poor guys do choose the 'right way', so to speak. Some choose the 'wrong way'. But even the ones who chose the 'wrong way' were put on that 'way' via societal factor- it is a personal and a societal failing. Blaming any of them exclusively is equally moronic.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Hilarious stat. Here's a better one. He was directly responsible, and he deserved his punishment. G-d forbid someone that commits a crime is held responsible and has to suffer the consequences!

... yes, poor guys are naturally more evil than rich guys. I mean, it's just a coincidence that the vast, vast majority of death row cases involved the individual being incapable of paying for a decent lawyer! Funny that.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
I made a personal choice when I got caught. Society didn't influence me. Nobody influenced me. I had everything already and I decided that I was untouchable. Society is NOT responsible for your choices. This is absolutely hilarious. PEOPLE are responsible for their choices, that's IT. Not society.

I'm sure you won't be bothered when I say I don't trust you, nor anyone else for that matter, to offer an objective explanation of their own societal influences and parentage, yes? Keep your view of yourself outside of this debate.

An individual is responsible for making a choice, but society is ultimately responsible for leading him to that choice. An individual can never, under any circumstances, be held 100% accountable for his psychological and personal traits- yes, this involves 'good' people too.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Personal responsibility. The end.

Ignoring societal factors and blaming everything on the individual (and, coincidentally, doing everything you possibly can to avoid admitting that a society is flawed and needs repair) is just as moronic as blaming society purely.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Nope. 1 commits a crime, 10 don't. For all of these "societal factors", you have the majority of people who choose NOT to commit a crime. Your excuses argument has run its course.

Factors which go in when deciding a person's personality and motivations:

1. Genetic Traits
2. Educational/Parental influence
3. Exposure to violence
4. Direct socio-economic influences

And many, many more. Find a group of 10 individuals who the exact same influences in all of these factors. Also, choice is important, but society is responsible for supplying the individual with the motivation and the psyche required for that choice.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
No they didn't? Has it occured to you that a HUGE number of nazis weren't blonde hair blue eyes? The Nazis and Germany needed to blame someone for Versailles, for WWI, for their country's economic collapse and for their hyperinflation. They didn't CARE about the world because they wanted to conquer it. And they deserved execution. I'm glad our leaders don't think in this manner, because we'll have everyone attacking us while our leaders will be saying "Oh it's not their fault, it's societies, lets try to capture and rehabilitate them!"

I understand that the majority of Nazis did not fit into the stereotypical Aryan category, but this does not change the fact that they genuinely believed that, by conquering the world, they would be doing the path of ultimate good- they believed that they are the inherently superior race who, according to pre-made law, deserve to conquer the world... because they will be better for it. They also believed that the Jews are a blight to the world, a blight that must be destroyed, and the world was largely responsible for validating (in their eyes) that claim.

Also, has it ever occured to you that the West itself, with its imperialistic, aggressive, and insulting Treaty of Versailles paved the way for the Nazi party to rise? If it wasn't for that treaty, the Germans would not have needed a party to blame for the loss of the German's natural national pride and such, and Hitler would have had no ground upon which to stimulate the German people's primal emotions. Forcing a democracy upon a clearly unwilling nation simply does not work. I'm sure you're going to whine now about how I refuse to acknowledge the German's personal responsibility, upon which I will say that they are responsible for letting these urges take control of them (despite the fact that it is basic human nature), but the West is responsible for creating those urges. Indeed, had we thought with more compassion and less with nationalistic imperialism, we could have prevented World War II from coming into place.

Oh, by the way, the Nazis should not have been rehabilitated, because we cannot force an individual to abandon his ideology and see our's. They should have been kept in prison, due to their harm to the 'new world'. By executing them, we have degenerated to enforcing our ideology in the same way that nations we despise do- we have lowered ourself to Barbaric violence, instead of maintaining that moral high ground that defines us as a society.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
I believe in G-d. I believe in ethical monotheism, I believe in a moral authority. Our laws are written based on principles from Judaism/Christianity/Hammurabi. Do not murder is universal. Do not steal is universal. I don't have to prove G-d exists for there to be universal truths. And even if you are correct that there is "much agreed upon truth", it would contradict your original assertion that everything is equal, there is no right or wrong, everything is subjective, etc.

Yes, you do have to prove God exists in order for your so-called 'universal truths' to be applied to real world. Because, without the doubtless existence of a higher entity who created standards we must all follow, then these standards cannot be substantiated as being more than the subjective writings of a perfectly fallible human being and cannot be used for being considered a 'universal truth'.

Our laws are not based on Judaism and Christianity- with the exception of certain things like prostitution and drug use (which I feel should both be legalized, albeit regulated), our laws are absolutes designed to prevent another individual from endangering another individual's liberty. Had our laws been purely based on religion principles, then the Separation of Church and State would not have been such an integral part in our democracy.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Only indication is that we've been around for 4,000 years, we've survived 4,000 years, we brought ethical monotheism into this world, and the other 2 major religions of this planet stem from our bible. Many reasons. Truer? Yes I believe it. The ONLY truth? Probably not.

Has it ever occured to you that the Egyptian society has survived for thousands of years, too, despite adhering to a significantly different religion, and maintained a position as one of the most advanced in the world? The same applies to the Chinense, the Greek, etc. We have not logically convinced them to follow our religion. Rather, through militaristic might (which has nothing to do with religion), we have forced these nations, through the law of force, to subscribe to our religious laws.

Our survival as a society has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with consistent progressiveness, change, and the advancement of technology.

What about Buddhism? It seems to be alive and kicking. Its followers are also happy individuals. Buddhism teaches pacifism, so they are not the dominant force in the world. It is a very sad, but true, reflection upon past times when we understand that nations rose to prominence via militaristic might and the utilization of force. I do believe this can be changed, however, and that imperialism and colonization should be kept a dark relic of the past, but that has nothing to do with this debate.

And you know what all of these societies have in common? They do not legalize murder, despite not adhering to Abrahamic principles.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
I've already explained this. And "much agreed upon truth" still contradicts your "everything is subjective, no right or wrong" argument.

The fact that most societies agree upon a certain truth or a certain law does not make it universal. In order for a law to be universal, it has to be dictated by a higher, infallible authority, and since the existence of this authority cannot be proven, then no law can be taken as an absolute one all societies must follow.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
How ignorant you are when discussing religion. From now on do not post regarding something you know nothing about. I can argue and say religion is VERY logical, at least mine, and because it's logical and has an answer for every question or situation, I believe it is true. Religion enables you to explain effortlessly? This coming from a liberal who only has to say "Everything is subjective, no right or wrong, everything is equal"? That's the easiest, most simple minded answer I've ever received.
Btw, Judaism doesn't say "G-d did it". Judaism explains everything. But I'm sure you heard other people say that anything science can't explain, G-d did it, and so you foolishy started parroting this argument without considering it logically.
And you know very little about science and religion, seeing as how religion doesn't actually contradict science. In most cases it offers a different perspective while explains the unexplained sometimes.
There is absolutel NOTHING logical about your arguments. You play the blame game foolishly, and you insult something you don't understand, like most ignorant pseudo intellectuals. Btw, if science DOES happen to contradict the Torah, then we are to adhere to science. Bet you didn't know that.

I could also write a 700 page book that has 'all' the answers. Sure, there would be no proof indicating that it has the right answers, but nothing can disprove it, so it must be taken as a fact equal to science! I could say we are all the products of a hyper-intelligent alien being's computer program, that has managed to develop (programmed) consciousness and apparent thinking. It cannot be disproven and explains everything, so... why not?

Scientific principles regularly change because they are based on facts, and we constantly manage to disprove facts or find new ones which place our previous theories in doubt- thus, any scientific principle that cannot be proven beyond all shadow of doubt (the Big Bang, for example), should be taken as a theory that is based on mathematics, laws of physics developed through years of experimentation and research, and the observing of several of the universe's laws.

Evolution and creationism both explain everything, yes, but there is nothing indicating creationism is the correct explanation while there are plenty of things indicating evolution is. This is why scientific theories should always be seen above religion.

Also, the very existence of a supernatual being that exists beyond the laws of science, is, in itself, scientifically impossible, although that is nitpicking, since the very existence of God is based upon the possibility of a being to exist that is 'above' the mere principles of our universe.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Within our society? While I don't believe in the blanket statement that all premeditated murders are 'evil' (it would be more correct to assume that they are all harmful, which is different from evil), I definitely think they should all be punished firmly. However, my definition of 'punished firmly' is different from your's, I'm afraid.

People who are criminally insane are:

1. Either born with certain insanities which they are ultimately unable to repress, and this thus eliminates the possibility of personal responsibility. Therefore, it is pointless to kill them and deem them as 'evil', but rather to seclude them away from the rest of society and constantly attempt to rehabilitate them. If it works for 1 in 100, this is a success, in my opinion.
2. Made sociopaths through exposure to violence and dysfunctional education, most notably child abuse, which again eliminates complete personal responsibility.

Someone who is criminally insane is, by definition, not fully responsible for his actions.

Greed is not a naturally born trait. Rather, it is something someone gains through the way external factors interact with his natural personality. Too bad. You are not born with a personality- your personality is shaped through external factors. The individual chooses to act upon that personality, however, which gives him a degree of personal responsibility- but it is always important to factor in the inherent failure of societal factors when somebody becomes a criminal. This is REALITY. Too bad. Screaming your head off about "Personal choice!!! Liberals hate personal choice, free will, and think everyone is fundamentally good!!!!" will not change that.

Except somebody's motivation extends well beyond the direct external factor; there are several unique ones which combine in, such as genetics, education, exposure to violence as a child, etc. When all of these factors interact, an individual is given motivation- through societal factors. The individual chooses to act upon that motivation. Thus, you can see that the responsibility can be dually aimed at an individual and the society; nobody is fully, individually responsible for their actions. As bad as it sounds (and I know it does), this is the psychological reality of the world.

Again... the direct external factor, poverty, is not the ONLY one. Not all people living in impoverished areas have had the same societal influence. Some have had better (from our society's point of view) education, some had inferior- but each one's combination of factors which develop an individual's personality is largely unique. And there is the existent factor of freedom of choice, too: an individual chooses to act upon the motivation society supplied him with. The responsibility is inherently dual in nature, and thus, while an individual who commits a crime should definitely be punished due to his, of course, personal responsibility, danger to society, and for the purposes of enforcing our legal system, but the society he grew up in should also be examined for the purpose of understanding the societal factors that gave him the motivation.

I don't believe in utalitarianism. An individual's action, and therefore his measured evil (which is necessary for the purposes of inspecting his deserved punishment), exists beyond the simple effect of his actions. His motivation, and thus the societal factors, must also be examined in order to understand his moral makeup.

Here's another example: an individual grows up in a dysfunctional, impovershed home in one alternative reality. The same individual grows up in a functional, middle class+ home. He is not going to be the same person. Rather, he is far more likely to become a criminal in the first one and more likely to become a functioning member of society in the second one. This is because the societal factors are considerably different (in our view, more positive) and thus build his psyche (around interaction with his genetics, of course) in a different manner.

Yes, your arguments are irrefutable and logical. See, not every 'poor guy' is exposed to the same societal influences. And some poor guys do choose the 'right way', so to speak. Some choose the 'wrong way'. But even the ones who chose the 'wrong way' were put on that 'way' via societal factor- it is a personal and a societal failing. Blaming any of them exclusively is equally moronic.

... yes, poor guys are naturally more evil than rich guys. I mean, it's just a coincidence that the vast, vast majority of death row cases involved the individual being incapable of paying for a decent lawyer! Funny that.

I'm sure you won't be bothered when I say I don't trust you, nor anyone else for that matter, to offer an objective explanation of their own societal influences and parentage, yes? Keep your view of yourself outside of this debate.

An individual is responsible for making a choice, but society is ultimately responsible for leading him to that choice. An individual can never, under any circumstances, be held 100% accountable for his psychological and personal traits- yes, this involves 'good' people too.

Ignoring societal factors and blaming everything on the individual (and, coincidentally, doing everything you possibly can to avoid admitting that a society is flawed and needs repair) is just as moronic as blaming society purely. [/B]

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
[B]Factors which go in when deciding a person's personality and motivations:

1. Genetic Traits
2. Educational/Parental influence
3. Exposure to violence
4. Direct socio-economic influences

And many, many more. Find a group of 10 individuals who the exact same influences in all of these factors. Also, choice is important, but society is responsible for supplying the individual with the motivation and the psyche required for that choice.

I understand that the majority of Nazis did not fit into the stereotypical Aryan category, but this does not change the fact that they genuinely believed that, by conquering the world, they would be doing the path of ultimate good- they believed that they are the inherently superior race who, according to pre-made law, deserve to conquer the world... because they will be better for it. They also believed that the Jews are a blight to the world, a blight that must be destroyed, and the world was largely responsible for validating (in their eyes) that claim.

Also, has it ever occured to you that the West itself, with its imperialistic, aggressive, and insulting Treaty of Versailles paved the way for the Nazi party to rise? If it wasn't for that treaty, the Germans would not have needed a party to blame for the loss of the German's natural national pride and such, and Hitler would have had no ground upon which to stimulate the German people's primal emotions. Forcing a democracy upon a clearly unwilling nation simply does not work. I'm sure you're going to whine now about how I refuse to acknowledge the German's personal responsibility, upon which I will say that they are responsible for letting these urges take control of them (despite the fact that it is basic human nature), but the West is responsible for creating those urges. Indeed, had we thought with more compassion and less with nationalistic imperialism, we could have prevented World War II from coming into place.

Oh, by the way, the Nazis should not have been rehabilitated, because we cannot force an individual to abandon his ideology and see our's. They should have been kept in prison, due to their harm to the 'new world'. By executing them, we have degenerated to enforcing our ideology in the same way that nations we despise do- we have lowered ourself to Barbaric violence, instead of maintaining that moral high ground that defines us as a society.

Yes, you do have to prove God exists in order for your so-called 'universal truths' to be applied to real world. Because, without the doubtless existence of a higher entity who created standards we must all follow, then these standards cannot be substantiated as being more than the subjective writings of a perfectly fallible human being and cannot be used for being considered a 'universal truth'.

Our laws are not based on Judaism and Christianity- with the exception of certain things like prostitution and drug use (which I feel should both be legalized, albeit regulated), our laws are absolutes designed to prevent another individual from endangering another individual's liberty. Had our laws been purely based on religion principles, then the Separation of Church and State would not have been such an integral part in our democracy.

Has it ever occured to you that the Egyptian society has survived for thousands of years, too, despite adhering to a significantly different religion, and maintained a position as one of the most advanced in the world? The same applies to the Chinense, the Greek, etc. We have not logically convinced them to follow our religion. Rather, through militaristic might (which has nothing to do with religion), we have forced these nations, through the law of force, to subscribe to our religious laws.

Our survival as a society has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with consistent progressiveness, change, and the advancement of technology.

What about Buddhism? It seems to be alive and kicking. Its followers are also happy individuals. Buddhism teaches pacifism, so they are not the dominant force in the world. It is a very sad, but true, reflection upon past times when we understand that nations rose to prominence via militaristic might and the utilization of force. I do believe this can be changed, however, and that imperialism and colonization should be kept a dark relic of the past, but that has nothing to do with this debate.

The fact that most societies agree upon a certain truth or a certain law does not make it universal. In order for a law to be universal, it has to be dictated by a higher, infallible authority, and since the existence of this authority cannot be proven, then no law can be taken as an absolute one all societies must follow.

I could also write a 700 page book that has 'all' the answers. Sure, there would be no proof indicating that it has the right answers, but nothing can disprove it, so it must be taken as a fact equal to science! I could say we are all the products of a hyper-intelligent alien being's computer program, that has managed to develop (programmed) consciousness and apparent thinking. It cannot be disproven and explains everything, so... why not?

Scientific principles regularly change because they are based on facts, and we constantly manage to disprove facts or find new ones which place our previous theories in doubt- thus, any scientific principle that cannot be proven beyond all shadow of doubt (the Big Bang, for example), should be taken as a theory that is based on mathematics, laws of physics developed through years of experimentation and research, and the observing of several of the universe's laws.

Evolution and creationism both explain everything, yes, but there is nothing indicating creationism is the correct explanation while there are plenty of things indicating evolution is. This is why scientific theories should always be seen above religion.

Also, the very existence of a supernatual being that exists beyond the laws of science, is, in itself, scientifically impossible, although that is nitpicking, since the very existence of God is based upon the possibility of a being to exist that is 'above' the mere principles of our universe. [/B]

Until now, I've lived by one rule (among others): Anime sux.

I've broken that rule. In the past 3 days I've watched 31 episodes of Bleach, and I have no intention of stopping.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
You do realize that while science comes up with more things every year, it contradicts even more of its previously "accepted" theory. So don't give me this logic bullshit because the logic of science is only how we perceive it. For all we know, we are COMPLETELY wrong about the Big Bang, how the universe works, what matter the universe is made up of. Science is based on THEORY, which we can't prove only hypothesize. You accept it more and call it logical because it's tangible and for you, as most ignorant people, if you can see it, it MUST exist, and vice versa.
And religion has the same proof, and logic. The only issue you might have is with a higher being because it would stop letting you attempt to justify everything. Everything else in the Torah can be found in our world, it's 100% Logical. That says more than science which is based on theories that can sometimes be proven, but on most occasions are just that; theories.

Religion: Theories which explain everything, but have no facts indicating that they are the correct explanations.
Science: Theories which attempt to explain everything based on logical deduction and countless facts.

I prefer to choose the second one, even if it doesn't offer easy explanations for everything within the reach of an ancient book.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Reality>ignorant pseudo intellectual

So the existence of a god that makes up absolute values everyone must follow, whose absolute values we know because of their placement in a 3000+ year old book = reality now? Gee, I'm really not up to date.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
How the hell is that an illusion? You operate within humanity so every choice you make IS a free choice. Him KNOWING the choice you are going to make doesn't change that and doesn't change anything on your end. The fact that you are able to CHOOSE makes it free choice. Your belief in humanity is hilarious as well because I really think that you DO believe human beings are good.

Because everything we do and are going to do is known and all part of a divine plan created by God- we may think we have a choice when we act, but in reality, that choice has already been determined for us. This is Biblical law.

I believe in humanity. I believe that when firemen save a man from a burning building, he should thank them, not God. I believe religious societies have survived via technological development, mostly (sadly) militaristic development, engineered by intelligent men and women, not through divine grace. I believe that everything I do is based on my personality and my decisions, not based on a predetermined divine law. I believe that laws were created by humanity, with God only used as an excuse to spread these laws around and make people obey them. I believe that we are smart and rational enough to decide what is moral and right for ourselves, instead of depending on a higher entity to tell us what is right and what is wrong, as if we were dumb children.

I prefer to believe this. If you find it hilarious, then I really, really pity you and your general outlook on humanity as dumb children who must be policed by a higher authority and his agents.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Written by a fallible human being. ROFL. Seeing as how there's nothing fallible about the torah, nor could you prove it or disprove ANYTHING in it, I call bullshit on your part. Furthermore, throwing in a retarded opinion (written by a fallible human being) and passing it off as fact is again, hilarious.

... there is nothing fallible about the Torah? Okay, here is the unnatural, out of the ordinary claim: it was written by God, or by someone operating on God's will. Since this cannot be proven, then the 'natural' claim must be assumed: the Torah was written by a human being, who is, by definition, fallible. This is how the laws of debate work.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
They have been proven according to OUR understanding of physics, which in the grand scheme of things is limited. This is why these so called "proven" theories get redone year after year because of all the new contradictions. The same facts that lie in science lie in religion, just with different explanations and less contradictory hypotheses.

Because religion is not based on facts, and thus interpretation of religion is not dependant on interpretation of facts. Science is based on facts. Theories that cannot be proven beyond all shadow of doubt, most notably advanced physics, should be taken as hypothesises based on facts, hypothesis which are not necessarily true, but should still be taken as the 'probable' explanation. We constantly strive to further understand the universe and its laws. Will we ever understand to perfection? I don't know. I like to hope so, though.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Unfortunately, believing that and trying to act upon it in our reality is where liberals bite the bullet. You're grounded in a delusional world where everyone is good and nobody is responsible for their actions.

You're grounded in a world in which absolute law is dictated by what a dude wrote 3000 years ago because he said an infallible, omnipotent invisible man said so, and thus you think that these laws must be forced upon societies and individuals who adhere to different (and inherently subjective) moralities. And I'm the delusional one.

By the way, I just thought of something. Since you claim to agree with Christian values as well as Judaic ones, then what happened to 'Forgive them, for they know not what they do'?

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
None that you can understand. You've shown your ignorance towards religion so unless you plan on reading up on it and them offering some evidence, I suggest you let it go.

You're incapable of logically substantiating any religious theories, because they are not based on facts- they are based on fairy tales. Scientific theories can be logically substantiated, because they are based on facts. That's it. Can you prove otherwise?

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Bullshit. We value justice and that is how we survive as a nation. If we can engage in justice, then we are no better than savages or civilizations of old. Hell, we had the DAMN NUREMBERG TRIALS. This was OUR IDEA. We separated ourselves by having a trial which had only one logical outcome, and it was execution. If one commits murder, that same person is subject to forfeit his life. None of this "well life matters so we should try to save his". Tell that to his victims.

The victims will not be brought back nor emotionally appeased by the murdering of their killer. Rather, in order to define ourselves as a civilized society, we do not degenerate to enforcing our ideology via violent methods that are associated with criminals and cultures we abhorr. The fact that the murderer did not care about life does not mean that we do not care about life, no matter whose it is; this is the difference between us. We can lock him away, sometimes for life, in order to prevent him further harming society- we can put him under horrendous conditions, too, to prevent him from leading a life. But we do not kill him. We have standards which define us, a morality that prevents us from enforcing our culture in violent means- in order to remain 'good', we must continue to maintain our values, even in criminal justice, and constantly hold the higher moral ground.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
No, I don't think we would have. Look at the wonderful laws of the ancient civilizations before ethical monotheism, and look at the laws after.

Because the Egyptians, the Greeks, and the Chinese all killed each other non-stop, which is why they survived as a society for so long and have reached so many technological improvements.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
invisible man. Right. Except I don't hate homosexuality, it exists. I have a problem with giving it the same consideration as a regular marriage. But please, do what you do best. Make ridiculous assumptions and opinions, and pass them off as facts.

You have yourself stated that you find homosexuality (not the homosexuals) to be 'morally and religiously wrong'. Why, I wonder? Could it have anything to do with the fact that the Bible deems it to be aberrational and immoral?

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
So? You believe in flowers, puppies, and happy people. And religious people ARENT the sane ones?

I have no problem with you being religious- if you want to be, that's your business. I have a VERY big problem when somebody religious attempts to pass his religion off (which is an inherently subjective and unprovable thing) as an absolute fact everyone must follow.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Another assumption. Well let me destroy your arguments for the last time seeing as how you have NO idea what you're talking about. My parents aren't religious, they never were and they never will be. I taught that to myself, I made that personal choice. So as usual, you are wrong.

Oh? I'm surprised. Why are you religious, then? And please don't tell me 'because it's logical'. Explain why you feel it is logical.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Society, which somewhat bases these rules upon religious principles. Again I understand the idea is so abhorrent to you because that would mean you can't try and justify every legal thing.

A singular society does not elect standards for different cultures to follow- rather, it sets its own standards of good and evil, which are independent to it and must not be applied to different cultures, who choose different standards. These standards are not based upon universal principles- they are based on subjective principles which people like you interpret to be universal. In order for them to be factually taken as universal, the existence of an infallible being who created them for everybody else must be proven, which is impossible. Thus, it is impossible to say our societal laws are absolute. Thus, we have no right to force them upon differing cultures.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Hilarious. I would say the majority of the world would agree that it's wrong. If my culture had a ritual that I would burn my wife alive after our first kid, people would respect my culture? Or would they do the sensible thing and stop me because they see that things exist that are universally wrong.

Do you think a society that glorifies human sacrifice and such would survive had it not received full constent from all of its individuals? The individuals dictate what is their morality and what are their societal laws and norms; they know what works for them and what they perceive to be good or evil, based on their individually developed morality. There is nothing that proves your moral standards are truer than their's. I, for once, prefer to exist in a democratic society probably because I was raised on one and on democratic values, and thus it fits more accordingly with my morality.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Religion: Theories which explain everything, but have no facts indicating that they are the correct explanations.
Science: Theories which attempt to explain everything based on logical deduction and countless facts.

The victims will not be brought back nor emotionally appeased by the murdering of their killer. Rather, in order to define ourselves as a civilized society, we do not degenerate to enforcing our ideology via violent methods that are associated with criminals and cultures we abhorr. The fact that the murderer did not care about life does not mean that we do not care about life, no matter whose it is; this is the difference between us. We can lock him away, sometimes for life, in order to prevent him further harming society- we can put him under horrendous conditions, too, to prevent him from leading a life. But we do not kill him. We have standards which define us, a morality that prevents us from enforcing our culture in violent means- in order to remain 'good', we must continue to maintain our values, even in criminal justice, and constantly hold the higher moral ground.

You know what? I am tired of this shit. I am tired of you going over and over again, replying to virtually every post with some variation of "hilarious liberal/pseudo-intellectual/atheist/tree-hugging/hippie/peace-loving/optimistic bullshit", and expecting that to be taken as a fact. I'm sick of you living in denial that people are shaped by differing societal influences whethey they like it or not- it affects the development of a child's psyche and traits in accordance to the interaction with his genetical factors. I'm sick of you saying that religion is better (or equal) than science because science constantly changes because of our interpretation of facts, because science is actually based on them. I'm sick of you pretending that your moral laws are absolute, despite the fact that in order for them to be absolute, a higher being must decide them, and since the existence of a higher being cannot be proven, than the absolute-ness of the laws cannot be proven. I've learned a wonderful thing in this debate. Conservatism is not about individual responsibility- it's about doing your best to shift the blame away from you and your society's influence, all in order to prevent (gasp!) change.

Consider this debate over. If you want to see this as a concession, suit yourself. I prefer to see it as preventing yet another moronic cycle of repeated arguments and insults.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Because the Egyptians, the Greeks, and the Chinese all killed each other non-stop, which is why they survived as a society for so long and have reached so many technological improvements.

Do you think a society that glorifies human sacrifice and such would survive had it not received full constent from all of its individuals? The individuals dictate what is their morality and what are their societal laws and norms; they know what works for them and what they perceive to be good or evil, based on their individually developed morality. There is nothing that proves your moral standards are truer than their's. I, for once, prefer to exist in a democratic society probably because I was raised on one and on democratic values, and thus it fits more accordingly with my morality.